2 hours ago
This article documents a point made often on The Catacombs, that as bad as Pope Francis is, he is 'simply' progressively expanding the work of his Vatican II predecessors...
Robert Morrison, Remnant Columnist | March 12, 2025
Pope Francis’s worst outrages are in harmony and continuity with the work of his predecessors; although Francis has been far less guarded and “prudent” than his predecessors in carrying out the Vatican II revolution. It is now obvious that the weeds choking the Church were those planted at Vatican II and nourished by John Paul II.
“Santo Subito! Santo Subito!” (the cries for “sainthood now” from Catholics after John Paul II’s death, which will not be repeated for Francis)
In these first weeks of Lent 2025, many of us have likely heard or read holy wisdom about the need to tear out the roots of sin. In his classic Spiritual Combat, Dom Lorenzo Scupoli (1530-1610) provided the following insight on this necessary task:
This process would be much simpler were it not for the fact that we are often quite attached to the roots of sin and cannot easily uproot them. If we have the determination to eradicate sins, though, we will first need to identify their roots.
The same could be said about the great evils that currently afflict the Catholic Church. If we merely attack the superficial manifestations of these evils, without getting to the actual roots, our efforts will seldom result in lasting progress. Today, almost all serious Catholics can readily identify many of the most prominent manifestations of the evils afflicting the Church, but there is widespread and deep-seated disagreement related to the roots of those evils.
Many of those Catholics who attended the Traditional Latin Mass prior to Benedict XVI’s 2007 Summorum Pontificum were at least generally sympathetic to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s identification of the roots of the crisis from his famous 1974 Declaration, which began as follows:
Archbishop Lefebvre and the priests he trained were persecuted because they considered that the roots of the crisis in the Church extended to Vatican II’s acceptance and promotion of previously condemned errors.
It was not until fourteen years after the 1974 Declaration that John Paul II excommunicated Archbishop Lefebvre and the four bishops he consecrated in 1988. Those fourteen years were filled with various efforts to persecute and undermine Traditional Catholics for refusing to go along with the Vatican II revolution. During that time, Rome dedicated far more effort to stomping out the religion that all Catholics knew prior to Vatican than it did attempting to control the various horrors of the crisis: widespread apostasy, blasphemous abuses with the Mass and Holy Eucharist, homosexual takeover of many seminaries, etc.
John Paul II’s 1988 motu proprio, Ecclesia Dei, indirectly confirmed Archbishop Lefebvre’s understanding that Vatican II was the root of the crisis:
The “root” of Archbishop Lefebvre’s disobedience was his refusal to accept the novelties of Vatican II. The “growth in insight” from the Council was akin to the cockle planted in the wheat field from Our Lord’s parable of the wheat and cockle (Matthew 13:24-30):
John Paul II was right in asserting that there was something new in the field of tradition that Archbishop Lefebvre failed to appreciate. But the new growth was not wheat, but the cockle of error that had been sowed by the enemies of Catholicism whom Pius XII and his predecessors had tried to stop.
The disasters of Francis’s hostile occupation of the papacy have not come as a surprise for those who had understood, and agreed with, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s fight against the cockle of Vatican II. However, for those conservative Catholics who loved John Paul II and Benedict XVI, the past twelve years have been as shocking and devastating as the 1970s and 1980s were for Archbishop Lefebvre. Since the conservative Catholics had already rejected the possibility that Archbishop Lefebvre could be right in the dispute with John Paul II, they had to look elsewhere for the root of the crisis.
Unfortunately, this search for another root cause of the crisis is not only futile but also leads to a real handicap when trying to address Francis’s heretical actions. As we can see below, almost every one of the most repulsive ideas promoted by Francis (other than support of the LGBTQ agenda) was also promoted by John Paul II. Indeed, it was John Paul II’s great popularity that allowed some of those ideas to become widely accepted (or at least tolerated) in seminaries, theological departments, and parishes around the world. If he had not been so popular and respected, those heterodox ideas would have surely met with much stronger disapproval. Thus, for the conservative Catholic who loves John Paul II’s legacy, it is virtually impossible to fully condemn Francis’s heresies without simultaneously wounding the memory of their beloved pope.
