Sunday, June 6, 2010

Leo XIII taught heresy while fraudulently posing as pope

Please also read:
Leo XIII Bestowed the Supreme Order of Christ on a Heretic
Anecdotal evidence against Leo XIII
Heretical Prayers of Antipope Leo XIII

The last validly reigning Catholic Pontiff is Pope Pius IX.

In order to substantiate this claim, we need to review again the teachings of the Church on heresy.  We already know that a person who is a heretic is not a Catholic and cannot be a pope in the Catholic Church. And we have it on the highest authority that we are to altogether shrink from all appearance of heresy. 

Pope Pius VIII, Traditi Humiliati, #9, 1829: "Be admonished by the words of Pius VII: "May they consider only that kind of food to be healthy to which the voice and authority of Peter has sent them. May they choose such food and nourish themselves with it. May they judge that food from which Peter's voice calls them away to be entirely harmful and pestiferous. May they quickly shrink away from it, and never permit themselves to be caught by its appearance and perverted by its allurements. "

Sadly, however, there are heresies and heretics that have gone seemingly undenounced for well over a century. While it is true that Leo XIII was NEVER pope, as he was a heretic well before his pretended "election" to the papacy,  in this article, let us restrict ourselves to examining the heresies of Leo XIII which he taught while playacting as pope. We will begin with the first "encyclical" in which these heresies appear.

UPDATE: I have received numerous emails from various people trying to defend the words of Leo XIII.  While he did, for the most part, not only teach and defend right doctrines with a most eloquent style, his great ability with words was used at times to inculcate most heinous heresies.  Nearly everyone who writes me admits that his words are at least troublesome, but insist that he should be given the benefits of the doubt.  But considering his various actions and omissions, which are at least scandalous (bestowing a papal order on a Lutheran heretic, praising the Masonic republic of the United States, praising one of its heretical founders, Washington, and calling him great man, hardly giving the "Catholic" participators of the "World Parliament of Religions" so much as a slap on the wrist, etc.) it seems like pure folly to give him the benefit of the doubt when his words are either ambiguous or outright heretical.

This article will deal with three specific instances of heresy:

1) One that was put out there once, though it never seemed to gain any ground, concerning matrimony.
2) One that involves the filial relationship of Catholics to God, and purposes to extend that relationship to all men, virtually indistinguishable from the Masonic "brotherhood of man" doctrine.  This one has not only gained ground, but eventually reshaped the face of the modern hierarchy (and so disfigured it that to call it even remotely Catholic is simply a sick joke).
3) One that defies the dogma that the temporal power belongs to the Church and that civil and secular authorities are not only to be friendly to the Church, but WHOLLY subservient.  

Antipope Leo XIII, Arcanum #19, Feb 10, 1880: "...Marriage has God for its Author, and was from the very beginning a kind of foreshadowing of the Incarnation of His Son; and therefore there abides in it a something holy and religious; not extraneous, but innate; not derived from men, but implanted by nature. Innocent III, therefore, and Honorius III, our predecessors, affirmed not falsely nor rashly that a sacrament of marriage existed ever amongst the faithful and unbelievers."

Sacramental marriage among unbelievers? Among pagans and infidels?  Did Leo XIII use the term "sacrament" to mean something other than what Catholics understand a sacrament to be?  If so, then he merely chose his words very badly without (necessarily) meaning to speak heretically - and if this were his only such instance of such wording, then I would not likely attribute it to him as heresy, but this is not the worst of his propositions by far, as we will see.

But first, let's examine the actual words above, in light of Catholic teaching.  Marriage before Christ - It was not a Sacrament.

Catechism of Trent, Sacrament of Matrimony: "How much the Sacrament of Matrimony is superior to the marriages made both previous to and under the (Mosaic) Law may be judged from the fact that though the Gentiles themselves were convinced there was something divine in marriage, and for that reason regarded promiscuous intercourse as contrary to the law of nature, while they also considered fornication, adultery and other kinds of impurity to be punishable offences; yet their marriages never had any sacramental value.

"Among the Jews the laws of marriage were observed far more religiously, and it cannot be doubted that their unions were endowed with more holiness. As they had received from God the promise that in the seed of Abraham all nations should be blessed," it was justly considered by them to be a very pious duty to bring forth children, and thus contribute to the propagation of the chosen people from whom Christ the Lord and Saviour was to derive His birth in His human nature. Still their unions also fell short of the real nature of a Sacrament."

And yet Leo XIII claims that Honorius III and Innocent III taught that such unions were "sacraments".  The problem with this is that both of the two popes he claims support from lived before the Council of Florence, therefore they were unable to be aware of the decree that is denied by such a teaching.  If indeed this is what they said, then they were erroneous without falling into heresy.

The truth is that nobody who is unbaptized, who is an unbeliever, has a sacramental anything, as we will see:

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, ex cathedra: "Holy Baptism holds the first place among all the sacraments, for it is the gate of the spiritual life; through it we become members of Christ and of the body of the Church."

