Paul VI lost his papacy by public heresy

Heresy is ” a contradiction with the Revelation of God as proclaimed by the Catholic Magistry”

Heresy in Rome, published by a pope for the first time in the history of the Church

I will give here just three mean heresies of Vatican II and Paul VI, without making an analysis of all the texts of this council. I suffises to conclude that Paul VI lost his papacy by heresy.

1) A document of Vatican II, the declaration on the relation of the Church to non-christian religions “Nostra Aetate”, proclaimed by Paul VI on October 28, 1965

states at # 2 :

“The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. “She looks with sincere respect upon those ways of conduct and of life, those rules and teachings which, though differing in many particulars from what she holds and sets forth, nevertheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men.”

This statement is in contradiction with the Revelation and the catholic dogma : “

“Outside the Church there is no salvation”

A) The infallible Magistry :

Some of the Catholic expressions of this doctrine are: the profession of faith of Pope Innocent III (1208), the (infallible) profession of faith of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), the bull Unam sanctam of Pope Boniface VIII (1302), and the (infallible) profession of faith of the Council of Florence (1442). The axiom “No salvation outside the Church” has been frequently repeated over the centuries in different terms by the ordinary magisterium

So nothing is holy in other religions !

B) The infallible Holy Scripture :

Acts 4:12 : St Peter declares, the Holy Scripture declares, God declares :

“Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.”

“Nobody else” than Jesus ! If one deny this, he is heretic.

“In no one else there is any salvation” says God.

Vatican II says ” The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions”

The baseless assertion, always denied by Tradition and Holy Scripture (e.g., Ps. 95:5: “For all the gods of the Gentiles are devils”; and I Cor. 10:20), that pagan religions, past and present, would have in some way been included in the plan of salvation.

So it is an heresy without any doubt.

NB Note the false representation of Hinduism, because Nostra Aetate §2 states:

“Thus in Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an unspent fruitfulness of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They seek release from the anguish of our human condition through ascetical practices or deep meditation or a loving, trusting flight toward God.”

This is a false representation because it leads the Catholic to see Hindu mythology and philosophy as valid, as if they might effectively “search for” the “divine mystery,” and as if Hindu asceticism and meditation bring about something similar to Christian asceticism. On the contrary, we know that the mix of mythology, magic, and speculation that characterizes Indian spirituality from the Veda era (16th to 10th centuries B.C.) was responsible for a totally monist and pantheistic conception of the divinity and the world, because by conceiving of God as a cosmic, impersonal force, it does not admit the idea of creation, and, consequently, it does not distinguish between sensible reality and supernatural reality. Nor does it distinguish between material and spiritual reality, nor between the whole and specific elements. Because of this, all individual existence dissolves into the amorphous cosmic One, from which all emanates and to which all eternally returns. Thus, the individual “I” is, per se, purely appearance. The Council characterizes this thought as “penetrating,” yet it lacks the idea of the individual soul (which was well recognized by the Greeks) and what we call free will and free choice.

Add to this the doctrine of reincarnation, a particularly perverse idea. Reincarnation was explicitly condemned in the schema of the Dogmatic Constitution De Deposito Fidel Pure Custodiendo, which was elaborated during the preparatory phrase of the Council. But John XXIII and the progressives saw to it that it was run aground during the Council because of its paucity of “ecumenical” character. There is also the fact that so-called Hindu “asceticism” is nothing more than a form of Epicureanism for Brahmins, an egotistical and refined search for a superior spiritual attitude toward all desire, even good, and toward all responsibility, an indifference justified by the idea that all suffering makes up for the faults committed in one’s former life, etc. One would really like to know how anyone could want to lead Catholics into such a conception of the world?

Note also the false representation of Buddhism, an autonomous variant partially purified of Hinduism. In fact, in Nostra Aetate §2, one reads:

“Buddhism in its multiple forms acknowledges the radical insufficiency of this shifting world. It teaches a path by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, can either reach a state of absolute freedom or attain supreme enlightenment by their own efforts or by higher assistance.”

