The Lie That's Dismantling Marriages

 

To My Readers: This week's post comes from a new guest poster who has been a long time reader of my blog. He sent me this submission regarding Traditionalist Catholic marriages and a false notion of separating in a time of sedevacante. He said it has been affecting some marriages. It is well-researched, well-written, and charitable in tone. I've never touched on this subject before and I think you'll find it as interesting as I did. The guest poster is remainng anonymous and goes by the moniker Ozson. Please feel free to leave comments as always. If anyone has a specific comment or question for me, I will respond as usual, but it make take me a bit longer to do so this week.  

God bless you all, my dear readers---Introibo

No Bishop, No Rules? The Quiet Lie That's Dismantling Traditional Catholic Marriages

By Ozson

Meet "Private Judgment Patricia."

(The name says everything. As you'll see.)

Patricia is a regular at her local traditional chapel.

Ten years of marriage. Several children. A domestic life that has grown heavy.

And lately... she's been doing a lot of reading.

Blog posts mostly.

The kind with titles like "5 Signs Your Husband Is Controlling"...

And "How To Recognize Emotional Abuse Before It's Too Late"...

She's also been seeing a counselor.

A modern one.

The kind who hands her a checklist on the third session.

And suddenly...

Everything her husband does gets a label.

He expects order in the home? Controlling.

He requires obedience from the children? Authoritarian.

He demands respect as head of the household? Emotionally abusive.

He leads with a firm hand according to the laws God Himself established? Toxic masculinity.

Never mind that the Church has always taught that the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church.

(Ephesians 5:23)

Never mind that order, obedience, and respect within the family are not abuses...

They are obligations.

Sacred ones.

But Patricia has a new vocabulary now.

And a new community to validate it.

In chapel community groups.

In private conversations after Mass and at brunch.

In the quiet, incense-heavy circles where bad ideas are not immune.

And somewhere in those conversations, a conclusion forms.

"There's no bishop here. No tribunal. No Ordinary to answer to."

"So I will judge this myself."

On a Tuesday morning, Patricia moves into her own residence.

She sits her husband down.

Looks him in the eye.

And tells him she is not asking for a divorce.

"I would never do that," she says.

"We're still married. I just cannot live under your roof anymore."

"I cannot continue to submit to your will."

Then she opens her Bible.

Ephesians 5:25.

"Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the Church."

She slides it across the table.

"You don't love me the way Christ loved the Church," she says.

"Because I don't FEEL loved anymore."

And there it is.

The feeling.

The blog post.

The counselor's checklist.

All of it weaponized to justify walking out the door...

While technically keeping her hands clean of the word "divorce."

And she begins her new life as an independent woman.

Patricia's story is not an isolated incident.

It is a mirror reflecting a widespread and growing error.

Many spouses in traditional circles have come to believe that the current state of the Church grants them a "private right" to separate on their own accord.

Especially when the modern world has handed them a ready-made excuse wrapped in therapeutic language.

So long as nobody files paperwork... it isn't really a sin.

This is a grave theological and canonical mistake.

Catholic teaching is unequivocal:

Marriage is a public sacrament.

Its bond is indissoluble by any human power.

And the right to separate is never a matter of private whim — never a matter of hurt feelings — and never a matter of therapeutic checklists...

Even, and perhaps especially, in a time of complete modernism.

The Public Nature of the Sacramental Bond

The foundational error in the "self-separation" of some ill-informed Sede’s is the belief that marriage is a private contract that can be rescinded when the parties feel it has "failed." On the contrary, the Church teaches that marriage is an intensely public act with profound social and sacramental consequences. The contract of marriage between two baptized persons was raised by Christ Himself to the dignity of a Sacrament (Code of Canon Law, Canon 1012; Moral and Pastoral Theology, Henry Davis, S.J., Vol. 4, p. 64). Because it is a Sacrament, the marriage bond falls under the exclusive and independent jurisdiction of the Church, not the state, and certainly not the private judgment of the spouses (The Sources of Dogma, Heinrich Denzinger, n. 1500a; Moral Theology: A Complete Course Based on St. Thomas Aquinas, John A. McHugh, O.P. and Charles J. Callan, O.P., Vol. 2, n. 2785).

When a couple stands before a priest and witnesses, they do not merely make a promise to each other; they enter into a "lasting conjugal union... raised to the dignity of a Sacrament" (A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law, Charles Augustine, O.S.B., Vol. 5, p. 4). This union is modeled on the relationship between Christ and His Church, which is perpetual and unbreakable (Moral Theology, Heribert Jone, O.F.M. Cap., n. 744; Ephesians 5:22-32).

The Grave Obligation of the Common Life and the Conjugal Debt

The Church’s law regarding the "common life" is a rigorous obligation. Spouses are bound sub gravi (under pain of grave sin) to live together and maintain the community of life (Moral Theology, Heribert Jone, O.F.M. Cap., n. 128; Moral and Pastoral Theology, Henry Davis, S.J., Vol. 4, p. 147).

This "common life" or cohabitatio is demanded by the very nature of the marriage promises (Moral Theology: A Complete Course Based on St. Thomas Aquinas, John A. McHugh, O.P. and Charles J. Callan, O.P., Vol. 2, n. 2626).

Furthermore, we must recognize the gravity of the marital obligations themselves. To separate means to refuse the marriage debt, which is a mortal sin (A Catechism for Adults, Rev. William Cogan, 1958, p. 143).

The rendering of marital dues is an obligation of justice; to refuse marital relations for a whim or minor inconveniences is to violate a grave contract and expose the partner to sin (Moral and Pastoral Theology, Henry Davis, S.J., Vol. 4, p. 202). Leaving the domestic roof without a legitimate and certain cause is defined as the "delict of desertion" (Catholic Encyclopedia, "Divorce," Vol. 5).

The 1917 Code of Canon Law is explicit: "Married people are bound to preserve a community of conjugal life unless a just cause excuses them" (Code of Canon Law, Canon 1128; Cohabitation and Separation of Married Persons, Rev. Culvar Bernard Alford, p. 1).

The Strict Standard for Permanent Separation (Adultery)

The Church allows for permanent separation only in the case of adultery, and this is hedged with strict evidentiary requirements. The adultery must be "morally certain" and not "condoned" (Code of Canon Law, Canon 1129; Moral and Pastoral Theology, Henry Davis, S.J., Vol. 4, p. 149).

