jump to navigation

Pope Francis: It may be a heresy, but I agree with the devil that all Christians are one? – UPDATED May 27, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, catachesis, disaster, Ecumenism, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, Papa, pr stunts, scandals, secularism, shocking, Society, SOD, the return, the struggle for the Church.

Pat Archbold has an explosive post related to Pope Francis that is quite possibly the most troubling statement made by this Pontiff yet.  After acknowledging that what he says may not only be controversial, but heretical, he then pronounces that he agrees  with the devil that all Christians, be they evangelical, Orthodox, Lutheran, Catholics, or “Apostolic,” are “one.”  He even pauses, announces out loud his doubts about what he is tempted to say, but then goes ahead and says it anyway.  This starts at 4:10 in the video below:

Now, there are some people at CMR that are attacking Mr. Archbold severely, pretending that Pope Francis did not say what he plainly said.  He is speaking in Spanish, which I read much better than I speak, but I’ve listened to the Pope and read the translation about 10 times now and it’s very close to how I would translate it.  They leave out a bit that I think is important which I’ll include in the transcript below, which is mostly from the subtitles of the video but I make a few changes:

“I feel like saying something that may sound controversial……….or even heretical, I don’t know.  But there is someone who “knows” (sabe – the verb used conveys knowing an intellectual fact) that, despite our differences, we are one.  It is he who is persecuting us*.  It is he who is persecuting Christians today, he who is anointing us with the blood of martyrdom**  He knows that Christians are disciples of Christ: that they are one, that they are brothers! He doesn’t care (or he is not interested) that they are Evangelicals , Orthodox, Lutherans, Catholics, or Apostolic……he does not care!  They are Christians!  And that blood unites. Today, dear brothers and sisters, we are living an “ecumenism of blood.”

* – So the devil is using muslims as the vehicle of his persecution?  Is this statement intended to absolve muslims for their guilt in murdering Christians around the world in their thousands every month?  “The devil made them do it?”

**- So the devil now anoints us?  What is he anointing us with? The blood – grace – of martyrdom.  So the devil is playing a key role in the dispensing of grace?

Now, there has been tremendous confusion in the Church on just this subject of the ostensible unity of Christians in the post-conciliar period.  This confusion is a prime reason why so many Catholics of conscience have serious concerns over Dignitatis Humanae and other VII products, documents that played key roles in introducing novel concepts regarding just who constitutes the Church and what means unity. The souls arguing against Archbold on this narrow point (he also brings up the scandal of appointing Fr. Timothy Radcliffe to a position of influence at the Vatican, and the Pope’s silence on the Irish sodo-“marriage” vote – those concerns get crickets, everyone is focused on this devil-unity statement) seem very confused on this matter – some persistently argue that because protestant baptisms can be valid, that means unity with the Church. But “unity” properly understood extends far beyond that, and once a protestant, possessing the proper mental faculties, accepts protestant errors condemned by the Church, the Grace of baptism is lost as he has now chosen to place himself outside the Church.  This used to be clear.  Virtually all Catholics used to firmly believe that those outside the Church had only the dimmest chances of salvation – if they believed they had any at all.  But not anymore – which is why a lot of very bright souls wonder how it is possible to reconcile major aspects of the pre-and post-conciliar Magisterium.

Back to the Pope’s statement – my good Lord, have mercy on us. Has there ever been a Pope who would preface a highly controversial (and dubious) theological proposition with, essentially, “This may make me a heretic, but…….?”  Simply on the prudential level, for any Catholic to make a public pronouncement like that is simply incredible, but for a prelate, let alone THE POPE?!?!?!  There simply are no words.

Even if what he were saying were 100% orthodox, to be so imprudent as to promote uncertainty in the Pope’s theological standing, to assail the dignity of the office with a statement that, according to the Pope, might be heretical, to scandalize millions by declaring “I’m just not certain if this is heresy or not, which could land you and me in hell for all eternity, but here goes!”……just wow.