This is a portrait of Buddhism according to “de Lubac”, one revised and corrected so that ignorant Catholics can think well of it. Such Catholics do not know that “the radical insufficiency of this shifting world” is enshrined by Buddhists in a veritable “metaphysics of nonbeing,” according to which the existence of the world and the self are illusory and appearance only. Therefore, Buddhism does not just say that the self and the world are decaying and transient, but still truly real, as for the Christian. For the Buddhist, everything “is being made and is decaying” simultaneously. Life is a continual flux filled with universal pain and grief. In order to banish this sadness, it is necessary to persuade oneself that all is vain. It is also necessary to free oneself from all desire and to entrust oneself to undergo an intellectual initiation, a gnosis similar to the Hindus’ (going so far as to permit “sexual magic” in Tantric Buddhism). This gnosis must make us arrive at complete indifference to everything, which is termed, Nirvana, meaning “disappearance,” “extinction”: a final condition of absolute privation, in which there is nothing but nonexistence, the void, in which the self is totally extinguished in order to be anonymously dissolved into the All and the One. This is the “state of absolute freedom” or “supreme enlightenment” that Vatican II dared to offer to the attention and respect of Catholics.

Note further that Nostra Aetate §3 also takes into serious consideration the veneration that the Moslems accord Jesus and the Blessed Virgin Mary: “Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they call on her, too, with devotion.”

But it is well known that the Koran’s “Christology” is founded on an altered and deformed Jesus of the apocryphal gospels and of all sorts of Gnostic heresies that proliferated in Arabia in Mohammed’s time. The Koran’s Jesus (Isa) was born of a virgin through a divine intervention (of the angel Gabriel), a prophet particularly appreciated by Allah, a simple mortal whom Allah permitted to work numerous miracles, a prophet who thus preached the same monotheism as that attributed to Abraham (57:26-27), whose recited formula is: “There is no God but God, one, lord” (38:65). This is why, for the Moslems, Jesus was a servant of God (19:31), submissive to Allah, that is, a Moslem, a Mussulman, to the point that, like Abraham, he announced the coming of Mohammed (51:6)! Therefore, when the Moslems venerate Jesus as a prophet, they mean that he is a “prophet of Islam,” a lie that any Catholic, provided that he still has the Faith, obviously cannot accept.2

As for the Moslem veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary, that they “sometimes call on her with devotion,” from a practical standpoint, it must be said that this “devotion” is meaningless and based on superstition. Such as it is, this “devotion” to Mary is such only in terms of her being the mother of a “prophet of Islam,” and not because she is the Mother of God. Therefore, it is offensive to Catholic ears.

Moreover, it is necessary to repeat that the Koran’s “Mariology” is also entirely corrupted because its origins are in apocryphal and heretical sources. The existences of St. Joseph and the Holy Ghost are completely ignored. And Mary is called “sister of Aaron,” “sister of Moses,” and “daughter of Imram” (Hebr. Amram), who was their father (Num. 26:59), thus confusing her with the prophetess Mary (Ex. 15: 21) who lived circa 12 centuries before Christ! And as if this weren’t enough, she is introduced into the Christian Trinity, so detested, and which is denied with such aggressiveness, because, according to the Koran, it is made up of God (the Father), Mary (Mother) and Jesus (the Son): “Jesus never said: take me and my mother as two divinities, before God”! (5:116).

Finally, Nostra Aetate §3 seems to praise the Moslems and to present them as an example to Catholics because “they await the day of judgment when God will give each man his due after raising him up. Consequently, they prize the moral life and give worship to God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.” The article concludes:

Although in the course of the centuries many quarrels and hostilities have arisen between Christians and Moslems, this most sacred Synod urges all to forget the past and to strive sincerely for mutual understanding. On behalf of all mankind, let them make common cause of safeguarding and fostering social justice, moral values, peace, and freedom.

Historical facts are also overturned here, since the bloody, long, and cruel battles, faith against faith, that we have had to launch over the course of the centuries to repulse Islam’s assault, are adroitly reduced to the size of simple “quarrels and hostilities.” Passed over in silence are the abysmal differences that exist between Catholic and Moslem eschatology (the absence of a Beatific Vision, the luxury of paradise, the eternity of infernal punishments reserved only for infidels), as well as the abysmal differences between our and their conception of “moral life” and of “veneration”: Islam is a religion which not only allows unacceptable moral structures, such as polygamy, with all of its corollaries, but also alleges to guarantee salvation simply by carrying out legalistic practices of worship: therefore, it is an exterior and legalist religion, even more so than Pharisaism, expressly condemned by our Lord (cf. Mt. 6:5).