In this context, "certainty" refers specifically to the carnal act itself. It is not sufficient to point to "kissing" or even "fellatio" as grounds for permanent separation. While these are grave sins of impurity, the legal ground for separation requires the consummated act of infidelity (A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law, Charles Augustine, O.S.B., Vol. 5, p. 225). "Moral certainty" requires objective proof, such as:

1. Direct Evidence: Witnessing the act itself.
2. Confession: A voluntary and definitive admission.
3. Biological Proof: The birth of a child that cannot biologically be the husband’s (Moral Theology: A Complete Course Based on St. Thomas Aquinas, John A. McHugh, O.P. and Charles J. Callan, O.P., Vol. 2, n. 2831; Moral Theology, Heribert Jone, O.F.M. Cap., n. 763).

Unbearable Cruelty vs. Modern "Incompatibility"

A frequent excuse for temporary separation in traditional circles is "mental cruelty" or "misunderstandings." However, the Church’s standard for saevitia (cruelty) is absolute. As William J. Doheny notes:

“Unbearable Cruelty Which Renders Conjugal Life Insupportable [is a ground for temporary separation …] The Latin term saevitia means excessive or unbearable cruelty, harshness, extreme severity, fierceness, and barbarity. What is called cruelty, by way of travesty, in modern divorce courts could not be viewed as saevitia, in the sense of canon 1131 §1.

Hence, the so-called incompatibility of temperament, divergence of views, and the like would not be considered sufficient to invoke separation” (Canonical Procedure in Matrimonial Cases, Volume II, Informal Procedure, William J. Doheny, 1944, p. 634).

Frequent quarrels are likewise insufficient. Marion Gibbons clarifies that the Holy See does not regard them as a "just cause":

“Frequent quarrels, in themselves, are not regarded by the Holy See as a ‘just cause’ even for a temporary separation, as is clearly seen from a decision of the Rota in the year 1928… In this case the alleged cause in modern parlance would have been termed ‘incompatibility of temperament’… The Sacred Rota declared that the frequent quarrels were due to avarice rather than ‘implacable hatred,’ and refused to grant a temporary separation inasmuch as a ‘just cause’ was not present” (Domicile of the Wife Unlawfully Separated from her Husband, Marion Gibbons, 1947, p. 62-63, citing Roman Rota, coram Florczak, June 30, 1928).

The Roman Rota explicitly states that “[L]ight injustices from abusive words or the incompatibility of the personalities of the spouses which make cohabitation troublesome cannot be considered as sufficient causes to separate the spouses” (Roman Rota, coram Florczak, June 30, 1928, par. no. 2).

Physical and Spiritual Peril

Temporary separation is permitted for "grave bodily or spiritual danger" (Code of Canon Law, Canon 1131, §1). Physical peril includes severe beatings or threats to life, not merely a "stern" husband. Spiritual peril involves being forced into mortal sin, such as "onanistic" practices (contraception) or being forced to provide children with a non-Catholic education (Moral and Pastoral Theology, Henry Davis, S.J., Vol. 4, p. 147; The Kingship of Christ and the Conversion of the Jewish Nation, Rev. Denis Fahey, p. 110).

Non-Catholic education refers to formal acts like enrolling children in secular schools where "immoral doctrines" like radical feminism are mandatory, or taking them to heretical services (The Casuist, Vol. 5, p. 1; A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law, Charles Augustine, O.S.B., Vol. 5, p. 363). In these cases, the spouse may separate only while the danger persists and must resume life as soon as it ceases (Canon 1131, §2).

The Duty of Reinstatement and the Restoring of Cohabitation

The modern "self-separation" movement ignores the right of the deserted spouse to demand the restoration of the union. When one partner leaves on their own authority, they commit a "spoliation" (spolium) of the other’s rights.

“Either of the pair leaves the other of his or her own authority; for the one who is thus left is unjustly deprived by the other of his conjugal rights… the rule is, that the ecclesiastical judge, upon due application by the injured party, should, speaking in general, forthwith decree reinstatement—that is, restore him or her to his or her conjugal rights by obliging the party that left of his or her own accord to return” (Elements of Ecclesiastical Law: Vol. II, Fifth Edition, Rev. Sebastian Bach Smith, 1887).

This is not a matter of personal "space," but of legal and moral restitution. The deserting consort should be "entreated to return" and the judge may use judicial actions to force that return if the reason for departure was unjust (Canonical Procedure in Matrimonial Cases, Doheny, 1944, p. 659; The Canonical Procedure in Separation Cases, James P. King, 1952, p. 90).

The Jurisdiction Trap: The Role of the Ordinary and Civil Filing

The central error of "self-separation" is the belief that a lack of an Ordinary grants a wife jurisdiction over her own case. This is false. Even if a marriage were truly invalid, "no priest, however certain he may be of the status of such a case, can pass judgment on it" (The Casuist, Vol. 5, p. 15).

Furthermore, to file for civil divorce without the Bishop’s permission is a grave sin. In the United States, Article 126 from the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore stated it was a "grave sin to file for civil separation (or divorce) without first having the Bishop’s permission". This requirement is maintained in Canon 1692 §2, which specifies the Bishop "can grant permission to approach the civil forum" only after weighing special circumstances. Without this, the party is practicing "ecclesiastical anarchy."

Consequences: Custody, Support, and the Harm to Children

When a separation occurs, the Church’s laws on the effects are clear and prioritize the innocent party.

• Custody: "After the separation, the children are to be placed in charge of the innocent party" (The New Canon Law, Stanislaus Woywod, 1918, p. 231; Canon 1132).
• Support: If a husband causes the separation, "he is bound to support her [the wife] for the rest of her life... in the same manner he was supporting her before the separation took place" (The Canonical Separation of Consorts, Rev. Eugene Forbes, 1948, p. 239). The "guilty" party does not get to walk away from their financial obligations.  […] If the mother were the cause, they [the children] were to be raised by the father at the mother’s expense, especially in a case where she was wealthy” [pages 239, 241]).

The harm to children is the most catastrophic consequence. Separation deprives them of the "stable environment" necessary for moral development, often turning them into "orphans of living parents".

Conclusion: Fidelity as a Counter-Revolutionary Act

In an age of "no-fault divorce" and "fickle whim," the traditional Catholic family must be a sign of contradiction (Encyclical Letter Arcanum, Pope Leo XIII). The "story of Patricia" must end not in an apartment of her own, but in a humble return to the domestic roof. Fidelity in the desert requires a traditional obedience to the husband as head of the family and to the unbreakable laws of the Sacrament. To leave a husband on one's own accord is to follow the path of the world; to stay and carry the Cross of Matrimony is the only path to the Kingdom (Moral Theology: A Complete Course Based on St. Thomas Aquinas, Vol. 2, n. 2787).