BAPTISM is in the FIRST PLACE among the sacraments, therefore no sacrament comes or can come before it. Pagan marriages are contracts, indeed, but they cannot be sacramental until Baptism is first received. That is what the dogmas say.

Therefore we have just seen heresy taught by Antipope Leo XIII in this encyclical (in which he taught also the heresy of separation of Church and State, as we will see).

The next dogma that Leo XIII denied, and frequently, is the following:

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session 3, Chapter 3, #8-9, ex cathedra: "Wherefore, by divine and Catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in Scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the Church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium.

"Since, then, without faith it is impossible to please God and reach the fellowship of his sons and daughters, it follows that no one can ever achieve justification without it, neither can anyone attain eternal life unless he or she perseveres in it to the end."

In these words we have two profound truths that must be a guide for holding the Catholic Faith.

1) When the Church proposes a doctrine, it must be believed by Divine and Catholic faith, that is believe by all, universally, as having been so revealed by God Himself.

2) Any person who does not assent to this Faith is not a child of God.

So what happens when the one who claims to be, and is apparently accepted by all as the orthodox defender of truth contradicts the truth?

Antipope Leo XIII in Auspicato Concessum, #13, Sept. 17, 1882: "Therefore has he [St. Francis] deserved well of that brotherhood established and perfected by Jesus Christ, which has made of all mankind one only family, under the authority of God, the common Father of all."

Did he say "the common Father of all Catholics," or the common Father of all in this brotherhood established by Jesus Christ," or "the common Father of all therein,"? No. Common Father of all - period. His words as shown are a direct contradiction of the above dogmatic definition from the Vatican Council.

Furthermore, as we know, a heretic is one who denies what God has said, and yes, God Himself, with His own human lips has said quite the contrary of what Leo has invented:

St. John 8:42-45: "Jesus therefore said to them: If God were your Father, you would indeed love me. For from God I proceeded, and came; for I came not of myself, but he sent me: Why do you not know my speech? Because you cannot hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof. But if I say the truth, you believe me not."

Does Jesus say that God the Father and the devil are one and the same? GOD FORBID! Therefore there are TWO families on earth, that of God and that of satan. Not all children of God, but only Catholics, as has been seen in the above dogma, promulgated by Pope Pius IX. But we know that the abominable Freemasonic doctrine teaches the contrary falsehood that there is a "Grand Architect" and that all men are brothers.

Therefore it is thus that Leo XIII both could not hold office as pope for this heresy, which he taught on other occasions, and at the same time fulfilled the desires of the Freemasons.  Here is further anecdotal evidence that shows this to be a correct understanding of Leo XIII.

Alta Vendita (Masonic blueprint for the subversion of the Catholic Church): "And this Pontiff, like most of his contemporaries, will be necessarily more or less imbued with the [revolution] Italian and humanitarian principles that we are going to begin to put into circulation [...] look for the Pope whose portrait we have just drawn. You wish to establish the reign of the chosen ones on the throne of the prostitute of Babylon; let the clergy march under your standard always believing that they are marching under the banner of the Apostolic keys.

"You intend to make the last vestige of tyrants and the oppressors disappear; lay your snares [nets] like Simon Bar-Jona; lay them in the sacristies, the seminaries and the monasteries rather than at the bottom of the sea: and if you do not hurry, we promise you a catch more miraculous than his. The fisher of fish became the fisher of men; you will bring friends around the Apostolic Chair. You will have preached a revolution in tiara and in cope, marching with the cross and the banner, a revolution that will need to be only a little bit urged on to set fire to the four corners of the world."

Antipope Leo XIII on Freemasonry, Humanum Genus, 1884, #34: "[...] Let, therefore, this holy sodality be strengthened by a daily increase. Amongst the many benefits to be expected from it will be the great benefit of drawing the minds of men to liberty, fraternity, and equality of right; not such as the Freemasons absurdly imagine, but such as Jesus Christ obtained for the human race and St. Francis aspired to: the liberty, We mean, of sons of God, through which we may be free from slavery to Satan or to our passions, both of them most wicked masters; the fraternity whose origin is in God, the common Creator and Father of all; the equality which, founded on justice and charity, does not take away all distinctions among men, but, out of the varieties of life, of duties, and of pursuits, forms that union and that harmony which naturally tend to the benefit and dignity of society."

While it is true that Catholics enjoy the liberty of the sons of God, neither are those who are yet unbaptized are redeemed or sons of God, nor do those who have separated from the Church not enjoy this liberty. But antipope Leo XIII believes that they do, according to his own words. He is wrong and a heretic.

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Chapter 3, Who are justified through Christ, Jan. 13, 1547, ex cathedra: But, though He died for all, yet do not all receive the benefit of His death, but those only unto whom the merit of His passion is communicated. For as in truth men, if they were not born propagated of the seed of Adam, would not be born unjust,-seeing that, by that propagation, they contract through him, when they are conceived, injustice as their own,-so, if they were not born again in Christ, they never would be justified; seeing that, in that new birth, there is bestowed upon them, through the merit of His passion, the grace whereby they are made just.”