This paralysis became tragically apparent during the Synod on Synodality, which relied heavily on the documents of Vatican II and writings of John Paul II. The most evident instance of this was in the infamous Bishop of Rome document which was issued outside of the Synodal process despite being integrally connected to it:
This document issued by the Dicastery Promoting Christian Unity in 2024, and approved by Francis, is almost certainly the most blasphemous and heretical document since Fiducia Supplicans, and yet relatively few critics of Francis condemned the document’s collaboration with Protestants to reshape the papacy. The reason seems rather obvious: conservative Catholics could not denounce the document without denouncing one of John Paul II’s most important theological initiatives.
The connection between John Paul II and Francis’s ecumenical initiatives (including inter-religious prayer meetings, the Synod on Synodality, and the Bishop of Rome document) is most clear because John Paul II’s 1986 prayer meeting at Assisi solidified his ecumenical legacy. As noted above, though, essentially every repulsive work of Francis other than the pro-LGBTQ agenda has roots in the work of John Paul II. The following four examples are among the most important:
Amoris Laetitia and Desiderio Desideravi: Francis’s efforts to allow those in mortal sin to receive Holy Communion would be more revolutionary were it not for the fact that cafeteria Catholics have been receiving Holy Communion in the state of mortal sin for many decades with little real efforts from Rome to address the crisis. Moreover, John Paul II did nothing to effectively curtail the major abuses related to the Novus Ordo Mass such as Communion in the hand. His 1983 Code of Canon Law even introduced the scandalous Canon 844, which the SSPX rightly described as opening the door to active participation with non-Catholics, even through Holy Communion:
Thus, the roots of Francis’s abuse of the Mass and the Holy Eucharist pass through John Paul II’s papacy.
Traditionis Custodes: Many Catholics laud John Paul II for his 1988 Ecclesia Dei, which permitted the Traditional Latin Mass for those priests and faithful who parted ways with the SSPX after Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated the four bishops without his approval. But the purpose of this document obviously had nothing whatsoever to do with wanting more people to enjoy the Traditional Latin Mass. Instead, like Summorum Pontificum and Traditionis Custodes, John Paul II’s efforts in this regard were part of the overall carrot and stick approach to keep Catholics who “are attached to the Traditional Latin Mass” from overtly opposing the Vatican II revolution. Thus, the roots of Francis’s persecution of Traditional Catholics pass through John Paul II’s papacy.
Universal Salvation and an Empty Hell: In addition to John Paul II’s energetic support for false ecumenism, he arguably did more than anyone else in Church history to promulgate the heresies of universal salvation and an empty hell. As discussed in a previous article, the most dangerous heresies promoted by Francis are but shadows of those John Paul II promoted with respect to universal salvation. It was John Paul II — not Francis — who said the following (as quoted from Pope John Paul II: Doubts About a Beatification):
Thus, the roots of Francis’s blasphemous ideas about universal salvation and an empty hell pass through John Paul II’s papacy.
Pachamama: Countless Catholics were justifiably scandalized by Francis’s adoration of the Pachamama idol, but John Paul II had opened the door for such blasphemy through various acts. Bishop Bernard Fellay of the SSPX described some of John Paul II’s scandals in the preface to Fr. Patrick de La Rocque’s Pope John Paul II: Doubts About a Beatification:
Thus, the roots of Francis’s public violations of the First Commandment pass through John Paul II’s papacy.
What really sets the two men apart is not doctrinal in nature. Instead, it is something related to demeanor and “prudence.” Francis’s answer to Fr. Luigi Maria Epicoco’s question in a 2020 interview format book (in Italian) about John Paul II, San Giovanni Paolo Magno, is telling in this regard:
“Do you feel protected by Saint John Paul II, by the three popes that you had the joy of proclaiming saints?