MAID To Die

 

On December 30, 2025, 26 year-old Kiano Vafaeian of Canada ended his life through the country's "Medical Aid In Dying" (MAID)law, enacted in 2016. Vafaeian was diagnosed with type one diabetes as a toddler. Years later, he was diagnosed with diabetic retinopathy, losing all of his vision in one eye and 70% of his vision in the other eye. Vafaeian's mother claimed that because of his conditions and a difficult childhood, her son struggled with his mental health for years. By the time he reached his early 20s, she knew he wasn’t doing okay. (See people.com/mom-outraged-son-approved-for-medical-aid-in-dying-mental-illness-11894589). A "doctor" (I use that term loosely in this context) allowed a mentally ill man who was not terminally ill to be murdered. His parents were outraged that their mentally ill son had his life taken, even as they saw nothing wrong with the law for the terminally ill. 

The MAID law allows patients with terminal illnesses to end their lives with lethal medication either taken themselves or administered by a physician or nurse. The current MAID law in Canada does not apply to people with mental illnesses. An expansion to the law, which would include those with mental illness, is currently set to go into effect in March 2027. 

Many years ago (1990 to be precise), I began a public awareness campaign to let people know that the so-called "right-to-die" being advocated by the likes of Jack Kervorkian would eventually become a "duty-to-die." Jack Kervorkian (1928-2011) was a physician who helped 130 people kill themselves. 

After four failed prosecutions, Michigan authorities sent Kevorkian to prison for 10 to 25 years in 1999 on second-degree murder charges after he videotaped himself giving Thomas Youk, who had the debilitating ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease), a lethal cocktail of chemicals. The tape was aired on national television. Kevorkian served eight years in prison before being released in 2007.

Fast forward to 2020, and look what has happened since the time of "Dr. Death" (as the media dubbed Kervorkian). The highest court in Germany declared that committing suicide is a fundamental right — for everybody and for any reason — and that being assisted or assisting others in the act are ancillary rights associated with that "liberty." In other words, death on demand. Now, in 2025 the Supreme Court of Estonia followed the same course as Germany. As of last year, euthanasia is the fifth-leading cause of death in Canada, with more than 15,000 patients murdered ("MAIDed") annually.

According to one source, here's how low Canada (and society at large) has fallen:

The details of the assisted-death experience have become a preoccupation of Canadian life. Patients meticulously orchestrate their final moments, planning celebrations around them: weekend house parties before a Sunday-night euthanasia in the garden; a Catholic priest to deliver last rites; extended-family renditions of “Auld Lang Syne” at the bedside.

For $10.99, you can design your MAID experience with the help of the Be Ceremonial app; suggested rituals include a story altar, a forgiveness ceremony, and the collecting of tears from witnesses. On the Disrupting Death podcast, hosted by an educator and a social worker in Ontario, guests share ideas on subjects such as normalizing the MAID process for children facing the death of an adult in their life — a pajama party at a funeral home; painting a coffin in a schoolyard. 

(See theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2025/09/canada-euthanasia-demand-maid-policy/683562; Emphasis mine).

A Vatican II sect minister giving "last rites" before someone takes their life and children having pajama parties at funeral homes; am I the only one who is seriously disturbed by the very thought of such things?  In the Canadian Journal of Bioethics, philosopher Wayne Sumner wrote the following:

If we regard an increasing number of joint replacements or abortions as success, with supply having risen to meet demand, why should we think that an increasing number of MAiD provisions is a failure, or somehow a problem? If more awareness, more providers, and more support are good things for these other services, why are they a bad thing for MAiD? Why should we think differently about MAiD than we do about other medical procedures? What's so special about MAiD? 

(See erudit.org/en/journals/bioethics/2025-v8-n4-bioethics010388/1121331ar). So MAID is "successful" like abortion and hip replacements? Euthanasia is suicide for the person who consents to be killed, and an act of murder for the one's who carry it out, or enable the victim to carry it out. Abortion is the murder of an innocent unborn baby. These are analogized to a hip replacement? 

The differences should be apparent:

• Euthanasia and abortion are the taking of a human life and are therefore not medical treatments at all, unlike a hip transplant
• Legalizing abortion paved the way for euthanasia. Life is cheap. If you doubt that, a recent poll of Canadians found 28% were in favor of euthanizing the homeless (See/researchco.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Tables_MAiD_CAN_05May2023.pdf). 
• Soon, it will be a matter of saving money. It won't be long before the only thing covered by medical insurance will be the lethal injection and embalming fluid

Let me be clear: euthanasia was never about a "merciful death," a "way to alleviate suffering," or "helping those with terminal illness," anymore than abortion was about "a woman's right to do what she wants with her body." It's about the exaltation of materialism and hedonism in a worldview that excludes God and His One True Church. 

The Teaching of the Church

 N.B. The following text is from Dr. Albert Niedermeyer, M.D., Ph.D. in his book Compendium of Pastoral Medicine. Published in 1961, this text was used by the Church in the Archdiocese of New York to train priests in the seminary. It contains a Nihil Obstat, Imprimi Potest, and carries an Imprimatur from Cardinal Spellman. It's hard to believe it was written 65 years ago, as it predicted with uncanny accuracy the dilemma we are in today. How wise Holy Mother Church!---Introibo

Euthanasia is the extreme consequence of a series of postulates which represent an ideological unity and which are directed against the sacred character of life: birth prevention, abortion, sterilization, suppressive selection. The rational principle common to all of these postulates is an absolutely temporal intention; a materialism not always well disseminated; the idea of an unlimited autonomy of man, with the elimination of a supernatural moral law and of responsibility before God as Creator, Legislator, and Supreme Judge.

Passing over the apparently harmless postulates--such as the licit alleviation of pain in incurables---there is the attempt little by little to attain more ample consequences; the concession of stronger doses of narcotics to "shorten the suffering" of incurables and dying persons, going as far as exterminating the insane and idiots who are designated as "useless human remains," as having "useless existences," etc., and finally eliminating the old and defective. [N.B. The good doctor's use of the word "idiot" is not the pejorative term applied to people who are unintelligent or foolish, as we use it today. It was a medical term for retarded persons who had and IQ below a 25 on the Binet scale.---Introibo].

The initial postulate to "help the dying" is transformed finally into an open destruction of life. The apparent humanity of the motive reveals itself a crass materialism...

The sacred character of life is the basis of medical morality. The doctor is not the lord of life and death. A conscientious doctor will always refuse to assume the role of an executioner, even if there is the attempt to glorify him with rhetorical exaltation and if there is attributed to the "selectionist doctor" the greatest dignity, and if, in his hands, the greatest power is placed.