We are in totally uncharted waters.  Yes, yes, John XXII, but that was one narrow matter on which he was clear he spoke as a private theologian. We get no such reassurances here.  And it is almost certainly much more than one narrow topic.

We are deep into the Passion of the Church, indeed.  Our Lady warned us and warned us……

UPDATE: More analysis from Eliot Bougis.  Much of his commentary is directed at Jimmy Akin’s endless, credibility-snapping apologias for papal statements over the past 2 years, including this one.  A quote from that commentary, including a statement by Pope Francis I did not address above:

Third, the biggest problem arises from his claim that the wound of division exists “in the body of the Church”. This is utterly false, and in the “heretical” kind of way, to be sure. The Church is ONE and SPOTLESS; all such “division” is extrinsic to Her. Ironically enough, the divisions Pope Francis is addressing are themselves the result of schismatic Protestant history and an ongoing refusal to seek communion with Rome. So, by calling such divisions the work of the Devil, he’s right–all schism is diabolical, including that fostered by the organizers of the John 17 Movement! [Which meeting in Arizona the Pope’s video was addressing]

Fourth, by saying that “from 9 in the morning to 5 in the afternoon, [he] will be with [the John 17 participants] spiritually,” and that he desires to “join [them] as just another participant” in the event, he vaults over the otherwise safe area of merely praying with non-Catholics and dives into formal co-celebration with them. The event in Arizona included Bible teaching and worship, not mere prayers, so, by uniting his person and intentions with the participants, Pope Francis has formally and publicly united himself as a member of Protestant worship,* which is a no-no, even in the post-Conciliar age (cf.Unitatis Redintegratio, no. 8). But, hey, who am I to judge?

Not that any of the above matters, of course. It doesn’t matter what this pope says, whose pious ears he offends, what traditional doctrine and laws he undermines and obscures. He’s the pope, after all. It’s all his show. As “faithful Catholics” we’re just expected to smile and nod.

More shortly, God willing.


1. REX - May 27, 2015

I come from Spain and I speak perfect Spanish and I hearded and watched what Francis said in the video. I start to believe he is profoundly possessed by demons or under their strong influence. He plainly spoke heresy condemned by the Church. It’s cut and clear. And still his language is so feeling good, so make you feel everything is alright and at peace while contradicting Tradition. It’s really cunning and deceitful.

There are people and priest out there specially from among the liberal catholic thinking (both conservatives and liberals) that feel that whoever confronts the words of Francis with actual infallible church teaching is being a disloyal son of the Church, kind of like a traitor.

Poor fellas, they do hyenas’ work for the devil.

Heresy and abominations are being presented in front of our eyes and ears under the disguise of Mercy by a corrupted hierarchy and we are allowing ourselves to be lied to. Only the truth will set us free and not to look the other way.

Tantumblogo - May 27, 2015

REX – I almost said the same thing about demonic oppression in the post, but the theological implications of such are troubling in the extreme, so I demurred.

REX - May 27, 2015

Tantumblogo: I think you are more prudent than me. Thanks.


Rex, this is NOT the first time he has said this. To know what’s behind all this, read the in-depth study “Ecumenism of Blood is a Priceless Contribution toward Christian Unity” at

2. Elizabeth - May 27, 2015

Shame on the Cardinals who voted for this man.