All of this is passed over in silence in order to invite us into collaboration that is impossible for the simple reason that the meaning the Moslems give to the words “social justice,” “peace,” “freedom,” etc., is merely that which can be drawn from the Koran or from the words and deeds of Mohammed, a meaning established over the course of the centuries by “orthodox” interpretation: an Islamic meaning totally different from our own. For example, Moslems do not understand peace in the way that the currently reigning Pope understands it. They do not believe that Moslems can live under infidels. This is why they divide the world into two parts, one where Islam rules (the house of Islam) and the rest of the world, necessarily an enemy unless it converts and submits (house of war), the rest of the world with whom the Islamic community believes itself to be perpetually at war. Therefore, for them, peace is not an end in itself that allows them to coexist with different nations and religions; it is only a means, imposed by circumstances which oblige them to make truces with infidels. But the truce must have a limited duration; it must never exceed ten years; and every time they have the means, then war must be resumed. For the Moslem, this is a juridical, religious, and moral obligation. It is in force until the final, inevitable battle that results in the installation of a world Islamic State.

Note finally also the in Nostra Aetate §4 propositions:

True, authorities of the Jews and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ (cf. Jn. 19:6); still, what happened in His passion cannot be blamed upon all the Jews then living, without distinction, nor upon the Jews of today. Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as repudiated or cursed by God, as if such views followed from the holy Scriptures.

Necessary to note here is the attempt to limit the responsibility for Deicide to a small group of quasi private individuals, whereas the Sanhedrin, the supreme religious authority, represented all of Judaism. Therefore, in the rejection of the Messiah and Son of God, it had collective responsibility for the Jewish religion and the Jewish people, and this irrefutably is stated in Holy Scripture: “And from then on, Pilate was looking for a way to release him. But the Jews cried out, saying, ‘If thou release this man, thou are no friend of Caesar; for everyone who makes himself king sets himself against Caesar'” (Jn. 19:12); and “And all of the people answered and said, ‘His blood be on us and our children'” (Mt. 27:25).

Also striking is the statement that “the Jews should not be presented as repudiated or cursed by God, as if such views followed from the holy Scriptures.” This lacks the necessary distinction between individuals and the Jewish religion. If the subject is individual Jews, the statement is true, and is exemplified by the great number of converts from Judaism in all eras. But if the subject is Judaism as a religion, the assertion is both erroneous and illogical: erroneous, because it contradicts the evangelical texts and the Church’s constant faith from her origins. (Cf. Mt. 21:43: “Therefore I say to you, that the Kingdom of God will be taken away from you and will be given to a people yielding its fruits.”) And it is illogical, because if God did not reject the Jewish religion or the Jewish people in the religious sense (which in Jesus’ time was one and the same thing), then the Old Testament has to be viewed as being still valid, and contiguous and concurrent with the New Testament. This, then, would sanction the unjustified awaiting of the Messiah, a hope still entertained by today’s Jews! All of this is a totally lying representation of Judaism and its relationship to Christianity.

The unacceptable statement, contrary to the eternal doctrine of the Church as well as to all Catholic exegesis, that the books of the Old Testament clarify and explain the New, whereas it has always been taught that the opposite is true, without reciprocity, and, therefore, that the New Testament sheds light upon and explains the Old Testament. Dei Verbum § 16 states:

God, the inspirer and author of both testaments, wisely arranged that the New Testament be hidden in the Old and the Old be made manifest in the New. For, though Christ established the New Covenant in His blood (cf. Lk. 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25), still the books of the Old Testament with all their parts, caught up in the proclamation of the gospel, acquire and show forth their full meaning in the New Testament [a true affirmation up to this point. Ed.]and in turn shed light on it and explain it [a false affirmation, contradicting the preceding one].

The inversion of Catholics’ mission regarding the members of other religions.