Finally, even in the mental life of the apparently mentally dead, there are many unsolved enigmas. In many cases surprising facts have become known by discovering before immanent death a richness of mental life--buried under the surface---that was hidden in completely demented persons. We also do not know what takes place in the dying. We merely perceive that the last moments are of decisive importance. These last moments can bring to many dying persons a great amount of grace and can still save an apparently lost soul. 

When a man believes himself authorized to shorten, even by a few seconds, the life of his fellow creature, he deprives him of these decisive moments of grace---and in so doing, possibly still thinks he is benefitting him. From the higher supernatural viewpoint there is no useless life...

There is no defense of the rights of man if, from the beginning to the end, there is no respect for the right to life, and, in consequence, respect for the Creator and Preserver of Life. The right to life is of iuris divini, and hence absolute, universally obliging and inalienable. (pgs. 202-204; Emphasis mine). 

Conclusion

In the days of Pope Pius XII, Canada's program would have been met with swift, vigorous, and unrelenting condemnation; excommunications upon all involved. What encyclicals, excommunications, and denunciations have come out of Prevost's Modernist Vatican? When Portugal enacted euthanasia in 2023, the AP news recorded this response from Bergoglio:

 “Today when we celebrate the memory of the apparitions of the Virgin Mary to the little shepherds of Fatima, I am very sad, because in the country where Our Lady appeared, a law to kill has been enacted,” the pope said Saturday morning at the Vatican.

That's what I call a strong condemnation and taking action! The devaluing of human life continues unabated. We must do all we can to stop it. Vote, petition, pray--everything possible. Euthanasia is legal in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. In Europe, the practice is legal in Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Spain, according to Reuters. Medically assisted suicide is also legal in several other countries across the continent.

In the U.S., medical aid in dying (MAID) is authorized in 10 states, including New Jersey and California, as well as Washington D.C., according to [False] Compassion and [Forced]Choices, a nonprofit that “works to improve care and expand choice at the end of life" [read: "murder people"].

We must do all we can to protect ourselves and our loved ones (indeed all humans) from being subjected to a Morally Abominable Inflicted Death.

"I call heaven and earth to witness this day, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing. Choose therefore life, that both thou and thy seed may live: " (Deuteronomy 30:19). 

The Occult Life Coach

 

Recently, I saw Tony Robbins on his Tony Robbins Network (TRN), featuring news shows, live event coverage, and interviews aimed at personal development. Although I had heard of Robbins, it wasn't until a few years ago I realized he was an occultist. Now that he is getting even more popular with his bold AI powered app, I thought this would be a good time to warn Traditionalist about Robbins. 

(N.B. The information in this post has been taken from many sources, both online and in print. I take no credit for the material herein except for condensing it into a terse and readable post, as well as adding some commentary---Introibo). 

For those of you who don't know, Tony Robbins is billed as a motivational speaker, life coach, author, and philanthropist. He has molded a business empire with remarkable marketing savvy, and his clients include former President Bill Clinton, Oprah Winfrey, and Hugh Jackman. According to one source:

Tony Robbins is a prominent entrepreneur, motivational speaker, and life coach, widely recognized for his dynamic seminars designed to inspire personal and professional transformation. Born Anthony J. Mahavorick on February 29, 1960, in Glendora, California, Robbins faced significant challenges during his childhood, including poverty and family turmoil, which fueled his desire for success and helping others. After being influenced by motivational speaker Jim Rohn, Robbins entered the self-help industry, founding Robbins Research International in 1983 and publishing his influential book, Unlimited Power, in 1986. Robbins is known for his high-energy events, including the famous "Date with Destiny," where attendees experience activities like firewalking, which symbolize overcoming personal barriers. (See ebsco.com/research-starters/biography/tony-robbins).

The documentary, I Am Not Your Guru (2016), is the first time that Tony Robbins allowed his 6-day annual seminar, Date with Destiny, to be filmed. Each day ran about 12 hours and cost each person about $5,000 ($6,864 in today's market when adjusted for inflation). 

How Robbins' Seminars Work

The "God" Within.

The people (about 2,500 of them) at the seminar are divided into teams and team leaders get information from them that is relayed to Robbins. In one moving scene in the movie, Robbins asks those who are suicidal to stand up (knowing already from the team leaders that several are suicidal). He talks to one woman who tearfully recounts her life in the "Children of God" cult  and the sexual abuse in it that nearly destroyed her.

Robbins tells her she has survived because she is pure love since she survived the abuse. Sadly, this woman is not being told of Jesus and His Church. Instead, Robbins points her to herself, to her own supposed inner strength. He has her choose three men from the audience who agree to be her so-called "uncles" for the next 10 years and check in on her. Robbins also offers her training in his principles to allegedly make her more powerful. 

Hopefully, you can see the serious problems with this set-up. This woman does not really know who these men are or what they are like. Yet this vulnerable woman is to trust these men for 10 years as though they are "spiritual uncles" who will be there for her. How do we know one of them is not a psychopath, abuser, rapist, or swindler? Ironically, this woman who endured sexual abuse may be setting herself up for more abuse from these unknown men, and she has Robbins to thank for it. 

Having a "Breakthrough"

On the next to last day, Robbins asks those who have not had “breakthroughs” to stand. Several stand, and he has them write down, Stay in your head, and you’re dead. He tells them that it is not over yet. A "breakthrough" is an emotional response that makes you feel as if you "learned something" about yourself. Most often, it's about what you need to do in order to "be whole" (e.g., be more loving, etc.). 

The message that staying in your head (thinking) is a bad thing, is done to provoke emotional or even irrational responses. Teaching that you are thinking too much or in your head too much is a maneuver to undermine logical or clear thinking. This idea of thinking too much or that you should get out of your head is found throughout the teachings of cult leaders, Eastern paganism, the occult, and even in the Star Wars franchise. This is a ploy to downgrade critical thinking, an indispensable tactic for speakers like Robbins, cults, and belief systems that are against God. 

The Occult Visualization.

The audience later gets into groups of four to announce to the others who they are: I, Sarah, am love; I, Roger, am passion, and so forth, naming their "breakthrough." The point is to redesign your life according to whatever breakthrough one may have had. The confrontations in the smaller groups are more passionate and intense. 

The attendees also practice a fast-breathing exercise that involves raising hands up and down. They then stop, close their eyes, and breathe deeply while Robbins leads them in a guided meditation (visualization) about their "heart" as Eastern music plays. Some people put their hands on others’ heads as this is done. 