3. REX - May 27, 2015

Let’s not be one more time deceit by Francis. Below it is clear church teaching consistent with Tradition:

Pope Pius IX: None [of the heretical and schismatic ‘communities], not even taken as a whole, constitutes in any way and are not that one Catholic Church founded and made by Our Lord and which He wished to create. Further, one cannot say in any way that these societies are either members or parts of that same Church, because they are visibly separated from Catholic Unity. (Jam Vos Omnes, 1868)

Pope Leo XIII: Jesus Christ never conceived of nor instituted a Church formed of many communities which were brought together by certain general traits — but which would be distinct one from another and not bound together among themselves by ties which make the Church one and indivisible — since we clearly profess in the Creed of our Faith: “I believe in one…Church.” (Satis Cognitum)

Pope Pius XI: It is absurd and ridiculous to say that the Mystical Body can be formed out of separated and disjunct members…It is to depart from divine truth to imagine that a Church which one can neither see nor touch, which would be nothing more than spiritual in which numerous Christian communities would be united by an invisible bond, even though they are divided in faith. (Mortalium Animos)

4. Tim - May 27, 2015

So much for protestants being servants of Christ:


REX - May 27, 2015

Wow.Thank you for posting this exorcism story.

5. LaGallina - May 27, 2015

We are constantly reminded that it is not up to us — the Catholic in the pew — to call the pope a heretic. So what do we do when he calls himself a heretic?

Tantumblogo - May 27, 2015

Yeah, that’s a tough one. As I said, I think this is a perfect novelty in the 2000 year history of the Church, and simply amazing/terrifying.

Tim - May 27, 2015

Pray for him, make sacrifices for him and deepen our interior lives.

6. Woody - May 27, 2015

Rex, is the Spanish you speak the same as that spoken by Pope Francis? That is, is there a difference between Spanish spoken in Spain and Spanish spoken in Argentina? Are you positive that your translation is correct as to what Pope Francis said? I just want to make sure there is none of this “lost in translation” junk. Thanks.

c matt - May 27, 2015

I speak Argentinean Spanish, and yes, it is a bit different, but mostly in pronunciation and accent. Argentinean Spanish is probably closer than most to Spain – actually, it is Castellano, aka Castilian, spoken in Northern and Central Spain. So it is about as close as Canadian and Northern US English.

As for the substance, Bergoglio is very Argentinean in his manner of speech, which is charming in a tango partner, but disastrous in a pope. Argentines are not known for their precision in speech.

Aside from a few words and change in grammatical structure to compensate between English and Spanish, there is no real substance “lost in translation.” One example – if I heard him correctly, he said the devil “nos persigue” not “perjudica” – persigue is more like chase, pursue, or even hunt down, as opposed to persecute, but in substance, not much difference for the point he was making. Bergo has a bad habit of sort of “thinking out loud” without really thinking things through first.

Kevin Shook (@DFWSHOOK) - May 27, 2015

“very Argentinean in his manner of speech, which is charming in a tango partner, but disastrous in a pope.” – Brilliant line. “Thinking out loud” has been the hallmark of this Pontificate. I miss Pope Benedict and his precision when speaking more each day.

REX - May 27, 2015

100% positive.

Woody - May 27, 2015

I appreciate all your explanations. It seems like every time Pope Francis gets into these messes, there is always the excuse that no one is translating what he said correctly. I am sick of that excuse. Thanks again to all for clearing up that excuse.

c matt - May 28, 2015

There have been a few occasions where there were translation errors. Unfortunately, those were only a few. I also found hilarious Jimmy Akins argument that the news mistranslated that Francis said “Jesus knows we are one” rather than Satan knows. Yes, the report got it wrong, but that made no difference to the point Francis was making.

Tantumblogo - May 28, 2015

Bro I don’t speak Spanish 100% but that’s on the fly. When I have an opportunity to go over something over and over like that video, I get very, very close. You can quibble a tiny bit about a few phrases – I chose a couple different ones from the subtitles in my translation -but the content, the meaning, is dead on. For whatever reason, though, there are a lot of folks out there who are simply constitutionally unable to wrap their heads around the idea of a heterodox Pope. It’s happened before, it may happen again, and to many, it looks like we’re having one now.

7. c matt - May 27, 2015

I don’t think he is trying to absolve the muslims of any responsibility any more than the Assyrians would be absolved for their actions against the Israelites. God can certainly use other groups of humans as His instruments without making those other humans somehow innocent.