This means that Pius X, previously viewed by many of us as the last valid Pontiff and bulldog against Modernism, was in fact never a valid Pontiff at all. Had he denounced the heresy of Leo XIII while he was yet Bishop Sarto, then perhaps there may have been a different sequence of events, perhaps the Apostasy may have been averted completely, or at least postponed to a later age.

But rather than standing in defense of the truth that was denied by his "pope", he not only tacitly accepted the lie, but professed it himself!

For those who would feel more confident in the fact that the road we are headed down is the road to Catholic Truth, here's Antipope Pius X clearly teaching that God is the Father of Jews, infidels, pagans, heretics, and schismatics.

Notre Charge Apostolique, Given by Antipope Pius X to the French Bishops, August 15, 1910: "The same applies to the notion of Fraternity which they found on the love of common interest or, beyond all philosophies and religions, on the mere notion of humanity, thus embracing with an equal love and tolerance all human beings and their miseries, whether these are intellectual, moral, or physical and temporal. But Catholic doctrine tells us that the primary duty of charity does not lie in the toleration of false ideas, however sincere they may be, nor in the theoretical or practical indifference towards the errors and vices in which we see our brethren plunged, but in the zeal for their intellectual and moral improvement as well as for their material well-being. Catholic doctrine further tells us that love for our neighbor flows from our love for God, Who is Father to all, and goal of the whole human family; and in Jesus Christ whose members we are, to the point that in doing good to others we are doing good to Jesus Christ Himself."

The whole human family? As we have seen, there are TWO families. Those under the Fatherhood of God and those under the fatherhood of the devil.

Pope Leo XII (12), Ubi Primum, # 22, May 5, 1824:He who hears you, hears me; and he who despises you, despises me; and the Church is the pillar and firmament of truth, as the apostle Paul teaches.  In reference to these words St. Augustine says: ‘Whoever is without the Church will not be reckoned among the sons, and whoever does not want to have the Church as mother will not have God as father.’”

So the words of Pius X are so clearly heretical that there is no way at all to try to explain them away. And who would have the nerve to try? And of course, he learned that doctrine from his evil mentor antipope Leo XIII, as he admits in the same address:

Notre Charge Apostolique, Given by Antipope Pius X to the French Bishops, August 15, 1910: "This was shortly after Our Predecessor Leo XIII of happy memory had issued his remarkable Encyclical on the condition of the working class."

The "encyclical" he is referring to is Rerum Novarum, the same "encyclical" where we receive the following heresies from Antipope Leo XIII:

Antipope Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum #25, May 15, 1891: "But, if Christian precepts prevail, the respective classes will not only be united in the bonds of friendship, but also in those of brotherly love. For they will understand and feel that all men are children of the same common Father, who is God; that all have alike the same last end, which is God Himself, who alone can make either men or angels absolutely and perfectly happy; that EACH AND ALL are redeemed and made sons of God, by Jesus Christ, "the first-born among many brethren"; that the blessings of nature and the gifts of grace belong to the whole human race in common, and that from none except the unworthy is withheld the inheritance of the kingdom of Heaven. "If sons, heirs also; heirs indeed of God, and co-heirs with Christ."

This is word for word contradiction of the following dogmatic definition of the Church:

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, ex cathedra: "With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God, it admonishes that sacred baptism is not to be deferred..."

Not baptized? Not a child of God.  God is not your Father.

True, in most of this encyclical Leo intended to address Catholic and to speak of the class distinctions between poor Catholics and rich Catholics, but the statement he made above clearly says "all men".  Now are "all men" Catholics?  No.  Infidels are necessarily included in the statement - he did not say omnes homines in ecclesia Catholicam (all men in the Catholic Church).  And From here it was only a matter of degrees by which the world slipped further and further into error until we have the mess we see now.

It is also true that in the same "encyclical", Leo XIII said: "Charity, as a virtue, pertains to the Church; for virtue it is not, unless it be drawn from the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus Christ; and whosoever turns his back on the Church cannot be near to Christ."

Some might be inclined to argue that this invalidates the above reading of "all men are children of the same common Father, who is God", "that EACH AND ALL are redeemed and made sons of God,  by Jesus Christ", but note well that he said "turns his back".  The way he has worded this statement leaves him completely free to assert that those who have not yet embraced or heard of the Church or the Gospel can be sons of God.  And this is exactly the "development of doctrine" that we have seen take shape in the century that followed.

Vatican II was certainly brutal. Let's see a teaching that would fit very snugly into the documents of that bogus council:

"The mystery of Christ's immense love for us is revealed with dazzling brilliance in the fact that the dying Saviour bequeathed His Mother to His disciple John in the memorable testament: "Behold thy son." Now in John, as the Church has constantly taught, Christ designated the whole human race, and in the first rank are they who are joined with Him by faith. It is in this sense that St. Anselm of Canterbury says: "What dignity, O Virgin, could be more highly prized than to be the Mother of those to whom Christ deigned to be Father and Brother!""