The identification with an emotion and experience, the breathing exercise, the physical touching, and the visualization are manipulations. The breathing exercise alters the mind to a suggestible state, as does the guided meditation. It causes altered states of consciousness, and thereby will also open one up to diabolic obsession or possession, as is done in pagan religions. 

Firewalking?

More than any other teaching or practice, firewalking is what initially drew the media to Tony Robbins. Does Robbins still promote firewalking? Yes. During his “Unleash the Power Within” conferences, for instance, attendees walk barefoot across a bed of hot coals that is some twelve feet long (taking about five or six steps to complete).

The term firewalking is itself a misnomer in that one does not walk across literal flames, but hot coals. Critics are quick to point out that walking across hot coals without getting burned is not a matter of positive mental thinking or religious mysticism, but merely physics. Just as placing your hand inside a hot oven will not burn you while touching metal in the oven will indeed burn, the solution to safe firewalking has to do with heat conductivity and thermal conduction. There’s also the factor of time. Firewalking over ten or twelve feet is literally over within a matter of just a few seconds or less — hardly enough time for hot coals to burn through the soles of the feet of the average person. 

The Pattern of a Cult Followed:

•  to expect something big
• to create emotional response
• to confront people with hard questions in an emotional context that yield a seeming cathartic breakthrough
• to praise people for rejecting something in their life that supposedly holds them back
• to have others there to affirm the changes (group think/peer pressure)

Tony Robbins: Deceptive and False Teachings

Hedonism

Robbins is quite clear about his belief that success in life is determined by our views of pain and pleasure. Indeed, changing our perspective of pain and pleasure, according to Robbins, is key to succeeding in life. Calling it “the force that shapes your life,” Robbins explains, “There is undoubtedly a single driving force behind all human behavior. This force impacts every facet of our lives, from our relationships to our finances to our bodies and brains. What is this force that is controlling you even now and will continue to do so for the rest of your life? PAIN and PLEASURE! Everything you and I do, we do either out of our need to avoid pain or our desire to gain pleasure."

(See Robbins, Awaken the Giant Within [1991], pgs. 52-53; Emphasis in original)

Within the Christian worldview, Christ is our highest good and our best pursuit, not our own pleasure. Christ told his followers not to focus on themselves, but to deny themselves, take up their cross, and follow Him (St. Matthew 16:24). 

Neuro-associative conditioning (NAC)

A form of Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP), it is neurological nonsense. According to Robbins, it is not enough merely to understand his perspective on pain and pleasure: “If you and I want to change our behavior, there is only one effective way to do it: we must link unbearable and immediate sensations of pain to our old behavior, and incredible and immediate sensations of pleasure to a new one.”

(See Awaken the Giant Within, pg.123).

The intent is to be able to create nearly instant change in any area of life, thus creating a changed "state,” as Robbins calls it. Consequently, a problem that may normally take much time and effort to address, such as a phobia, can supposedly be cured rapidly by applying Robbins’s NLP-inspired techniques.

However, does NAC have any validity? In a 2019 paper published in International Coaching Psychology Review, a group of experts wrote that: “there are many critics of NLP who view NLP as variably a pseudoscience, pop psychology or even a cult, with no evidence base for its effectiveness.”

(See researchgate.net/publication/330881008_The_Evidence_for_NLP_International_Coaching_

Psychology_Review_Vol_14_No_1_Spring_2019)

Even if, ad arguendo, NAC were true, there are some “states” that we are better off not changing instantly. For instance, God may wish to use pain, guilt, remorse, and other circumstances in order to help us mature as individuals, lead us to Him, and, in the long run, make us better people rather than desiring us immediately to vanquish such feelings.

Cognitive and Religious Relativism

In Awaken the Giant Within, Robbins writes, “The question is: which one of these beliefs is the true belief? The answer is that it doesn’t matter which one is true. What matters is which one is most empowering.” (pg. 79). Therefore, truth is relative. If you find atheism empowering, be an atheist. If you find Christianity empowering, be Christian. If you find pantheism to be empowering, be a pantheist.

Yet, as these beliefs are mutually exclusive (since they involve contradictory assertions), all cannot be true. Robbins is not concerned with the truth, but with reaching broader audiences with his message, allowing him to avoid criticizing or excluding his audience’s beliefs or traditions and getting more followers. 

His idea of empowerment is also a dangerous one. If feeling empowered is all that is necessary for something to be true/good and followed, what of a serial killer who finds murder empowering? Robbins never follows his teaching to its logical and dangerous conclusion. 

Robbins’s primary emphasis, however, comes across as sympathetic to Eastern religious ideas. Specific phrases and ideas are occult, such as when he writes, “Your reality is the reality you create." (See Robbins, Unlimited Power: The New Science of Personal Achievement, [1986], pg. 67). He often cites other occultists such as Deepak Chopra and Marianne Williamson. 

Visualization: The Occult Practice Exposed

Robbins ends with visualization/guided meditation, to make attendees "redesign their lives" and realize they can "create their own reality" for they are "god." By using your mind's eye to envision things, visualization claims you can actually make it happen. For example, visualization can supposedly be used to change one’s self-image from negative to positive by holding a positive image of oneself in the mind. Visualization may also serve to uncover a claimed “inner divinity” that can allegedly manipulate reality. By creating the proper mental image and environment and then holding it or projecting it outward, practitioners claim they can exercise mental power over every aspect of their lives. Related practices are also used in magick (i.e., occult) rituals to call on spirits in order to secure such goals.

Since the mind is potentially so powerful, proponents say, proper visualization methods can affect health, finances, educational abilities, relationships, career — and even one’s destiny. In the pagan Hindu and Buddhist religions, for example, the thought or image one holds at death is believed to powerfully influence one’s next life (the heretical doctrine of reincarnation). This is one reason given for adopting mental training exercises such as visualization. The influence of this practice cannot be overstated. 

Visualization is now employed in education at all ages, such as in counseling, creative writing, and problem-solving courses. It is also used to develop altered states of consciousness in students in order to acquire the capacity to reach “inner guides” or allegedly tap the “higher self” and its powers. It is used for enhanced learning potential, self-esteem, and stress reduction. 