Tantumblogo - May 27, 2015

Yes, but the troubling inference was that it was satan using these people, not God. The theological picture painted would take a great deal to unpack, but I doubt I would find much reassuring in it.

c matt - May 28, 2015

Well, I certainly wouldn’t put it past Satan to use people for evil ends, and still unwittingly end up doing God’s plan. God allowed Job to be tested by Satan. Anyway, to the point, I don’t think he was trying to absolve muslims, just musing that Satan is likely behind it all. Frankly (ha, no pun intended) I believe it wasn’t Gabriel who visited ol’ mo, and Satan is behind Islam.

8. REX - May 27, 2015

Via Louie Verrechio:

DOGMA: The Roman Catholic Church is the one true Church of Christ, and he who departs from the faith in even one point of doctrine proposed by the Church’s authoritative Magisterium is outside Catholic communion and, therefore, outside communion with the Church of Christ; i.e., such persons do not enjoy Christian unity.

HERESY: Heretics enjoy “partial communion” with the Church of Christ.

HERESY: Heretics enjoy Christian unity (i.e., unity with the one Church of Christ) along with the children of the Catholic Church, whether Anglican, Lutheran, etc.

DOGMA: Unity is a mark of the one Church of Christ, the Holy Catholic Church, and this unity cannot be destroyed or in any way torn asunder by the will of men (e.g., those who would depart from her).

HERESY: The Church of Christ, His Mystical Body (aka the Holy Catholic Church) has been wounded by the fragmentation and division that exists among the heretics.

HERESY: Catholics, along with heretics, are traveling a path “toward unity.”

DOGMA: The only way for heretics to attain to Christian unity is to enter into communion with (i.e., convert to) the one true Church of Christ, the Holy Catholic Church; united in one law of belief, partaking of the same sacraments, under one visible authority, that of Christ’s Vicar, the pope.

HERESY: Catholics are, and indeed must, seek with the heretics a “unity” that is either undefined, or imagined to be a form of common prayer, witness or service, etc.; i.e., “unity” that is not explicitly defined as the return of the heretics to the one true Church of Christ.

[NOTE: The dogmatic teachings referenced above are given in the following (not exclusively) Mystici Corporis, Humani Generis, Mortalium Animos, Satis Cognitum.]

That Pope Francis has actively promoted each of the heresies listed above is beyond any doubt. In this, he is not alone among the conciliar popes.

He does, however, stand out for having made the following statement this past weekend:

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

The simple fact that Pope Francis realizes that his comments “may sound … heretical” is evidence that he knows very well that he is bucking against what “some” understand to be the dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church. This is the very definition of that which is heretical.

Clearly, the pope finds this concern of sufficient credibility to merit being mentioned publicly. This is important.

While Pope Francis does not give any indication that he agrees with those who believe that his commentary is heretical, by addressing this opinion directly, he makes it known that he is aware of the gravity of his commentary.

In other words, he can no longer deny having at least some comprehension of what is at stake here; it is not simply the sensibilities of certain pious men that are being challenged, but rather immutable Catholic teaching.

This, in my opinion, ups the ante considerably, so to speak.

If previously it wasn’t entirely clear to the faithful members of the College of Cardinals (if indeed there are any) that the time is nigh to formally require this pope to either confirm or deny his assent to authoritative Catholic teaching on the matter at hand, it should be now.

There can be no question, based upon the magisterium of numerous popes as so very clearly given in the century leading up to the Council (see links above), that Pope Francis’ statements are, objectively speaking, heretical; making of him a material heretic.

The only question that remains – one that needs to be answered for the good of the Church – is whether or not Jorge Bergoglio is a formal heretic; meaning, he knowingly rejects that which the Church requires one to believe in order to remain in the Church of Christ, that is, Catholic.

In order for this question to be answered, a process must take place. (Again, I cannot encourage you enough to see Robert Siscoe’s article on the topic.)