Not only do we see in this quotation the opinion that Mary is the mother of the whole human race, including non Catholics, as evidenced by the words "and in the first rank are they who are joined with Him by faith,", which directly proposes she is also mother to those NOT joined to Jesus Christ by faith, but we also have a classic misrepresentation of the words of a Saint! St. Anselm certainly was not saying that Jews, Muslims and Heretics are sons and daughters of Mary and therefore brothers of Christ, but was saying that Mary is the mother of all those who are IN REALITY sons of God and brothers in Christ.

Question: Are Mary's family and God's family two different families? Can someone have Mary for a mother who does not have God for a Father? Can a Jew, who as we have seen in the words of Christ Himself has the devil for a father, also have Mary for a mother? Would this not mean that Mary has illegitimate children with the devil? GOD FORBID!

Now do you want to know who the above anti-christian quote was made by? You may want to guess that it is Antipope John Paul II, that great precursor to the antichrist, who dissolveth Jesus. I wouldn't blame you for guessing that it was him. But it was not. It was Antipope Leo XIII, in his "encyclical" on the Rosary, Adiutricem, of 1895.  This teaching gives a clear and undeniably context to every statement that Leo XIII ever made about "God, the Father of All".

Let me ask you something: Does the Vatican Council dogmatically teach that only those with the divine and Catholic Faith can attain to the fellowship of the sons and daughters of God? Yes! So it is a dogma that only Catholics are sons and daughters of God. Yet if Leo XIII was a pope, then whenever we assert the above dogma, if a person says "Oh but your pope, you know, Leo XIII, he said..."

It would destroy the Christian religion and the dignity and credibility of the papacy if a pope were capable of teaching contrary to the previously defined Faith. It's unlawful for anyone, especially for a pope, to recede from the Magisterium at all.

But what happens if you do recede from the Magisterium - even if it's only a little bit? Let's ask the antipope to use his own words:

Antipope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, #9: "The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodore, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. 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. "No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic"."

Well, despite the fact that this "encyclical" from 1896 is not an authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church, since the author thereof was NOT A CATHOLIC, I do happen to agree with his above statements, by which he has condemned himself, and in which he is really only echoing the Vatican Council. To make it even more clear that he understands the principle that he in fact violated, here is one more quotation from him in the same "encyclical":

Antipope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum #15: "So much so, that he who would place another chair against that one chair, would be a schismatic and a sinner" Hence the teaching of Cyprian, that heresy and schism arise and are begotten from the fact that due obedience is refused to the supreme authority. "Heresies and schisms have no other origin than that obedience is refused to the priest of God, and that men lose sight of the fact that there is one judge in the place of Christ in this world" No one, therefore, unless in communion with Peter can share in his authority, since it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church."

But Peter, through Pope Pius IX, infallibly defined:

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session 3, Chapter 3, #8-9: "Wherefore, by divine and Catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in Scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the Church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium.

"Since, then, without faith it is impossible to please God and reach the fellowship of his sons and daughters, it follows that no one can ever achieve justification without it, neither can anyone attain eternal life unless he or she perseveres in it to the end."

And Antipope Leo XIII taught:

Antipope Leo XIII in Auspicato Concessum, #13, Sept. 17, 1882: "Therefore has he [St. Francis] deserved well of that brotherhood established and perfected by Jesus Christ, which has made of all mankind one only family, under the authority of God, the common Father of all."

Therefore he cannot be a pope, otherwise the gates of hell have prevailed over the Church, but we know by infallible testimony that this cannot be.

Pope Vigilius Second Council of Constantinople, ex cathedra: “…we bear in mind what was promised about the holy church and him who said that the gates of hell will not prevail against it (by these we understand the death-dealing tongues of heretics)…”

Pope Vigilius, Second Council of Constantinople, ex cathedra: "And about that claim of the Apostle: Even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what you have received, let him be accursed. As we said earlier, I repeat once more: If anyone preaches to you a gospel contrary to what you have received, let him be accursed.  Since the Lord declares that the person is judged already, and the Apostle curses even the angels if they instruct in anything different from what we have preached, how is it possible even for the most presumptuous to assert that these condemnations apply only to those who are still alive? Are they unaware, or rather pretending to be unaware, that to be judged anathematized is just the same as to be separated from God? The heretic, even though he has not been condemned formally by any individual, in reality brings anathema on himself, having cut himself off from the way of truth by his heresy. What reply can such people make to the Apostle when he writes: As for someone who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned."

But Leo XIII was still not done yet!  In addition to his heresies, there are numerous examples of scandal:

Antipope Leo XIII, Longinqua, #1, 1895: "To this We apply Ourselves with the utmost zeal and care; because We highly esteem and love exceedingly the young and vigorous American nation, in which We plainly discern latent forces for the advancement alike of civilization and of Christianity."