I think that I give them a lot of work and some of them will think: ‘This boy gets himself into too much trouble’! (smiles, ed.). Above all I think of Paul VI, whom I love so much, and who perhaps dreams of a little more prudence for me; but in general I feel truly accompanied and protected by their great example and by their immense testimony in front of which I feel truly very small, simply a forgiven sinner.”
Francis imagines that Paul VI “perhaps dreams of a little more prudence for” him. But God had other designs, and has permitted Francis to be far less guarded and “prudent” than his predecessors in carrying out the Vatican II revolution. As a result, we have so much evidence that Francis’s worst outrages are in harmony and continuity with the work of his predecessors. It is now obvious that the weeds choking the Church were those planted at Vatican II and nourished by John Paul II. Those conservative Catholics who merely want to trim the tops of the weeds will be ensuring that future generations of Catholics will be even more suffocated by the anti-Catholic errors spreading from Rome.
Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us!
The Roots of Francis’s Anti-Catholic Legacy Will Be Preserved By the Adulation for John Paul II
![[Image: f2615e86073490883b96df4f987e1f19_L.jpg]](https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/media/k2/items/cache/f2615e86073490883b96df4f987e1f19_L.jpg)
Pope John Paul II embraces Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio after presenting the new cardinal with a red beretta at the Vatican Feb. 21, 2001
Pope John Paul II embraces Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio after presenting the new cardinal with a red beretta at the Vatican Feb. 21, 2001
Robert Morrison, Remnant Columnist | March 12, 2025
Pope Francis’s worst outrages are in harmony and continuity with the work of his predecessors; although Francis has been far less guarded and “prudent” than his predecessors in carrying out the Vatican II revolution. It is now obvious that the weeds choking the Church were those planted at Vatican II and nourished by John Paul II.
“Santo Subito! Santo Subito!” (the cries for “sainthood now” from Catholics after John Paul II’s death, which will not be repeated for Francis)
In these first weeks of Lent 2025, many of us have likely heard or read holy wisdom about the need to tear out the roots of sin. In his classic Spiritual Combat, Dom Lorenzo Scupoli (1530-1610) provided the following insight on this necessary task:
Quote:“As long as the root of this weed is not torn out, it will sprout again, and your virtue will perish. In time, you may discover that you are stripped of good habits and in continual danger of falling back into your former disorders. Never hope to acquire solid virtue unless you destroy your own particular failings by performing frequent acts which are directly opposed to them.”
This process would be much simpler were it not for the fact that we are often quite attached to the roots of sin and cannot easily uproot them. If we have the determination to eradicate sins, though, we will first need to identify their roots.
The same could be said about the great evils that currently afflict the Catholic Church. If we merely attack the superficial manifestations of these evils, without getting to the actual roots, our efforts will seldom result in lasting progress. Today, almost all serious Catholics can readily identify many of the most prominent manifestations of the evils afflicting the Church, but there is widespread and deep-seated disagreement related to the roots of those evils.
Many of those Catholics who attended the Traditional Latin Mass prior to Benedict XVI’s 2007 Summorum Pontificum were at least generally sympathetic to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s identification of the roots of the crisis from his famous 1974 Declaration, which began as follows:
Quote:“We hold fast, with all our heart and with all our soul, to Catholic Rome, Guardian of the Catholic Faith and of the traditions necessary to preserve this faith, to Eternal Rome, Mistress of wisdom and truth. We refuse, on the other hand, and have always refused to follow the Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies which were clearly evident in the Second Vatican Council and, after the Council, in all the reforms which derived from it. All these reforms, indeed, have contributed and are still contributing to the destruction of the Church, to the ruin of the priesthood, to the abolition of the Sacrifice of the Mass and of the sacraments, to the disappearance of religious life, to a naturalist and Teilhardian teaching in universities, seminaries and catechectics; a teaching derived from Liberalism and Protestantism, many times condemned by the solemn Magisterium of the Church. No authority, not even the highest in the hierarchy, can force us to abandon or diminish our Catholic Faith, so clearly expressed and professed by the Church’s Magisterium for nineteen centuries.”