Rather than exhort the faithful to a renewed energy for converting the greatest number of unbelievers possible by wresting them out of the shadows they are in, in Nostra Aetate §2, the Council exhorts her sons:

Prudently and lovingly, through dialogue and collaboration with the followers of other religions, and in witness of Christian faith and life, acknowledge, preserve, and promote the spiritual and moral goods found among these men, as well as the values in their society and culture.

In other words, it is saying that [the Church’s sons] should conduct themselves in such a way that the Buddhists, Hindus, Moslems, and Jews, etc., remain Buddhists, Hindus, Moslems, and Jews, etc., and that [the Church’s sons] should even “promote” the social and cultural values of their respective religions, all hostile to revealed truth. This exhortation expresses a general principle set forth by the Council to the “Church” which was to be born of its reforms and which defines itself as “the Conciliar Church” (cf. Cardinal Benelli), a principle which tells “the people of God”-priests and laity-the attitude that they are to take concerning the “separated brethren” and all non-Christians. This and other pastoral exhortations (for example in Lumen Gentium §17′; Gaudium et Spes §28; Unitatis Redintegratio §4) constitute overt treason against the order given by the Risen Christ Jesus to the Apostles: “Go then, teach all nations” (Mt. 28:19), an order which, mutatis mutandis, is valid for all believers, insofar as they are able, because every believer, as miles Christi, must bear witness to the faith according to the works of corporal and spiritual mercy.

How can anyone be surprised that the application of this deadly exhortation has resulted in hundreds of thousands of Catholics having already become Buddhists or Moslems, whereas the conversions of Buddhists or Moslems to Catholicism are practically nonexistent? How can anyone deny that this exhortation is one of the factual proofs that the post-conciliar crisis has its roots in the false doctrines which suffused the Council’s texts?

C) Theology

– Indeed “bonum ex integra causa malum ex quocumque defectu”

“Something is good when it is good in every respect; it is wrong when it is wrong in any respect.”

This is a very important principle

If something seems to be good in those false religions (religions which are mortal sins against the first commandement of God) but there is ONE (or more of course, but one suffises) error in it, the whole religion must be rejested as bad ! the whole religion !

that is the meaning of “bonum ex integra causa malum ex quocumque defectu”.

Example : it’s like someone makes you a cake. It has good dough, eggs, fresh fruit, cream … but it only contains a single particle of arsenic. Nobody is going to want to eat any of that pie, it must be thrown away completely!

– Likewise, inconceivably awarding the marks of truth and holiness to all the non-Christian religions, whereas they do not contain revealed truth, but are the fruit of the human spirit and, so, neither redeem nor save anyone.

– It is necessary to note the contradiction in the above, noting too its decidedly Deist tone. That is, if these religions “differ… in many particulars” from the Catholic Church’s teaching, how can they “often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men”? This means that, for the Council, the truth “which enlightens all men” perhaps comes through rules and teachings that differ “in many particulars” from the Church’s teaching!


By public heresy a pope looses his papacy, so Paul VI lost his papacy !

It is clear and undeniable.

2) The Second Vatican Council’s “Declaration on Religious Freedom”, promulgated by Pope Paul VI on December 7, 1965.

In his book “They have uncrowned Him” Mgr Lefebvre proves elaborately and in a masterly way, that there is a contradiction between “Dignitatis humanae” and the Kingdom of Our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ.

His Kingdom is a dogma and is in several places in the Holy Scripture.

Jesus is King :

It is several times in the Holy Scripture :

Ephesians 1:20–21

“. . . that he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come.”

Acts 2:30–32

“Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne, he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses.”

Revelation 17:14

“They will make war on the Lamb, and the Lamb will conquer them, for he is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those with him are called and chosen and faithful.”

1 Timothy 6:13–15

“I charge you in the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who in his testimony before Pontius Pilate made the good confession, to keep the commandment unstained and free from reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which he will display at the proper time—he who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords.”