Sports, exercise and health are using visualization and there is even a peer-reviewed journal dedicated to it, the Journal of Imagery Research in Sport and Physical Activity. The objective of the journal is stated as follows:

The Journal of Imagery Research in Sport and Physical Activity is the first peer-reviewed journal devoted to research on the role of imagery in sport, physical activity, exercise, and rehabilitation settings. Imagery, also referred to as cognitive enactment or visualization, is one of the most popular performance enhancement and rehabilitation techniques in sports and physical activity. Journal editor Sandra Moritz (University of North Dakota) is a recognized leader in the field, and the journal’s editorial board represents leading institutions in the U.S., U.K., and Canada. The single destination for all imagery-related research in sports and in physical activity, the Journal of Imagery Research in Sport and Physical Activity is an indispensable tool for scholars and practitioners of imagery, sports science, kinesiology, physical education, and psychology. (See degruyter.com/journal/key/jirspa/html?lang=en; Emphasis mine). 

Shamans, spiritists, magicians, and witches routinely use visualization, and it is commonly used in pagan/occult sects such as Rosicrucianism, Tantrism, Hinduism and Buddhism. 

There are three (3) basic reasons people get involved with visualization when they are not a member of a pagan religion or already involved in occult activity:

1. The Quest for Personal Power. Visualization promises people the ability to transform reality to their benefit. It is "God-like" power. You can “think yourself rich” (or healthy, handsome/beautiful, happy, etc.). 

2. The Quest for Spiritual Enlightenment. Visualization claims to be able to evoke "the wisdom that lies deep within us." Suddenly, information you never knew will be revealed to you in your mind's eye, or you will meet your spirit guide who will give you "wisdom."

3. The Quest for Physical Health. Wild claims are made that visualization can make you super-athletic and cure every known malady. 

Sounds just like Robbins' sales pitch. (N.B. There are also Vatican II sect "priests" who employ visualization, but that is outside the scope of this post, and that reason will not be discussed---Introibo).

The Dangers of Robbins Visualization:

People will come to believe heretical and occult teachings; specifically:

• Pantheism : Everything is interconnected by divine energy, the One power, or ultimate cosmic reality

• Humans are divine in their true nature and each person controls his personal destiny; he is an integral part of this divine energy and can realize this experientially through proper technique and instruction

• The mind of each human has “infinite” potential; the “higher self” or unconscious mind provides the connecting link to the infinite and is believed to be the repository of vast wisdom and ability

• Visualization is an important technique that initiates contact with the ultimate cosmic reality.

Other Disturbing Facts Re: Tony Robbins

Robbins has faced his share of controversy. In 2001 his fifteen-year marriage ended in divorce, with Robbins remarrying later that same year. Some critics pointed to his divorce as an example of the failure of his teachings, noting, for instance, that at the time of the divorce Robbins was leading workshops on the subject of healthy relationships.

Another controversy involved accusations by financial “guru” Wade Cook, who claimed that Robbins used material from Cook’s book Wall Street Money Machine, including specific terms and phrases, without permission. Cook filed a lawsuit and, in 1998, was awarded more than $650,000. 

The National Council against Health Fraud, a private health agency, has also questioned some of the health and dietary advice offered by Robbins including dubious breathing techniques, “misinformation” about combining foods, and more, noting, “Robbins reveals his ignorance about physiology as he misinforms readers about how the body rids itself of metabolic wastes. 

(See quackwatch.org/ncahf/articles/o-r/robbins/).

Conclusion

Robbins will say that we all have been programmed to believe certain things that hold us back, and we need to cast those false ideas off and start fresh. We make our own reality because of the "divine within;" that is the clear thrust of such teachings. Manipulative techniques discussed in this post make one suggestible and then condition one’s thinking to conform to the teachings. The teachings are occult and heretical. Visualization can open you to an altered state of consciousness where demons can cause obsession or even possession. 

Find your personal power in Christ, His Immaculate Mother, the sacraments, and the teachings of the One True Church. Reject Tony Robbins as your "life coach," and make Christ your "Eternal Life Coach."

Is It The Same Religion?

 

To My Readers: This week my guest poster, TradWarrior, exposes the Vatican II sect by asking "Is it the same religion?" Is the religion Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ founded in 33 AD and which taught the same truths through the last known true pope, Pope Pius XII, the same as the religion of Angelo Roncalli (John XXIII), Giovanni Montini (Paul VI), Albino Luciani (JPI), Karol Wojtyla (JPII), Joseph Ratzinger (Benedict XVI), Jorge Bergoglio (Francis I), and now Robert Prevost (Leo XIV)? The answer he gives after laying out the facts is a resounding "NO"! 

Feel free to comment as usual. If anyone has a specific question or comment for me, I will answer as always, but it may take me a bit longer to do so this week.

God bless you all, my dear readers---Introibo

Is It The Same Religion?

By TradWarrior

The purpose of this post will be to examine the differences after 1958 when Pope Pius XII died to everything that came before it. The quotations will be taken from The Catholic Church’s documents, especially the writings by popes. Sources for these quotes are the documents themselves. They were pulled from many different areas online, including several previous articles that Introibo wrote. This article is merely to demonstrate that we are looking at two very different religions in the article herein.---TradWarrior

For 1,925 years, the Catholic Church taught the same truth to all of mankind, century after century from 33-1958AD. When one looks at the Catholic Church between that time and after 1958, there is a stark difference that is extremely noticeable to anyone who honestly compares the teachings of the church before and after this time period. The question asked is: “What happened?” While there are many different answers to that question, one thing is certain; we are dealing with two very different religions here. When we compare the religion after 1958, especially in light of the Second Vatican Council documents, it is very clear that something has happened.

Religious Liberty

Religious liberty is one of the principles that came out of Vatican II. It had been condemned multiple times prior to the council taking shape.

According to Vatican II’s declaration on religious liberty: “This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself. This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.

It is in accordance with their dignity as persons-that is, beings endowed with reason and free will and therefore privileged to bear personal responsibility-that all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth. However, men cannot discharge these obligations in a manner in keeping with their own nature unless they enjoy immunity from external coercion as well as psychological freedom. Therefore the right to religious freedom has its foundation not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature. In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed.” (‘Dignitatis Humanae’, para. #2).

Roncalli (aka John XXIII) stated in ‘Pacem in Terris’ the following: “Also among man’s rights is that of being able to worship God in accordance with the right dictates of his own conscience, and to profess his religion both in private and in public. (para. #14).

This needs to be compared to what the previous popes taught on this issue.

 Gregory XVI writing in 1832 had this to say, “This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. “But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error,” as Augustine was wont to say. When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly “the bottomless pit” is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws — in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty. (‘Mirari Vos’, para. #14) .

Pope Pius IX in ‘Quanta Cura’ said, “For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of “naturalism,” as they call it, dare to teach that “the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones.” And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that “that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require.”

From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an “insanity,” that “liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way.” But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching “liberty of perdition;” and that “if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling.” (‘Quanta Cura’, para. #3).