Archbishop Lefebvre and the priests he trained were persecuted because they considered that the roots of the crisis in the Church extended to Vatican II’s acceptance and promotion of previously condemned errors.
It was not until fourteen years after the 1974 Declaration that John Paul II excommunicated Archbishop Lefebvre and the four bishops he consecrated in 1988. Those fourteen years were filled with various efforts to persecute and undermine Traditional Catholics for refusing to go along with the Vatican II revolution. During that time, Rome dedicated far more effort to stomping out the religion that all Catholics knew prior to Vatican than it did attempting to control the various horrors of the crisis: widespread apostasy, blasphemous abuses with the Mass and Holy Eucharist, homosexual takeover of many seminaries, etc.
John Paul II’s 1988 motu proprio, Ecclesia Dei, indirectly confirmed Archbishop Lefebvre’s understanding that Vatican II was the root of the crisis:
Quote:"The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, ‘comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth.’”
The “root” of Archbishop Lefebvre’s disobedience was his refusal to accept the novelties of Vatican II. The “growth in insight” from the Council was akin to the cockle planted in the wheat field from Our Lord’s parable of the wheat and cockle (Matthew 13:24-30):
Quote:“And the servants of the goodman of the house coming said to him: Sir, didst thou not sow good seed in thy field? whence then hath it cockle? And he said to them: An enemy hath done this. And the servants said to him: Wilt thou that we go and gather it up?”
John Paul II was right in asserting that there was something new in the field of tradition that Archbishop Lefebvre failed to appreciate. But the new growth was not wheat, but the cockle of error that had been sowed by the enemies of Catholicism whom Pius XII and his predecessors had tried to stop.
The disasters of Francis’s hostile occupation of the papacy have not come as a surprise for those who had understood, and agreed with, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s fight against the cockle of Vatican II. However, for those conservative Catholics who loved John Paul II and Benedict XVI, the past twelve years have been as shocking and devastating as the 1970s and 1980s were for Archbishop Lefebvre. Since the conservative Catholics had already rejected the possibility that Archbishop Lefebvre could be right in the dispute with John Paul II, they had to look elsewhere for the root of the crisis.
Unfortunately, this search for another root cause of the crisis is not only futile but also leads to a real handicap when trying to address Francis’s heretical actions. As we can see below, almost every one of the most repulsive ideas promoted by Francis (other than support of the LGBTQ agenda) was also promoted by John Paul II. Indeed, it was John Paul II’s great popularity that allowed some of those ideas to become widely accepted (or at least tolerated) in seminaries, theological departments, and parishes around the world. If he had not been so popular and respected, those heterodox ideas would have surely met with much stronger disapproval. Thus, for the conservative Catholic who loves John Paul II’s legacy, it is virtually impossible to fully condemn Francis’s heresies without simultaneously wounding the memory of their beloved pope.
This paralysis became tragically apparent during the Synod on Synodality, which relied heavily on the documents of Vatican II and writings of John Paul II. The most evident instance of this was in the infamous Bishop of Rome document which was issued outside of the Synodal process despite being integrally connected to it:
Quote:“Saint John Paul II not only reaffirmed this ecumenical path but also officially invited other Christians to reflect on the exercise of the ministry of the Bishop of Rome. In his milestone encyclical letter Ut unum sint (1995) he used the biblical notion of ‘episkopein’ (‘keeping watch’) to describe this ministry (UUS 94), whose primacy is defined as a ministry of unity (UUS 89) and a service of love (UUS 95). Assuming his particular ecumenical responsibility, and ‘heeding the request made of [him],’ Pope John Paul II recognized the need ‘to find a way of exercising the primacy which, while in no way renouncing what is essential to its mission, is nonetheless open to a new situation’ (UUS 95). Convinced that a mutually acceptable ministry of unity cannot be defined unilaterally, he extended an open invitation to all pastors and theologians from the different ecclesial traditions, repeating a request already made in 1987 in Saint Peter’s Basilica in the presence of the Ecumenical Patriarch Dimitrios I . . .”
This document issued by the Dicastery Promoting Christian Unity in 2024, and approved by Francis, is almost certainly the most blasphemous and heretical document since Fiducia Supplicans, and yet relatively few critics of Francis condemned the document’s collaboration with Protestants to reshape the papacy. The reason seems rather obvious: conservative Catholics could not denounce the document without denouncing one of John Paul II’s most important theological initiatives.
The connection between John Paul II and Francis’s ecumenical initiatives (including inter-religious prayer meetings, the Synod on Synodality, and the Bishop of Rome document) is most clear because John Paul II’s 1986 prayer meeting at Assisi solidified his ecumenical legacy. As noted above, though, essentially every repulsive work of Francis other than the pro-LGBTQ agenda has roots in the work of John Paul II. The following four examples are among the most important:
Amoris Laetitia and Desiderio Desideravi: Francis’s efforts to allow those in mortal sin to receive Holy Communion would be more revolutionary were it not for the fact that cafeteria Catholics have been receiving Holy Communion in the state of mortal sin for many decades with little real efforts from Rome to address the crisis. Moreover, John Paul II did nothing to effectively curtail the major abuses related to the Novus Ordo Mass such as Communion in the hand. His 1983 Code of Canon Law even introduced the scandalous Canon 844, which the SSPX rightly described as opening the door to active participation with non-Catholics, even through Holy Communion:
Quote:“This canon is the most scandalous of the whole 1983 Code of Canon Law. It is the open door to active communicatio in sacris, i.e., active religious participation with non-Catholics. Canon 1258 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law very strictly prohibited such participation. Rev. Fr. Dominicus M. Prümmer, O.P., a Swiss professor at the University of Fribourg, gives the very simple reason: ‘It is indeed nothing else than the negation of the Catholic Faith and the acknowledgment of a heterodox worship.’ Participation in the Sacraments is the most important part of the worship, especially for Holy Communion. Now Christ has founded and espoused only one Church, and only the voice of the Bride is agreeable to the Bridegroom. Only the voice of the Son is agreeable to the Father. The active participation in non-Catholic worship is the practical denial of the nature of the Church.”
Thus, the roots of Francis’s abuse of the Mass and the Holy Eucharist pass through John Paul II’s papacy.
Traditionis Custodes: Many Catholics laud John Paul II for his 1988 Ecclesia Dei, which permitted the Traditional Latin Mass for those priests and faithful who parted ways with the SSPX after Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated the four bishops without his approval. But the purpose of this document obviously had nothing whatsoever to do with wanting more people to enjoy the Traditional Latin Mass. Instead, like Summorum Pontificum and Traditionis Custodes, John Paul II’s efforts in this regard were part of the overall carrot and stick approach to keep Catholics who “are attached to the Traditional Latin Mass” from overtly opposing the Vatican II revolution. Thus, the roots of Francis’s persecution of Traditional Catholics pass through John Paul II’s papacy.
Universal Salvation and an Empty Hell: In addition to John Paul II’s energetic support for false ecumenism, he arguably did more than anyone else in Church history to promulgate the heresies of universal salvation and an empty hell. As discussed in a previous article, the most dangerous heresies promoted by Francis are but shadows of those John Paul II promoted with respect to universal salvation. It was John Paul II — not Francis — who said the following (as quoted from Pope John Paul II: Doubts About a Beatification):
Quote:“In the Holy Spirit, every individual and all people have become, through the Cross and Resurrection of Christ, children of God, partakers in the divine nature and heirs to eternal life.” (p. 3)
“Jesus Christ makes us sharers in what He is. Through His Incarnation, the Son of God in a certain manner united Himself with every human being. In our inmost being He has recreated us; in our inmost being He has reconciled us with God, reconciled us with ourselves, reconciled us with our brothers and sisters: He is our Peace.” (p. 5)
“[T]he Church believes that human dignity is based on the fact that God has created each person, that we have been redeemed by Christ, and that, according to the Divine Plan, we shall rejoice with God forever.” (p. 6)
“In the name of the solidarity that binds us all together in a common humanity, I again proclaim the dignity of every human person: the rich man and Lazarus are both human beings, both of them equally created in the image and likeness of God, both of them equally redeemed by Christ.” (p. 7)
“Each one is included in the mystery of the Redemption and with each one Christ has united Himself for ever through this mystery.” (p. 8)
“This is man in all the fullness of the mystery in which he has become a sharer in Jesus Christ, the mystery in which each one of the four thousand million human beings living on our planet has become a sharer from the moment he is conceived.” (pp. 8-9)
“The persons whose names are contained in [The Book of the Dead of Auschwitz] were incinerated, they underwent tortures and were finally deprived of life solely, in most cases, because they belonged to a certain nation rather than another . . . In the light of faith, we see that this witness of heroic fidelity to their ethnic identity became the Holocaust which united them to God in eternity, and a seed of peace for future generations.” (p. 10)
“[E]ternal damnation remains a real possibility, but we are not granted without special divine revelation, the knowledge of whether or which human beings are effectively involved in it.” (p. 25)
Thus, the roots of Francis’s blasphemous ideas about universal salvation and an empty hell pass through John Paul II’s papacy.
Pachamama: Countless Catholics were justifiably scandalized by Francis’s adoration of the Pachamama idol, but John Paul II had opened the door for such blasphemy through various acts. Bishop Bernard Fellay of the SSPX described some of John Paul II’s scandals in the preface to Fr. Patrick de La Rocque’s Pope John Paul II: Doubts About a Beatification:
Quote:“With respect to the First Commandment of God, for example, how are we to evaluate the gestures of a pope who, by his remarks and by kissing the Koran, seems to raise it to the status of the Word of God? Or who begs John the Baptist to protect Islam? Who is pleased to have participated actively in animist worship in the sacred forests of Togo? A few decades ago, according to the norms of ecclesiastical law, such gestures would have been enough to cast the suspicion of heresy on the person who had made them. And today they have supposedly become, as if by magic, signs of the virtue of faith practiced to a heroic degree?”
Thus, the roots of Francis’s public violations of the First Commandment pass through John Paul II’s papacy.
What really sets the two men apart is not doctrinal in nature. Instead, it is something related to demeanor and “prudence.” Francis’s answer to Fr. Luigi Maria Epicoco’s question in a 2020 interview format book (in Italian) about John Paul II, San Giovanni Paolo Magno, is telling in this regard:
“Do you feel protected by Saint John Paul II, by the three popes that you had the joy of proclaiming saints?
I think that I give them a lot of work and some of them will think: ‘This boy gets himself into too much trouble’! (smiles, ed.). Above all I think of Paul VI, whom I love so much, and who perhaps dreams of a little more prudence for me; but in general I feel truly accompanied and protected by their great example and by their immense testimony in front of which I feel truly very small, simply a forgiven sinner.”
Francis imagines that Paul VI “perhaps dreams of a little more prudence for” him. But God had other designs, and has permitted Francis to be far less guarded and “prudent” than his predecessors in carrying out the Vatican II revolution. As a result, we have so much evidence that Francis’s worst outrages are in harmony and continuity with the work of his predecessors. It is now obvious that the weeds choking the Church were those planted at Vatican II and nourished by John Paul II. Those conservative Catholics who merely want to trim the tops of the weeds will be ensuring that future generations of Catholics will be even more suffocated by the anti-Catholic errors spreading from Rome.
Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us!
"So let us be confident, let us not be unprepared, let us not be outflanked, let us be wise, vigilant, fighting against those who are trying to tear the faith out of our souls and morality out of our hearts, so that we may remain Catholics, remain united to the Blessed Virgin Mary, remain united to the Roman Catholic Church, remain faithful children of the Church."- Abp. Lefebvre