Pope Pius XI encyclical “Quas primas” on the 11th of December 1925 quotes the Holy Scripture :

“..Do we not read throughout the Scriptures that Christ is the King? He it is that shall come out of Jacob to rule,[3] who has been set by the Father as king over Sion, his holy mount, and shall have the Gentiles for his inheritance, and the utmost parts of the earth for his possession.[4] In the nuptial hymn, where the future King of Israel is hailed as a most rich and powerful monarch, we read: “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; the scepter of thy kingdom is a scepter of righteousness.”[5] There are many similar passages, but there is one in which Christ is even more clearly indicated. Here it is foretold that his kingdom will have no limits, and will be enriched with justice and peace: “in his days shall justice spring up, and abundance of peace…And he shall rule from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth.”[6]

9. The testimony of the Prophets is even more abundant. That of Isaias is well known: “For a child is born to us and a son is given to us, and the government is upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, God the mighty, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of Peace. His empire shall be multiplied, and there shall be no end of peace. He shall sit upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom; to establish it and strengthen it with judgment and with justice, from henceforth and for ever.”[7] With Isaias the other Prophets are in agreement. So Jeremias foretells the “just seed” that shall rest from the house of David – the Son of David that shall reign as king, “and shall be wise, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.”[8] So, too, Daniel, who announces the kingdom that the God of heaven shall found, “that shall never be destroyed, and shall stand for ever.”[9] And again he says: “I beheld, therefore, in the vision of the night, and, lo! one like the son of man came with the clouds of heaven. And he came even to the Ancient of days: and they presented him before him. And he gave him power and glory and a kingdom: and all peoples, tribes, and tongues shall serve him. His power is an everlasting power that shall not be taken away, and his kingdom shall not be destroyed.”[10] The prophecy of Zachary concerning the merciful King “riding upon an ass and upon a colt the foal of an ass” entering Jerusalem as “the just and savior,” amid the acclamations of the multitude,[11] was recognized as fulfilled by the holy evangelists themselves.

10. This same doctrine of the Kingship of Christ which we have found in the Old Testament is even more clearly taught and confirmed in the New. The Archangel, announcing to the Virgin that she should bear a Son, says that “the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father, and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.”[12]

11. Moreover, Christ himself speaks of his own kingly authority: in his last discourse, speaking of the rewards and punishments that will be the eternal lot of the just and the damned; in his reply to the Roman magistrate, who asked him publicly whether he were a king or not; after his resurrection, when giving to his Apostles the mission of teaching and baptizing all nations, he took the opportunity to call himself king,[13] confirming the title publicly,[14] and solemnly proclaimed that all power was given him in heaven and on earth.[15] These words can only be taken to indicate the greatness of his power, the infinite extent of his kingdom. What wonder, then, that he whom St. John calls the “prince of the kings of the earth”[16] appears in the Apostle’s vision of the future as he who “hath on his garment and on his thigh written ‘King of kings and Lord of lords!’.”[17] It is Christ whom the Father “hath appointed heir of all things”;[18] “for he must reign until at the end of the world he hath put all his enemies under the feet of God and the Father.”[19]

notes :

3. Num. xxiv, 19.

4. Ps. ii.

5. Ps. xliv.

6. Ps. Ixxi.

7. Isa. ix, 6-7.

8. Jer. xxiii, 5.

9. Dan. ii, 44.

10. Dan. vii, 13-14.

11. Zach. ix, 9.

12. Luc. i, 32-33.

13. Matt. xxv, 31-40.

14. Joan. xviii, 37.

15. Matt. xxviii, 18.

16. Apoc. 1, 5.

17. Apoc. xix, 16.

18. Heb. 1, 2.

19. 1 Cor. xv, 25.

His Kingdom has alway been celebrated in Catholic Liturgy (“Quas Primas” 12) :

“12. It was surely right, then, in view of the common teaching of the sacred books, that the Catholic Church, which is the kingdom of Christ on earth, destined to be spread among all men and all nations, should with every token of veneration salute her Author and Founder in her annual liturgy as King and Lord, and as King of Kings. And, in fact, she used these titles, giving expression with wonderful variety of language to one and the same concept, both in ancient psalmody and in the Sacramentaries. She uses them daily now in the prayers publicly offered to God, and in offering the Immaculate Victim. The perfect harmony of the Eastern liturgies with our own in this continual praise of Christ the King shows once more the truth of the axiom: Legem credendi lex statuit supplicandi. The rule of faith is indicated by the law of our worship.”