Does this remind you of anything or anyone else?  Here's a hint:

Antipope Paul VI, Second Vatican Council, Nostra Aetate, 1965: “The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth…”

How would a "Catholic pope" esteem a nation that denies the Church Her God given right to be the sovereign religious authority? Remember that the United States of America is a Freemasonic Republic, whose constitution clearly dictates that the one true Catholic God will have no part in governmental affairs. So what's to "highly esteem" about a nation that has chosen to openly reject the Catholic rule of life? Yes, I know later in the encyclical Leo XIII makes some statements in support of Pope Pius IX's dogmatic condemnations, and I have included them below, but why then the double talk? Why is Leo XIII talking out of both sides of his mouth on the issue? Again what's to "highly esteem" about a nation that has chosen to openly reject the Catholic rule of life? No, the Church does NOT esteem Her enemies.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, 1441, ex cathedra: "Therefore the Holy Roman Church condemns, reproves, anathematizes …whoever holds opposing or contrary views."

LONGINQUA (continued): "6. The main factor, no doubt, in bringing things into this happy state were the ordinances and decrees of your synods, especially of those which in more recent times were convened and confirmed by the authority of the Apostolic See. But, moreover (a fact which it gives pleasure to acknowledge), thanks are due to the equity of the laws which obtain in America and to the customs of the well-ordered Republic. For the Church amongst you, unopposed by the Constitution and government of your nation, fettered by no hostile legislation, protected against violence by the common laws and the impartiality of the tribunals, is free to live and act without hindrance. Yet, though all this is true, it would be very erroneous to draw the conclusion that in America is to be sought the type of the most desirable status of the Church, or that it would be universally lawful or expedient for State and Church to be, as in America, dissevered and divorced. The fact that Catholicity with you is in good condition, nay, is even enjoying a prosperous growth, is by all means to be attributed to the fecundity with which God has endowed His Church, in virtue of which unless men or circumstances interfere, she spontaneously expands and propagates herself; but she would bring forth more abundant fruits if, in addition to liberty, she enjoyed the favor of the laws and the patronage of the public authority."

So there's the one sentence above that Leo XIII makes in support of Pope Pius IX's dogmatic condemnations. But there's more double talk, or heretical language, in that very paragraph. How's the Catholic Church in America "unopposed by the Constitution" or "fettered by no hostile legislation"? Can somebody please explain that one to me? Or how is Catholicity in America "in good condition" when its immigrant-citizens from Catholic countries are required to swear a heretical oath to defend and uphold America's constitution, which excludes the Catholic God of His rightful position as sovereign ruler over the state, and of being the sole object of public worship?

Constitution of the United States, First Amendment (Establishment clause): "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, #78, Dec. 8, 1864, ex cathedra: "Hence in certain regions of Catholic name, it has been laudably sanctioned by law that men immigrating there be allowed to have public exercises of any form of worship of their own." - CONDEMNED

LONGINQUA (continued): "4. Nor, perchance did the fact which We now recall take place without some design of divine Providence. Precisely at the epoch when the American colonies, having, with Catholic aid, achieved liberty and independence, coalesced into a constitutional Republic the ecclesiastical hierarchy was happily established amongst you; and at the very time when the popular suffrage placed the great Washington at the helm of the Republic, the first bishop was set by apostolic authority over the American Church. The well-known friendship and familiar intercourse which subsisted between these two men seems to be an evidence that the United States ought to be conjoined in concord and amity with the Catholic Church. And not without cause; for without morality the State cannot endure-a truth which that illustrious citizen of yours, whom We have just mentioned, with a keenness of insight worthy of his genius and statesmanship perceived and proclaimed."

Washington, a Freemason, (a worshiper of Lucifer!), proclaimed by Leo XIII to be "great" and "illustrious"!  SCANDAL!  This man does NOT deserve the benefit of the doubt in his "troublesome" words and heretical propositions.  Speaking of heretical propositions:

Antipope Leo XIII, Arcanum, #36: "Yet, no one doubts that Jesus Christ, the Founder of the Church, willed her sacred power to be distinct from the civil power, and each power to be free and unshackled in its own sphere:"

Jesus Christ clearly never willed the State's civil power to be free or unshackled (i.e. separated) from His Church, as seen by the following dogmatic condemnation from Pope Pius IX:

Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, #55, Dec. 8, 1864, ex cathedra: "The Church is to be separated from the state, and the state from the Church." - CONDEMNED

The Church is the head of the state. She rules over the state. In the Catholic kingdom, the Pontiff reigns supreme. The Church happily delegates certain civil matters to the jurisdiction of the state and state heads, but the Church is sovereign in Christendom and has final moral authority over all matters where the souls of men are concerned, including secular matters that threaten the souls of men.  If the Church commands a State official to strike down a bad law, for example, that official truly has the obligation before God Himself to do so.