Pope Pius IX rightly condemned this error in several parts of his famous ‘The Syllabus of Errors.’ (Dec. 8, 1864) These include:

#15:  Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. — Allocution ‘Maxima Quidem,’ June 9, 1862; Damnatio ‘Multiplices inter,’ June 10, 1851.

#55: The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church. — Allocution ‘Acerbissimum,’ Sept. 27, 1852.

#77: In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. — Allocution ‘Nemo Vestrum,’ July 26, 1855.

#79: Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism. — Allocution ‘Nunquam Fore,’ Dec. 15, 1856.

Pope Leo XIII said in ‘Libertas’ in 1888 the following:

“Civil society must acknowledge God as its Founder and Parent, and must obey and reverence His power and authority. Justice therefore forbids, and reason itself forbids, the State to be godless; or to adopt a line of action which would end in godlessness – namely, to treat the various religions (as they call them) alike, and to bestow upon them promiscuously equal rights and privileges.” (para. #21).

Pope Leo XIII in ‘Immortale Dei’ in 1885 said the following:

The authority of God is passed over in silence, just as if there were no God; or as if He cared nothing for human society; or as if men, whether in their individual capacity or bound together in social relations, owed nothing to God; or as if there could be a government of which the whole origin and power and authority did not reside in God Himself. Thus, as is evident, a State becomes nothing but a multitude which is its own master and ruler. And since the people is declared to contain within itself the spring-head of all rights and of all power, it follows that the State does not consider itself bound by any kind of duty toward God. Moreover, it believes that it is not obliged to make public profession of any religion; or to inquire which of the very many religions is the only one true; or to prefer one religion to all the rest; or to show to any form of religion special favour; but, on the contrary, is bound to grant equal rights to every creed, so that public order may not be disturbed by any particular form of religious belief.” (para. #25).

The separation of church and state is what has necessarily followed from this most grievous error.

Pope St. Pius X in ‘Vehementer Nos’ wrote the following in 1906:

“That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him. Besides, this thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits the action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during this life only, which is but the proximate object of political societies; and it occupies itself in no fashion (on the plea that this is foreign to it) with their ultimate object which is man's eternal happiness after this short life shall have run its course. But as the present order of things is temporary and subordinated to the conquest of man's supreme and absolute welfare, it follows that the civil power must not only place no obstacle in the way of this conquest, but must aid us in effecting it.” (para. #3).

What has transpired in the last several decades with Roncalli, Montini, Luciani, Wotyla, Ratzinger, Bergoglio, and Prevost is that they have prayed numerous times with members of false religions. This stems from their rejection of what the pre-conciliar popes clearly taught when it came to religious liberty. The State must be Catholic. If it is not, then man has a right to worship in any religion that he pleases and no religion is any more true than another. Catholicism is then on an equal playing field with Eastern Orthodoxy, Protestantism (regardless of the sect), Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, Sikhism, Shinto, Taoism, Voodoo, and even Satanism. Atheism also has just as much of a right as Catholicism, if not more so, because no religion must be “forced upon society” as the true religion. This freemasonic principle has pervaded society, particularly the West, with disastrous effects!

The Social Kingship of Christ is a kingship that must reign over all of society. Man is to worship God in the way that He sees fit, not us. If mankind does this and the State mirrors the Catholic Church in its temporal laws, then society can experience a peace on Earth that, while not perfect in this fallen world, would nevertheless make this world a far better and peaceful place.

As Pope Pius XI said in ‘Quas Primas’ in 1925 on The Social Kingship of Christ:

“When once men recognize, both in private and in public life, that Christ is King, society will at last receive the great blessings of real liberty, well-ordered discipline, peace and harmony.” (para. #19). 

Let’s compare this with some quotes from the Vatican II “popes”:

Paul VI, Address, July 9, 1969: “She [the Church] has also affirmed, during Her long history, at the cost of oppression and persecution, freedom for everyone to profess his own religion. No one, She says, is to be restrained from acting, no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs… As we said, the Council demanded a true and public religious freedom…”

Paul VI, Letter, July 25, 1975: “…the Holy See rejoices to see specifically emphasized the right of religious liberty.”

John Paul II, L'Osservatore Romano, 09/01/1980: “Liberty of conscience is a right of man.” 

John Paul II, ‘Path to Peace: A Contribution’, 09/01/1980: “All men have a human dignity of equal rights.” 

Ratzinger, prior to becoming “Benedict XVI” called ‘Gaudium et Spes’ a “counter syllabus”, in opposition to the Syllabus of Pius IX and the Syllabus of St. Pius X. (Principles of Catholic Theology, 1987, pgs. 381-382). As Benedict, he would pray with false religions all the time, just as his post-conciliar predecessors did.

Bergoglio as “Francis” followed his V2 predecessors. He loved religious liberty! His constant barrage against traditional Catholics and his praise of religious freedom made it very clear that he was heavily on board with this freemasonic principle. His famous quotes, “I believe in God, not in a Catholic God, there is no Catholic God…” and “Proselytism is solemn nonsense, it makes no sense,” tell us all we need to know about the man.

What we have seen is one pope after another prior to Vatican II condemning religious liberty, the very principle that every pseudo “pope” from Roncalli onwards has embraced time after time. Cleary, we are talking about two different religions here.

Ecumenism

Ecumenism is another false doctrine that was championed at Vatican II.

One of the defining marks of the Catholic Church is its unity. It cannot be divided. Since the 1500’s for example, we have seen tens of thousands of Protestant sects that have split from the Catholic Church, and then each other. The post-conciliar “popes” tell us that we have to pray for unity with these “separated brethren”. No! The Catholic Church already possesses unity. It is not united until the separated brethren “come back into the fold,” as if it is missing something that it has to find. The Catholic Church is a perfect society as Pope Pius XII taught. The V2 “popes” reject the unity of the church and “sought after it” by constantly praying with false religions as if they were detectives in search of the Truth. The Catholic Church possesses the Truth already, and can never lose it. There is no future point of convergence that needs to be sought, for it already has ALL THAT IT NEEDS (emphasis added). The V2 “popes” desire a universal syncretism of all the religions of the world, into a future One World Religion, the very thing Pope St. Pius X warned about in ‘Notre Charge Apostolique.’

Consider the following quotes:

Pope Pius IX in 1868: “None [of the false sects], 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.” (‘Iam Vos Omnes,’ para. #3). 