His Kingdom teached by Church Fathers (“Quas Primas” 13:

“13. The foundation of this power and dignity of Our Lord is rightly indicated by Cyril of Alexandria. “Christ,” he says, “has dominion over all creatures, a dominion not seized by violence nor usurped, but his by essence and by nature.”[20] His kingship is founded upon the ineffable hypostatic union. From this it follows not only that Christ is to be adored by angels and men, but that to him as man angels and men are subject, and must recognize his empire; by reason of the hypostatic union Christ has power over all creatures. But a thought that must give us even greater joy and consolation is this that Christ is our King by acquired, as well as by natural right, for he is our Redeemer. Would that they who forget what they have cost their Savior might recall the words: “You were not redeemed with corruptible things, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb unspotted and undefiled.”[21] We are no longer our own property, for Christ has purchased us “with a great price”;[22] our very bodies are the “members of Christ.”[23]”

Notes :

20. In huc. x.

21. I Pet. i, 18-19.

22. 1 Cor. vi, 20.

23. I Cor. vi, 15.

So this text of Paul VI and of Vatican II is clearly another heresy !

3) Mgr Ratzinger wrote in his book “Principles of catholic theology” that there is a contradiction between “Gaudium et spes” of Vatican II and the unfallible Syllabus of Pius IX.

Indeed, writing about the constitution Gaudium et spes, Card. Joseph Ratzinger described the new approach of the Conciliar Church toward the Modern World born from the French Revolution. The previous attitude of the Church was in accordance with the norms of Pope Pius IX listed in the Syllabus, which taught Catholics to combat the Liberalism of modernity.

Instead, Gaudium et spes advised Catholics to accept the Modern World as it is – certainly a revolution regarding the previous teaching. Hence Ratzinger approvingly defined Gaudium et spes as “a counter-Syllabus.”

“If one is looking for a global diagnosis of the text [of Gaudium et spes], one could say that it (along with the texts on religious liberty and world religions) is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of counter-Syllabus ….

Undoubtedly, many things have changed since then. The new ecclesiastical policy of Pius XI established a certain openness toward the liberal conception of the State. In a silent but persevering combat, Exegesis and Church History increasingly adopted the postulates of liberal science; on the other hand, in face of the great political upheavals of the 20th century, Liberalism was obliged to accept notable corrections.

This happened because, first in central Europe, conditioned by the situation, the unilateral dependence on the positions taken by the Church through the initiatives of Pius IX and Pius X against the new period of History opened by the French Revolution was to a large extent corrected via facti. But a fundamental new document regarding relations with the world as it had been since 1789 was still lacking.

In reality, the mentality that preceded the revolution still reigned in the countries with strong Catholic majorities; today almost no one denies that the Spanish and Italian concordats [accords between Church and State] tried to conserve too many things from a conception of the world that for a long time had not corresponded to reality. Likewise, almost no one can deny that this dependence on an obsolete conception of relations between the Church and State was matched by similar anachronisms in the domain of education and the attitude taken toward the modern historical-critical method ….

Let us content ourselves here with stating that the text [of Gaudium et spes] plays the role of a counter-Syllabus to the measure that it represents an attempt to officially reconcile the Church with the world as it had become after 1789. On one hand, this visualization alone clarifies the ghetto complex that we mentioned before. On the other hand, it permits us to understand the meaning of this new relationship between the Church and the Modern World. “World” is understood here, at depth, as the spirit of modern times. The consciousness of being a detached group that existed in the Church viewed this spirit as something separate from herself and, after the hot as well as cold wars were over, she sought dialogue and cooperation with it. “

(Les Principes de la Theologie Catholique – Esquisse et Materiaux, Paris: Tequi, 1982, pp. 426-427).

So this is clearly another heresy.

The Tradition of the Church learns that a pope loses his papacy for four reasons: death, insanity, abdication or heresy.

We have established that Paul VI has proclaimed various public heresies, so he himself lost his papacy through these facts (ipso facto) and became an antipope.

Let us pray for a good pope.

Comments are closed.