Yet Leo XIII tries to cover his heresy by talking out of both sides of his mouth:

ARCANUM (continued): "with this condition, however -- a condition good for both, and of advantage to all men -- that union and concord should be maintained between them; and that on those questions which are, though in different ways, of common right and authority, the power to which secular matters have been entrusted should happily and becomingly depend on the other power which has in its charge the interests of heaven. In such arrangement and harmony is found not only the best line of action for each power, but also the most opportune and efficacious method of helping men in all that pertains to their life here, and to their hope of salvation hereafter. For, as We have shown in former encyclical letters, the intellect of man is greatly ennobled by the Christian faith, and made better able to shun and banish all error, while faith borrows in turn no little help from the intellect; and in like manner, when the civil power is on friendly terms with the sacred authority of the Church, there accrues to both a great increase of usefulness. The dignity of the one is exalted, and so long as religion is its guide it will never rule unjustly; while the other receives help of protection and defense for the public good of the faithful."

To retract that heresy that the civil power needs to be "free", and "unshackled" from the Church, you are basically going to have to take white-out to the entire first sentence. Teaching that the the Church and the civil power should have "union" and "concord" and be on "friendly terms" is not good enough. SUBJECTION is the word that we are looking for. The Church and the state cannot be separate because the Church is of a higher order, the spiritual realm, to which the state must be subject, or "shackled" to use Leo's word.

Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, #39, Dec. 8, 1864, ex cathedra: "The State, as being the origin and source of all rights, is endowed with a certain right not circumscribed by any limits." - CONDEMNED

The state does need to be "shackled" by the Church, that is the limits to its authority are to be circumscribed by the Church, and Pope Boniface VIII clearly and undeniably taught in Unam Sanctam, while exercising the plenitude of his Apostolic authority, with the intention of binding all Christians, the following doctrine of Faith and Morals, handed down by the Apostles:

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, 1302, ex cathedra: "We are informed by the texts of the gospels that in this Church and in its power are two swords; namely, the spiritual and the temporal... For with truth as our witness, it belongs to spiritual power to establish the terrestrial power and to pass judgement if it has not been good... This authority, however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, 'Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven' etc., [Mt 16:19]. Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2], unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings, which is false and judged by us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth [Gen 1:1]. Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

It's clear from this that it is a dogma that the Church holds SUPREME authority above and beyond all kings and princes of the earth.

And yet there is STILL more.  Leo XIII publicly gave the Virgin Mary a novel and heretical title. Please read Blessed Virgin Mary: Co-Redeemer?.

There is no defense for Leo XIII! I once tried, just as I tried in vain to defend Antipope Benedict XV, but I was wrong, wrong, wrong! I was trying to explain away heresy in order to defend both of these men, but in so doing I made myself guilty as well! No more!

Thank God I have good friends who have a zeal for the truth and who have helped me to come out of my fog.

Leo XIII, Pius X, with their death-dealing heretical tongues, are anathema by the instruction of St. Paul.  By their more subtle heresies they initiated a movement that grew big enough and bold enough to revolutionize the true religion, and in so doing, depart from it, to their peril.  To acknowledge Leo XIII and his successors as legitimate heads of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, is to render the promis of God null.


  1. One Faith, One Baptism, One God

    Welcome. Im sorry but I have some informations about IX. Pius ass well. He is was a liberal freemason. He just started his carrier and gave a democratic government to Rome. The NewYork Time write about him in 1874 like a freemason. He sent the papal stone to the washington monument what was building by the freemasons. He was beleiving in some heresies too like the Invincible Ignorance. But later close to end of his life in turn already towards the Conservatism. His best friends like Antonio Antonelli cardinal, Franz Liszt were a freemasons ass well.

    I think the last pope is Gregory XVI.

  2. Friend, I believe you are terribly mistaken. I have omitted the links to Freemasonic websites you included in your original comment, because I do not trust them to be honest about such things. However, I considered this idea that you have proposed over 7 years ago, and find the idea to be erroneous. Here is why:

    Also, it is not enough to say "invincible ignorance is heresy". If you specify exactly what you consider to be heresy about it (which I am guessing is "it is heresy to say that souls can be saved if they die in invincible ignorance of the Catholic Faith"), you will find that Pius IX never taught such a thing at all.

  3. Are schismatics and heretics Christians? Is there a such thing as "seperated brethren"? If no, why does Antipope "Pius IX" teach that there is a such thing as "separated brethren" and imply that UnOrthodox and Reformed Protestants are Christians (Iam Vos Omnes, September 13th 1968) well after he condemned the proposition that "Protestantism is another form of Christianity" (Noscitis, December 8th 1849; Syllabus of Errors, #18, December 8th 1864)?

  4. Mike, great questions!

    "Are schismatics and heretics Christians?"

    Not, properly so called, as Christians hold the true Faith. But they are indeed *fallen away* Christians, having received baptism, which marks them indelibly.

    "Is there a such thing as "seperated brethren"?"

    In fact, the term is not used at all in the encyclical you mentioned.