Pope Leo XIII in 1896: “Jesus Christ did not, in point of fact, institute a Church to embrace several communities similar in nature, but in themselves distinct, and lacking those bonds which render the Church unique and indivisible after that manner in which in the symbol of our faith we profess: ‘I believe in one Church.’” (‘Satis Cognitum’, para. #4). 

Pope Pius XI in 1928: “For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one, compacted and fitly joined together, it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head.” (‘Mortalium Animos’, para #10).

Pope Pius XII: “Also they must restrain that dangerous manner of speaking which generates false opinions and fallacious hopes incapable of realization; for example, to the effect that the teachings of the Encyclicals of the Roman Pontiffs on the return of dissidents to the Church, on the constitution of the Church, on the Mystical Body of Christ, should not be given too much importance seeing that they are not all matters of faith, or, what is worse, that in matters of dogma even the Catholic Church has not yet attained the fullness of Christ, but can still be perfected by other religions.” (Instruction "On the Ecumenical Movement" by the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, December 20, 1949). 

Compare these quotes to what the Vatican II “popes” had to say about (false) ecumenism.

Paul VI, General Audience, Nov. 8, 1972: “Ecumenism began in this way; as respect for non-Christian religions…”

Paul VI, Apostolic Exhortation, Dec. 8, 1975: “The Church respects and esteems these non-Christian religions…”

Paul VI, Speech, Sept. 9, 1972: “We would also like you to know that the Church recognizes the riches of the Islamic faith – a faith that binds us to the one God.”

Paul VI, Address, Sept. 18, 1969: “…Moslems… along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.”

Paul VI, Address, Dec. 14, 1976: “…very dear Brothers, sent by the venerable Church of Constantinople… we carried out the solemn and sacred ecclesial act of lifting the ancient anathemas, an act with which we wished to remove the memory of these events forever from the memory and the heart of the Church…”

Paul VI, Angelus Address, Jan. 17, 1971: “From polemical opposition among the various Christian denominations we have passed to mutual respect…”

John Paul II spoke about how The Catholic Church lacks unity. He said we need to pray with false religions for unity and that saints come from all religions (‘Ut Unum Sint’). Paragraphs #’s 7-10 in this document are especially telling as he quotes ‘Unitatis Redintegratio,' ‘Lumen Gentium,' and ‘Dignitatis Humanae," all Vatican II documents that heavily expound on this error.

Many other examples could be mentioned included Roncalli inviting the Orthodox at Vatican II, Montini allowing six Protestant ministers to have a huge role in the creation of the Novus Ordo Missae, Francis praying with all different religions, as his V2 predecessors all did, etc. The list of examples goes on and on.  

What we have seen is one pope after another prior to Vatican II condemning ecumenism, the very principle that every pseudo “pope” from Roncalli onwards has embraced time after time. Cleary, we are talking about two different religions here.

                             Collegiality

   ‘Lumen Gentium’, Vatican II's Dogmatic Constitution on the Church reads the following in para. #22:

“The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head. This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. For our Lord placed Simon alone as the rock and the bearer of the keys of the Church, and made him shepherd of the whole flock; it is evident, however, that the power of binding and loosing, which was given to Peter, was granted also to the college of apostles, joining with their head.”

The 1983 Code of Canon Law reiterates this in Canon 336:

“The college of bishops, whose head is the Supreme Pontiff and whose members are bishops by virtue of sacramental consecration and hierarchical communion with the head and members of the college and in which the apostolic body continues, together with its head and never without this head, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church.”

This “synodal church” that Paul VI ushered in to democratize the Catholic Church has continued right through Leo XIV with its many synods of “bishops” and “cardinals” trying (through endless dialogue) to determine what “the real meaning of Vatican II was” and how to implement it. Over 60 years later with 7 heretical “pontiffs”, and none of them could ascertain what Vatican II really meant. Never did the church fathers at Nicaea I, or Florence, or Trent, or any of the other ecumenical councils of the church have to “determine what the council really meant.” No, it is just Vatican II that remains a mystery to this very day. Interesting!

Compare the post-conciliar teaching of collegiality with the true teaching of the church:

The pope alone possesses supreme authority in the Church. From the Vatican Council of 1870:

“Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord Himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.

So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.”

All of the V2 “popes” have taught collegiality as the true Catholic position. This was part of the freemasonic plot to weaken the papacy, as outlined in The Alta Vendita. Eventually, the church would be filled with heretics who would appear to have authority in the church, when in actuality, they would not be clerics anymore. Sound familiar? Their plot would be to eventually have a “pope” of their own on the papal throne. Well so far, they have had 7 now. By pushing collegiality, they wanted to destroy the papacy and what better way than saying that the pope needs to be in agreement with all of the bishops around the world. It removes the power of the papacy.

Just like religious liberty and ecumenism, the amount of quotes by the pre-conciliar popes and the post-conciliar “popes” on collegiality could be cited here, but honestly, what is the point??? It is already clear that we are dealing with a false religion here.

                                         Conclusion                                                          

           So what is one to do? This is a difficult question because any mention by anyone saying that Vatican II was heretical and the last 7 “popes” were invalid is immediately going to raise eyebrows and make one scoffed at (if not worse).

         We must make use of the power that has been given to us by Heaven to win souls over to Christ. Prayer, fasting, and almsgiving are very powerful. We need to make use of these things. Those of us who have a traditional church near us need to make use of the sacraments frequently. The rosary is a very important prayer. Devotion to The Sacred Heart of Jesus and The Immaculate Heart of Mary are very helpful. Devotion to St. Joseph is very powerful. Invoking the angels and saints, especially St. Michael the Archangel and ones patron saint is very helpful, not to mention our own individual guardian angels. Sacramentals such as the brown scapular and the St. Benedict medal are useful too.

            All we can do is our individual parts. The Catholic faith must be embraced in its entirety and this means rejecting the false Vatican II sect which was spawned by the powers of hell. As Pope Benedict XV said in ‘Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum,' “Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected...” (para. #24).

           The Vatican II sect members firmly believe that they are in the Catholic Church. We should be reminded of what Pope Pius XII stated on church membership: “Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.” (‘Mystici Corporis Christi’, para. #22). The V2 sect members do not profess the true faith (in most cases, through no fault of their own). 

        Still, we must do our best to show them the “errors of their ways.” Many will not change, but we must do our best to convert those to the True Faith while there is still time. We should also not get discouraged if we do not see the results that we wish for. God asks us to be faithful and to try our best. Many times, the results will not be what we hoped for, but as long as we remain faithful to Him, persevere in the One True Faith, and do our best to bring others into His Holy Catholic Church, then we have done all we can do and we leave the rest to Him. “With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God.” (Mark 10:27).