If this process ever came to pass, and Pope Francis were made to answer for his material heresy, I would not expect him to say, “Catholic dogma says ‘X,’ but I reject that in favor of ‘Y.’”

What I can well imagine him saying is something along the lines of:

“At one time the Catholic Church required the faithful to believe ‘X’ in order to remain in the Church, I believe that this is no longer the case and we are called to believe ‘Y.’”

Or perhaps more likely:

“At one time the Catholic Church required the faithful to believe ‘X’ in order to remain in the Church, but the Second Vatican Council opened the way for a deeper understanding; namely, ‘Y.’”

The former is enough for the pope to judge himself to be a formal heretic, as the immutability of Catholic dogma is a dogmatic teaching in its own right.

The latter would put the Council itself on the witness stand as a defendant (where it most certainly belongs).

c matt - May 28, 2015

Saying they are in partial communion is like saying you’re in partial marriage. See how that one flies with the missus.

Tantumblogo - May 28, 2015

I fell into this trap in the comments at another blog yesterday. It can happen. You start following along someone else’s line of thought trying to refute them, and the next thing you know, you’re saying something that is categorically wrong. I implied yesterday (again, not on this blog) that there was such a thing as partial communion. That was not what I meant, what I meant was that you can have a surface appearance of communion but even that gets obliterated once you start to consider, for instance, protestant errors on a whole panoply of subjects. This was in response to someone saying that because protestant baptisms may be valid, they are, ipso facto, in “communion” or “one” with the Church. That might be occasionally, miraculously true in incredibly rare cases where a soul happens to believe all the Church believes and finds themselves, by reason of accident (like birth), in a sect, but as soon as they consciously accept some protestant error contrary to the Faith, they are no longer in communion.

My main point is that this is one of those subjects on which the modernists have injected the most error and novelty into the minds of Catholics. This has been perhaps their prime focal point, creating mass indifference, leading souls to believe that basically anyone and everyone is saved regardless of belief or action. It’s easy to fall into their trap, for a moment, because we’ve all been swimming in this sewage of mass error for years.

9. Woody - May 27, 2015

It should also be pointed out that before becoming pope, he was arm and arm with Tony Palmer and very much into the evangelical protestant movement.

10. Dismas - May 28, 2015

Miss Gallina. I like your comment/question:

“We are constantly reminded that it is not up to us — the Catholic in the pew — to call the pope a heretic. So what do we do when he calls himself a heretic?”

Following are my personal ramblings on this topic. I think your question is excellent.

I do not feel the slightest need to decide whether or not the Pope is a Catholic. This is another way of saying that I do not feel the need to declare that the Pope is a heretic, because (unless I am mistaken) a heretic is something other than a Catholic.

See, at that level it all becomes too confusing for me. I’m not even an amateur theologian.

On the other hand, if I understand correctly, God gave us intellects and He did so so that we might use them within the bounds of our competence.

So while I cannot decide whether or not the Pope is a heretic:

1. Because, if I understand correctly, simply spouting heresy does not, ipso facto, make one a heretic. And,

2. Again, if I have this correctly, an inferior is not competent to judge a superior.

What I can do, though, and arguably should do, is to discern when he openly, publicly and clearly promotes ideas which conflict with the dogmatic, infallible teaching of the Church.

I can discern when he is rejecting the religious tenets of Catholicism.

I can discern that he is promoting a different set of religious tenets.

So I can conclude that he believes in a different religion.

Why parse this so much?

Well, first of all we are in a horrible crisis in the Church. We need people to perk up their ears. IMHO, what we do is cause others to flee when we start making statements like, “The Pope is a heretic.”

Secondly, I think I understand that it is not my place to declare the Pope a non-Catholic. I am just so very happy to leave that to God, since it is in His job description and not mine to do this, given that Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.

Thirdly, I just do not feel any compelling need to do so. I am a person who really sympathizes with the sedevacantists. But I just do not want to be one. For me it suffices to simply observe what the man says and to point out when an utterance conflicts with the Catholic religion.