    But since you bring it up, the term *can*, however, have an orthodox meaning, when considering that, again, valid baptism endows one with the mark of a Christian, membership in the Church, and, for example in the case of infants, truly bestows Faith, Hope and Charity. Such a person, as long as no impediment is proposed is a member of Christ, a son and heir of God, and brethren to all faithful Catholics. Once an impediemnt is proposed, such as the profession of heresy, or rejection of papal authority, these brethren are separated, and indeed no longer brethren. Despite this truth, the term has come to be abused. It is used now by the modern apostates in what seems to be a bid to create feelings of fellowship between Catholics, or "Catholics" and the many groups who call themselves Christian. The goal seems to be to dissuade attempts at conversion.

  5. "If no, why does Antipope "Pius IX" teach that there is a such thing as "separated brethren" and imply that UnOrthodox and Reformed Protestants are Christians (Iam Vos Omnes, September 13th 1968) well after he condemned the proposition that "Protestantism is another form of Christianity" (Noscitis, December 8th 1849; Syllabus of Errors, #18, December 8th 1864)?"

    Pius IX condemned the proposition that "Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion", and it is obvious when reading Iam Vos Omnes that what he says therein is not remotely close to the condemned error, and in fact is motivated by his ardent desire that those outside the Church should come to see the truth that their religions are false.

    Besides, Pius IX did not use this term "separated brethren", although he did use language that was quite diplomatic and entreating, rather than condemnatory. His goal was clearly to convert those who *call* themselves Christians by exhorting them as a loving father (which given their presumed valid baptisms, he has a certain right to do so, cf. Trent, Canon VII on Baptism), just as God has a right to call those back to his covenant who have left it, or whose ancestors had been faithful to Him.

    Deut. 32:6-7: "Is this the return thou makest to the Lord, O foolish and senseless people? Is not he thy father, that hath possessed thee, and made thee, and created thee? Remember the days of old, think upon every generation"

    Answer: No, He is not their Father, not until they return, as the verse just before shows.

    Deut. 32:5: "They have sinned against him, and are not of his children in their filth: they are a wicked and perverse generation."

    But in the saying "Is not he thy father", is like saying "Why do you reject Him as your father?", and it exhorts them to return for love of Him, and assures them He will be their Father if they do.

    So yes, Protestants, heretics and schismatics, with valid baptism, are *fallen away* Christians, and the pope certainly has the right and duty to urge them lovingly back into the fold, that they wander not in the paths of destruction, but nestle securely in the Faith, Hope and Charity of Holy Mother the Church.

    The pope did no more than the Lord in Deuteronomy 32; it's clear from Iam Vos that his purpose is conversion, rather than placating into thinking they can be saved out of the Church. By Baptism they were made his children, by loss of Faith they have wandered from the flock, and lost their inheritance; the pope lovingly and gently exhorts them to be his faithful children once again.

    Frankly, taking issue simply because he diplomatically omits "fallen" before Christian, as though his message of the need for their conversion were thereby less abundantly clear, is straining gnats and swallowing camels.

  6. Let me rephrase the questions and point out that he used the words "Christians separated from Us". Is there a such thing as "Christians separated from Us"?


    If the term "separated brethren" ever had an orthodox meaning, then you did you expose Antipope "Leo XIII" for teaching the "separated brethren" heresy in a "prayer" he introduced? You can't have it both ways.


    There's no such thing as "separated brethren" of "Christians separated from Us". That's why no Christian ever used those terms and stayed a Christian.


    I guess you just wanted to do more semantics and play more word games? I hate to be the one to inform you but there's no explaining this away. The Doctors of the Church unanimously taught - which means it's a Dogma defined by the Ordinary Magisterium (Matthew 16:18-19; 18:17-18) - that only Catholics are Christians. Period. There's no such thing as a "fallen away Christian". There are ex-Christians.


    Antipope "Pius IX" clearly favored diplomacy over Faith. This is very easy for someone of good will to understand.

  7. Mike, for all your verbosity, you have ignored the context of what Pius IX taught. It is true there are no Christians out of the Church, of course. But there are many that call themselves such. The way that Pius IX used the term does not mean he thinks or even expressed that they are true Christians. The context of his letter clearly expresses the opposite, that heretics and schismatics do not in fact profess the true Faith, nor can they be saved out of the Church. But in your opinion, using the term Christian for heretics and schismatics, even if is clear from his message that he believes they are such in name only, and not in reality, is enough to make him not a Christian. But such rash contempt of terms despite their context would have you condemn Saint Paul for quoting the pagan poets, who referred to Zeus:

    "For in him we live, and move, and are; as some also of your own poets said: For we are also his offspring." - Acts 17:28

    Or for "apostatizing from Christianity" to make converts: "And I became to the Jews, a Jew, that I might gain the Jews:" - 1 Cor. 9:20

    Obviously, ignoring context because you don't like how a word was used leads to wrong conclusions and sins against charity. Frankly, this should be sufficient to overcome your objection, but let us go a little deeper, anyway.

  8. "Is there a such thing as "Christians separated from Us"?"

    Actually, I have a question for you to ponder: Do words exist in a vacuum devoid of context? I will repeat this latter word many times, because it (context) seems to be something you have ignored, and to your peril, as by doing so you are imputing some heresy to Pope Pius IX that he never actually expressed, even expressing the opposite. Context is everything.

    "I guess you just wanted to do more semantics and play more word games?"

    I was not aware that paying attention what people are actually saying in context amounted to "word games". Do we require word games to explain that Paul did not really believe Zeus is God, or that he did not actually become a Jew? No, we require context.

    If Pope Pius IX's use of the word "Christian" *contextually* [that is, by the words around it, and its relationship to them] supported the notion that he believed they were *true* Christians in their present state, or that they were sons and heirs of God in their present state, or that they could be saved in their present state, then you would surely have a valid complaint.

    Does his use of "Christian" in ANY way imply or suggest that they are Christian in anything other than name, and a name in fact that they have usurped? Did he have to directly state "false" Christian, despite explicitly stating they do not profess the *true* Faith. Obviously what is not true is false, so it is clear that he means they are false Christians, without having to beat them over the head with it. Maybe you need to be beaten over the head with this fact?

    The context of the ENTIRE letter shows Pope Pius IX affirming that there is only one true Faith, and he says nothing at all to imply that the heretics and schismatics he addresses profess true faith while they remain heretics and schismatics. No not in any of the wording of the letter, not even in "Christians separated from us". He *obviously* considers them *fallen away* Christians, *false* Christians, *ex* Christians, *pseudo* Christians, or however one want to word it! He gave his use of the word this context at the beginning of his letter by the phrase: "and glory in *the name of* Christian, yet *do not profess the true faith of Christ*, nor hold to and follow the Communion of the Catholic Church". In this phrase he, albeit gently, indicated that even though they take the name of Christian for themselves, and even glory in it, they do not embrace the reality thereof. His later use of the word Christian obviously follows the same context.

  9. "If the term "separated brethren" ever had an orthodox meaning, then you did you expose Antipope "Leo XIII" for teaching the "separated brethren" heresy in a "prayer" he introduced?You can't have it both ways."

    Perhaps I pay more attention to context and distinctions that you do.

    Pius IX proposed the return of those not professing the true Faith as the condition in which they could be lovingly welcomed "home of their Heavenly Father". Once they return to the Catholic Faith, guess what? They would be home to their Heavenly Father, because God is the Father of Catholics, which they would then be! Pope Pius did not state that they are his children in their present state, nor that God is their Father in their present state. Nothing he said supports the idea that those who are still outside the Church have any claim at all to sonship or heirdom with God.

    Antipope Leo XIII, on the other hand, stated in his prayer "our separated brethren *who are **still** they children*, and further down "If our unhappy brethren continue in separation from *our common Father*". This is a definite distinction between what the two men said. Both men were expressing the hope of conversion, but Pius IX did not expressly state that God is their Father in their present state, whereas Leo XIII did, not to mention he proposed a prayer to Mary regarding the "Mussulmans and other infidels" [...] "who are, like us, thy children" - people who do not even pretend a claim to the name of Christian, let alone glory in it. The two men said two totally different things.

    Just consider the quote from Antipope Leo's Adiutricem: "the dying Savior bequeathed His Mother to His disciple John in the memorable testament: "Behold thy son." Now in John, as the Church has constantly taught, Christ designated the whole human race, and in the first rank are they who are joined with Him by faith. It is in this sense that St. Anselm of Canterbury says: "What dignity, O Virgin, could be more highly prized than to be the Mother of those to whom Christ deigned to be Father and Brother!"

    Antipope Leo pushes the notion (in the manner of speech condemned by Pope Pius VI in Auctorem Fidei) that the whole human race is under the motherhood of Mary and in the family of Christ. Pope Pius IX does nothing of the sort. Leo's words do not need to be changed to understand them heretically; Pius IX's words always have to be twisted, no, TORTURED out of context to support a heretical interpretation. Pius IX did not use the word Christians in any manner contrary to the unanimous understanding of the Fathers that all those outside the Church profess a false faith, but in a manner that upheld this truth.

    If you remain hell bent (worded thus on purpose) on rejecting Pius IX based on this obviously contextually orthodox message, then it avails you nothing but to say he lost office in the Church just before the Vatican Council, and that none of the dogmatic definitions thereof are binding. All that, because you ignored the context of his professing and expressing that heretics and schismatics are not true Christians, nor hold the true Faith, and must return to the Church to be received as sons of God. Pope Pius IX here and everywhere else professed the true doctrine of faith, not heresy as you wildly imagine.

  10. Pius IX was the last pope according to right reason, and the La Salette messages.

  11. La Salette messages all point to Pius IX as last pope...

  12. Thank you for the comment. I had a similar notion a few years ago, but never published anything about it, because I don't like to put too much stock in private revelations, especially not the more recent ones. The faith is the best standard of measure anyway, which is why I can only shake my head when people dig their heels into the Fatima events. That said, I have not really looked at the La Salette info in great detail recently.