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. "
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, reeking of 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. If you read "Leo XIII was NEVER pope" you will see he manifested this belief before he ever ascended to the [anti]papacy, not to mention his belief in heliocentrism, which is not addressed in the current article.
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."
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.
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).
"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."
Sorry, Antipope Leo, but you have contradicted another dogma:
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.
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:
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?.