Even if he comes flat out and denies Catholicism openly, clearly and publicly (Yes, I know. You can make the argument that he does this all the time, and you will get no push-back from me.) I don’t think I’ll feel the need to declare him an anti-pope.

This pope is possibly doing more good for the cause of authentic Catholicism than any of his predecessors, whose actions and statements simply paved the way for this guy. He is drawing clear lines.

Given these two full generations of disastrous and disoriented catechesis and seminary training (Have you tried to have a discussion with a bishop or priest lately regarding doctrine?) I do not expect Catholics en masse to recognize the horrible errors. I expect Catholics, en masse, to go right along, no matter what. But at least some of those on the fence will have the benefit of more clear vision, and some of those off the fence will re-think their priorities regarding the true locus of the danger.

c matt - May 28, 2015

I thought by definition a heretic is one who is Catholic, but obstinately espouses a belief contrary to Catholic teaching without repenting of the error (thus, a Protestant holds heretical beliefs, but because he is not Catholic, he would not technically be a heretic). Luther was a heretic because he was Catholic, and then left the Church and became an apostate. At least, that’s how I understand it.

At most, I think, Francis holds some heretical beliefs, but I am not sure how obstinate he would be in them if they were pointed out to him by a competent authority.

c matt - May 28, 2015

Which, based on that understanding, I think Louie is correct – Francis’ statements are materially heretical, but we can’t say he is a formal heretic until a competent authority declares him so (a council, the college of cardinals?). Not sure who that authority would be.

c matt - May 28, 2015

I’m not sure being a formal heretic would make him anti-pope, it would just be a basis for deposing him as pope (at which point, he would not be pope). I thought “anti-pope” was one who was not validly installed, such as that time when there were three alleged popes at the same time (one was pope and two were anti-popes).

Dismas - May 29, 2015

Dear Mr. Matt:

One thing I am pretty sure of, and that is that protestants who hold beliefs contrary to defined dogma are heretics. Luther was a heretic even after leaving the Church. I defer to someone more knowledgable on this.

I do not mean this to be definitive, but Ott’s “Dogma” text says: “One is cut off from the unity of Faith by heresy.” Also “If a baptized person deliberately denies or doubts a dogma…he is guilty of the sin of heresy, and automatically becomes subject to the punishment of excommunication.”

As I said I lay no claim to being even a low-level theologian. I don’t think we should get too bogged down in the technichalities of terminology. Moreover, it might become a “chicken-or-the-egg” discussion.

I think you point this out when you discuss material vs. formal heresy and the question of the competent judge.

Which goes right to my point. I am not the competent judge and I feel no need to be. In fact, it is something I wish to avoid doing.

So I feel no need to decide whether or not the Pope is Catholic.

But I do have an intellect, and I am supposed to discern when someone, even the Pope, says something or does something that clearly contradicts infallible Catholic teaching.

If a person consistently espouses viewpoints that differ from Catholicism then he is not espousing Catholicism. He is espousing something else. He is espousing different religious beliefs. If he believes what he is espousing, then the religion he holds is not the Catholic religion. It is something else.

It is a different religion.

Can a person hold a different religion and yet be Catholic? I don’t feel any need to even go there. I just feel the need to point out to myself that what this person is espousing is a different set of religious beliefs.

11. Thomas Lewis - May 28, 2015

If I said the Devil was right, “Jesus is an illegitimate son of a whore, “would you preserve my freedom of speech or would you excommunicate me since it would be a public action. You mean to tell me if the pope said the same thing, you would NOT KNOW WHAT TO DO? I am baffled by the extreme loyalty of the supposing legalized silencing of the layman. The Magisterium are the servants of God, not his substitute.

Tantumblogo - May 28, 2015

Zuh? What did I do wrong?

Tantumblogo - May 28, 2015

When did I say the layman should be silenced?

Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: