Opinion
Featured Image
 Shutterstock

(LifeSiteNews) – (Editorial note: This is the second of a two-piece series by the author responding to Matthew McCusker’s and John Lamont’s arguments regarding the validity of the Francis pontificate.)

PART TWO

Peaceful and Universal Acceptance: does it apply to Francis?

As noted in the first part of this series, Matthew McCusker argues (here and here) that peaceful and universal acceptance of a man as the Pope by the Church is inseparable from submission to him as the “living rule of faith.” He bases his position principally on the teachings of Cardinal Louis Billot and John of St. Thomas (both quoted here):

  • Billot states that “the adherence alone of the universal Church will always be of itself an infallible sign of the legitimacy of the person of the Pontiff, and, what is more, even of the existence of all the conditions requisite for legitimacy itself. One need not fetch from afar proof of this claim. The reason is that it is taken immediately from the infallible promise of Christ and from providence. The gates of hell shall not prevail against it, and, Behold I am with you all days. To be sure, for the Church to adhere to a false pontiff would be the same thing as if she were to adhere to a false rule of faith, since the Pope is the living rule which the Church must follow in belief and always follows in fact…”
  • John of St. Thomas similarly founds his doctrine on the fact that “it was committed to the Church, by Christ the Lord, to choose for itself a man who would be such a rule for a time.” “Thus,” he continues, “just as it pertains to the pope and the Church to determine which books are canonical, so it pertains to the Church to determine which man is elected into the canon and as the living rule of faith.” (A translation that includes the wider context is available here.)

Regarding the “rule of faith,” McCusker rightly notes “the difference between the ‘proximate rule of faith’ and the ‘remote rule of faith.’ The proximate rule of faith is the ecclesiastical magisterium as it exists in the present. It is the pope and bishops teaching now. The remote rule of faith is Scripture and Tradition.” He quotes the Jesuit theologians Joachim Salaverri and Michaele Nicolau to that effect [1] and ultimately argues:

When we speak of submitting to the pope as the “living rule of faith,” we mean that we take him, and the bishops who teach in union with him, as the “proximate rule” of what we are to believe. We know also, because of our faith in Christ’s promises, that the teaching of the “proximate rule” will never deviate from the “remote rule.”

But today, faithful Catholics do not approach Francis in this way. Instead, they continually compare his doctrine to that contained in Scripture and Tradition, the “remote rule of faith,” to judge for themselves whether it is orthodox. They do this because they know, as a result of his public departure from the Catholic faith, that he is not a legitimate teacher of the faith. Thus, we see an example of how the Catholic Church withholds her adherence to a heretic, once the heresy becomes known.

Two False Presuppositions

McCusker’s argument is based on two presuppositions: (1) it is impossible for the proximate rule of faith (Pope and bishops) to ever deviate from the remote rule of faith (Scripture and Tradition); and (2) it is illicit for the faithful to have recourse to the remote rule if and when the proximate rule fails to teach clearly or correctly. Both of these presuppositions prove to be false when considered in light of certain episodes in Church history.

Take, for example, the Arian crisis (4th century). St. John Henry Newman rightly observed in a famous essay that “in that time of confusion the divine dogma of our Lord’s divinity was proclaimed, enforced, maintained, and (humanly speaking) preserved, far more by the ‘Ecclesia docta’ [learning or taught Church] than by the ‘Ecclesia docens’ [teaching Church]; that the body of the episcopate was unfaithful to its commission, while the body of the laity was faithful to its baptism; that at one time the Pope, at other times the patriarchal, metropolitan, and other great sees, at other times general councils, said what they should not have said, or did what obscured and compromised revealed truth; while, on the other hand, it was the Christian people who, under Providence, were the ecclesiastical strength of Athanasius, Hilary, Eusebius of Vercelli, and other great solitary confessors, who would have failed without them.”

Consider, also, the case of Pope John XXII (r. 1316-1334), who publicly deviated from the remote rule of faith when he erroneously taught during three successive sermons that “the souls of the blessed departed do not see God until after the Last Judgment,” as the Catholic Encyclopedia explains. “In this he met with strong opposition, many theologians, who adhered to the usual opinion that the blessed departed did see God before the Resurrection of the Body and the Last Judgment, even calling his view heretical.” Thankfully, he was not obstinate in his error. He accepted fraternal correction [2] and ultimately recanted on his death bed, stating that he submitted “to the judgment of the Church and Our successors all that We have said or written on any subjects wherever and in whatever place and in whatever situation We have or may have had up until now” (D.H. 991). His immediate successor, Benedict XII (one of the theologians who opposed him), formally defined the true doctrine that all the souls in Heaven “have seen and do see the divine essence with an intuitive vision and even face to face…” (D.H. 1000).

Granted, John XXII did not lapse into heresy per se, since the doctrine in question had not yet been formally defined, but he deviated from the remote rule of faith nonetheless. And yet, McCusker says that “to bypass the proximate rule of faith, in favor of the remote rule of faith, is inadmissible for Catholics.” If this were true, then the theologians who opposed John XXII, including his future successor, were wrong to do so. They should have kept silent and followed him into error. Thankfully, they understood and applied the sound teaching of St. Vincent of Lérins (5th century) that Catholics must “cleave to antiquity” in the face of novelties (Commonitorium, Ch. 3).

On this point, Fr. Chad Ripperger provides an important quote from St. Thomas Aquinas (from the Angelic Doctor’s commentary on Peter Lombard’s Sentences) in The Binding Force of Tradition:

…as man ought to obey an inferior power in only those things which are not repugnant to a superior power, so also man ought to conform himself to the primary rule according to his mode. Man ought to conform himself to the secondary rule in those things which are not discordant from the primary rule. That in which it is discordant is no longer a rule and because of this he ought not assent to a prelate preaching contrary to the faith since it is discordant with the primary rule. [3]

And in a subsequent work, Fr. Ripperger explains:

The primary rule [Aquinas] is referring to here is ultimately God, but God’s teachings are passed on through tradition. This is why the relationship of a particular magisterial member to the remote rule (i.e., the tradition) is of key importance. Essentially all of this means that under normal conditions, we as Catholic faithful have a right to expect those who teach us to be sure that what they teach does not contradict the teachings of God or the prior Magisterium [i.e., definitive decrees of past popes and councils]. However, we must not be naive and presume that the Magisterium [i.e., the current Pope and bishops] will never teach anything contrary to the Faith, for our cited examples [including John XXII] make it clear that it has happened.[4]

Peaceful and Universal Acceptance applies to Francis

Another problem with McCusker’s position is that it ignores the fact that peaceful and universal acceptance is established immediately following the election of a new Pope, before he has said or done anything magisterial. In other words, it is not dependent on the man elected actually exercising the authority he has received from Christ to teach and govern the Church, nor on the faithful giving absolute assent to his every word (since, aside from ex cathedra statements which meet the necessary criteria,[5] it is possible for the Pope to deviate from the remote rule of faith, as John XXII did).

Billot himself states that “from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head of the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy. For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of the required conditions.”[6]

The Jesuit canonists Fr. Francis X. Wernz and Fr. Peter Vidal likewise state (in the context of discussing doubtful Popes and citing Cardinal John Baptist Franzelin) that “against a pope elected and received by the whole Church no exception is admitted. This consensus of the Church is not an election and does not by its power make someone who was not elected be elected, because the one canonically elected by the cardinals is the legitimate pope before the acceptance by the Church. … Therefore, acceptance by the Church is not the cause but a sign and an infallible effect of a valid election.[7]

Cardinal Charles Journet concurs with Billot and Wernz-Vidal, noting that “the peaceful acceptance of the universal Church given to an elect as to a head to whom it submits is an act in which the Church engages herself and her fate. It is therefore an act in itself infallible and is immediately recognizable as such. (Consequently, and mediately, it will appear that all conditions prerequisite to the validity of the election have been fulfilled.)

“Acceptance by the Church operates either negatively,” Journet explains, “when the election is not at once contested; or positively, when the election is first accepted by those present and then gradually by the rest (cf. John of St. Thomas, II-II, qq. 1-7; disp. 2, a. 2, nos. r, 15, 28, 34, 40; pp. 228 et seq.).”[8]

And Journet, in his citations, leads us back to John of St. Thomas:

It is immediately of divine faith that this man in particular, lawfully elected and accepted by the Church, is the Supreme Pontiff and the successor of Peter, not only quoad se (in itself) but also quoad nos (for us) — although it is much more manifest to us (quoad nos) when de facto the Pope defines something [NB: ‘much more manifest,’ yes, but not a necessary requirement]. In practice, no Catholic disagrees with our conclusion. … Christ the Lord entrusted it to the Church to choose for herself a man who, for a certain period of time, would be the sort of rule of faith just described; and, consequently, the Church also received the commission to determine, by her own act of acceptance, that this man was canonically and legitimately elected. For, just as it pertains to the Pope and the Church to determine which books are canonical, so it pertains to the Church to determine which man has been chosen to be the norm and living rule of the faith.[9]

John of St. Thomas goes on to discuss

the exact moment when the acceptance of the Church becomes sufficient to render the proposition de fide. Is it as soon as the cardinals propose the elect to the faithful who are in the immediate locality, or only when knowledge of the election has sufficiently spread through the whole world, wherever the Church is to be found? I respond that the unanimous election of the cardinals and their declaration is similar to a definition given by the bishops of a Council legitimately gathered. Moreover, the acceptance of the Church is, for us, like a confirmation of this declaration. Now, the acceptance of the Church is realized both negatively, by the fact that the Church does not contradict the news of the election wherever it becomes known, and positively, by the gradual acceptance of the prelates of the Church, beginning with the place of the election, and spreading throughout the rest of the world. As soon as men see or hear that a Pope has been elected, and that the election is not contested, they are obliged to believe that that man is the Pope, and to accept him.[10]

All of this applies to Pope Francis, no less to him than to his predecessors. Whether or not he can lose (or has already lost) his office due to formal heresy remains a disputed matter, but it is beyond dispute that he was peacefully and universally accepted as the “true Pope” (Universi Dominici Gregis, 88) by the Church following his election and acceptance of office on March 13, 2013. Thus, his pontificate was established as a dogmatic fact (something I have already discussed here).

RELATED: Is Francis really the pope? — The debate

An extended sede vacante: would it harm the Church?

More recently, McCusker has argued that Catholics should not be afraid to conclude that Francis is not the Pope, since, according to him, an extended period of sede vacante would do nothing to harm the Church’s visibility and apostolicity. There are a couple of problems with his argument.

First, he attempts to demonstrate “parallels” between “the crisis facing the Church today” and the Great Western Schism(1378-1417) when, as I have already demonstrated, that historic crisis is simply not applicable to our present circumstances. In 1378, there was legitimate confusion because the Cardinals rejected the true Pope (Urban VI) whom they themselves had elected (twice in one day, no less!) and proceeded to elect an antipope (Clement VII). In 2013, no such thing happened. On the contrary, not a single cardinal or bishop publicly challenged the results of the conclave; and 99.9% of Catholic prelates throughout the world, including the entire College of Cardinals (not to mention the vast majority of the laity), continue to recognize Francis as the true Pope.

Secondly, although McCusker cites Berry, Billot, and Salaverri to support his position, he omits vitally relevant content from those same sources. For example, concerning the jurisdiction of bishops — an integral component of the Church’s visibility and apostolicity — Salaverri notes that “generally Catholic authors with St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, St. Robert Bellarmine, and Suarez hold that jurisdiction is given to the Bishops immediately not by God but mediated through the Roman Pontiff. Pius XII teaches this opinion positively in the Encyclical Mystici Corporis….[11] We think that his opinion is to be preferred.”[12]

This teaching has potentially dramatic implications for the Church, depending on the length of any given period of sede vacante. For example, if there has not been a true Pope since the death of Pius XII (1958), which seems to be what McCusker holds (based on this comment from the online journal he co-edits),[13] then there are no longer any bishops on earth who possess ordinary jurisdiction, which means there is no more legitimate hierarchy and thus no more visible Church.

McCusker quotes Berry, who rightly says that “the bishops retain power to rule their respective dioceses” during periods of sede vacante,[14] but what happens when those bishops die and there is no Pope to appoint new ones to fill vacant diocesan sees? Those sees remain vacant, of course, and the entire hierarchy eventually dies off, all in contradiction to the Church’s divine constitution. “When we say that the Church of Christ is visible,” Berry notes, “we mean primarily that it is a society of men with external rites and ceremonies and all the external machinery of government [e.g., bishops with ordinary jurisdiction] by which it can be easily recognized as a true society.”[15] Moreover, as Berry explains, apostolic succession depends not only on valid episcopal consecration but also on the transmission of legitimate authority to govern, i.e., “formal succession,”[16] which, according to Pius XII, requires a true Pope.

Dr. John Lamont, for his part, holds the opinion that bishops receive jurisdiction directly from God upon being consecrated and argues that Pius XII’s teaching to the contrary does not qualify as definitive.[17] “Such a question,” he says, “cannot be settled by a subordinate phrase of a sentence in a papal encyclical [Mystici Corporis Christi],[18] a phrase, moreover, that does not explain the character of the direct jurisdiction it refers to, make mention of the theological debate in question, or express the intention to bind Catholics to reject one of the competing theories and accept the other. There is no mention of the Scriptural texts that are given by theologians to support this position. There is indeed no clear indication in the encyclical of a will to teach that bishops receive their ordinary power of jurisdiction directly from the pope.”[19]

Moreover, Lamont quotes from Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium in support of his position[20] and ultimately asserts, “The statements of Lumen gentium on episcopal jurisdiction are therefore authoritative and final, and must, as far as they go, be accepted.” (If McCusker does indeed hold that Pius XII was the last true Pope, then he surely disagrees with Lamont on this point for obvious reasons.)

It is beyond the scope of this article to analyze deeply the arguments involved in this separate debate, but suffice it to say that if bishops receive jurisdiction indirectly from God through the Pope, as Pius XII taught, then it is certain the Church could not survive a decades-long period of sede vacante fully intact — meaning McCusker’s argument to the contrary is false.

Conclusion

As affirmed at the beginning of Part I, we do indeed face a crisis in the Church today — perhaps even the worst crisis in Church history to date — at the center of which is Pope Francis, who has undeniably propagated heresies.[21] And so, the burning question is: What can be done about it?

The answer, according to McCusker and Lamont, is to proclaim the See of Rome vacant and proceed accordingly. “The view that the Church is in a state of sede vacante and awaits the election of a new pontiff can no longer be suppressed by mockery or ridicule,” says McCusker, “any more than the courtiers in the fairy tale could stop the whisper that ‘the emperor has no clothes’ from making its way through the crowds.”

And according to Lamont, “All believing bishops and cardinals should publicly state that Francis has clearly ceased to accept the Catholic faith. For pastoral reasons they might begin by asking him to retire from the papacy because of his unbelief, rather than bluntly and immediately stating that he is no longer the pope. But it is not permissible to continue treating him as the legitimate ruler of the Church.”

While it is tempting to conclude that Francis has already lost his office due to heresy, it seems important to recall the following observations made by Bishop Athanasius Schneider in 2019:

The issue of how to handle a heretical pope, in concrete terms, has not yet been treated in a manner which approaches anything like a true general consent in the entire Catholic tradition. So far, neither a pope nor an Ecumenical Council has made relevant doctrinal pronouncements nor have they issued binding canonical norms regarding the eventuality of how to handle a heretical pope during the term of his office. … The opinion, which says that a heretical pope ipso facto loses his office, became a common opinion starting with the High Middle Ages until the twentieth century. It remains a theological opinion and not a teaching of the Church and therefore it cannot claim the quality of a constant and perennial teaching of the Church as such, since no Ecumenical Council and no pope has supported such an opinion explicitly.

Lamont maintains that Bishop Schneider’s arguments “are not convincing,” since there is “a moral unanimity among Catholic theologians on the thesis that a pope guilty of the public crime of heresy cannot remain as pope.” However, considering the gravity of the matter involved, does “a moral unanimity among Catholic theologians” suffice? As Bishop Schneider emphasizes, there is no historical precedent for “how to handle a heretical pope during the term of his office.” The one Pope who has ever been anathematized is Honorius I (r. 625-638), but his condemnation was not pronounced by the Church until he had been dead for over forty years.[22]

Moreover, even if the cardinals and bishops declared the See of Rome to be vacant and elected a new Pope in place of Francis, would that ultimately solve the crisis in the Church? On this point, we would be wise to remember what Professor Roberto de Mattei said in 2018:

The pontificate of Pope Francis certainly represents a leap forward in the process of the Church’s auto-demolition, following the Second Vatican Council. However, this is only a stage, the last one of this process: we could say that it represents its ripe fruit.

The essence of the Second Vatican Council was the triumph of pastoral theology over doctrine, the transformation of pastoral theology into a theology of praxis, the application of the philosophy of Marxist practice to the life of the Church. For the Communists, the true philosopher is not Karl Marx, the Revolution’s theorist, but Lenin who carried out the Revolution, proving Marx’s thought. For Neo-Modernists, the true theologian is not Karl Rahner, the principal ideologue of the revolution in the Church, but Pope Francis, who is fulfilling this revolution, putting Rahner’s thought into pastoral practice. There is no rupture, therefore, between the Second Vatican Council and Pope Francis, but historical continuity. Pope Francis represents Vatican II in action.

Simply put, the crisis we face did not begin with Pope Francis, nor will it end with his pontificate. It will persist until God, in His mercy, raises up enough shepherds after His own Heart who recognize the “Revolution in Tiara and Cope”[23] that has devastated the Church in recent decades and are willing to do the work of restoration by returning to Tradition.

The best thing the average Catholic can do for the Church, then, is to take his own spiritual life seriously, strive for sanctity, and help others to do likewise, beginning in our own families (see here for further insights). In due time, this will produce the good “fruit of the Spirit” (Gal. 5:22) in our own hearts and lives, which in turn will contribute to “the edifying of the body of Christ … in charity” (Eph. 4:12, 16). Repentance and conversion are the indispensable means for obtaining priests, bishops, cardinals, and ultimately a Pope who will lead the Church in the narrow way of righteousness and truth: “Return, O ye revolting children…. And I will give you pastors according to My own Heart, and they shall feed you with knowledge and doctrine” (Jer. 3:14-15).

In God’s time, the current “passion of the Church”[24] will conclude, and the Mystical Body of Christ will rise again, glorious and victorious.

READ: Ulster Protestant politician asks UK gov’t to defend Latin Mass pilgrimage from Vatican censure

ENDNOTES

[1] See Joachim Salaverri and Michaele Nicolau, S.J. (trans. Kenneth Baker, S.J.), Sacrae Theologiae Summa IB (Keep the Faith, 2015), p. 297.

[2] As Aquinas says in his Summa Theologiae, “if the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly. Hence Paul, who was Peter’s subject, rebuked him in public, on account of the imminent danger of scandal concerning faith, and, as the gloss of Augustine says on Galatians 2:11, ‘Peter gave an example to superiors, that if at any time they should happen to stray from the straight path, they should not disdain to be reproved by their subjects’” (ST II-II, q. 33, art. 4, ad 2).

[3] Fr. Chad Ripperger, The Binding Force of Tradition (Sensus Traditionis Press, 2013), p. 28.

[4] Ripperger, Magisterial Authority (Sensus Traditionis Press, 2014), pp. 25-26.

[5] The First Vatican Council’s definition of papal infallibility includes four specific criteria, all of which must be met simultaneously in order for the charism of infallibility to be engaged: “…the Roman Pontiff, when he [1] speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, acting in the office of shepherd and teacher of all Christians, he [2] defines, by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, [3] a doctrine concerning faith or morals [4] to be held by the universal Church, possesses through the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter the infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed…” (Pastor Aeternus, Ch. 4; D.H. 3074). Fr. E. Sylvester Berry summarizes “the conditions under which the Roman Pontiff enjoys the gift of infallibility; viz., that he speak (a) ex cathedra, (b) for the universal Church, (c) with supreme authority, (d) on matters of faith or morals.” (The Church of Christ: An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise [Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2009], pp. 270-271).

[6] Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi (Third Edition, 1909), Tomus I, Question XIV, Thesis XXIX § 3 (pp. 620-621). Quoted by Arnaldo Xavier da Silveira in Can a Pope Be… a Heretic? The Theological Hypothesis of a Heretical Pope (Caminhos Romanos, 2018), pp. 143-144.

[7] Wernz-Vidal, Ius Canonicum (Third Edition, 1943), Tomus II, Sect. II, Tit. VII, Ch. I, Art. 4, n. 454 (p. 520, note 171). A translation of the full pertinent section of text is available here.

[8] Journet, The Church of the Incarnate Word, Vol. I: The Apostolic Hierarchy (London: Sheed and Ward, 1955), pp. 481-482.

[9] John of St. Thomas, Cursus Theologicus II-II, Tomus VII-I (New York: Lyceum Institute, 2023), De Auctoritate Summi Pontificis, Disp. II, Art. II, n. X (pp. 233-234).

[10] Ibid., n. XL (pp. 248-249).

[11] In Mystici Corporis Christi (n. 42), Pius XII says that while bishops are true shepherds and rulers in their respective dioceses, they “are subordinate to the lawful authority of the Roman Pontiff, although enjoying the ordinary power of jurisdiction which they receive directly from the same Supreme Pontiff.”

[12] Salaverri and Nicolau, S.J., Sacrae Theologiae Summa IB (Keep the Faith, 2015), pp. 144-145. Van Noort summarizes the two competing opinions on the matter, namely, (1) bishops receive jurisdiction directly from God vs. (2) bishops receive jurisdiction indirectly from God throughthe Pope. He notes that Pius XII taught the second opinion “explicitly and without any qualification” in Mystici Corporis Christi, which leads him to conclude that “the first opinion is, we feel, no longer tenable. We would agree with Cardinal Ottaviani’s statement that the second opinion ‘should now … be rated as absolutely certain because of the words of the supreme pontiff, Pius XII.’” (Dogmatic Theology, Vol. II: Christ’s Church [Westminster: The Newman Press, 1957], pp. 325-326).

[13] On Sept. 13, 2024, The WM Review account on X posted, “The See of Rome is vacant,” together with a related article. Someone commented in response, “Has been since the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958,” to which The WM Review account replied, “You don’t need to tell us that we’re in a long vacancy. We’re aware!”

[14] Berry, op. cit., p. 227.

[15] Ibid., p. 37.

[16] Ibid., p. 78.

[17] See note 12 for additional context.

[18] See note 11 for the relevant text.

[19] Lamont further develops his argument here.

[20] Lumen Gentium teaches that “episcopal consecration, together with the office of sanctifying, also confers the office of teaching and of governing, which, however, of its very nature, can be exercised only in hierarchical communion with the head and the members of the college,” and further, that a bishop’s power to govern “is proper, ordinary and immediate, although its exercise is ultimately regulated by the supreme authority of the Church, and can be circumscribed by certain limits, for the advantage of the Church or of the faithful” (LG, 21, 27, emphasis added).

[21] See, e.g., the theological critique of Amoris Laetitia (2016), the Correctio Filialis (2017), the Open Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church (2019), and the Call for the Resignation of Pope Francis (2024).

[22] Pope Honorius I was posthumously condemned by the Third Council of Constantinople (681): “… we have also seen fit to banish from the holy Church of God and to anathematize also Honorius, the former pope of the elder Rome, because we have discovered in the letters written by him to Sergius that he followed in everything the opinion of that one and confirmed his impious dogma” (D.H. 552). The following year, Pope St. Leo II (r. 682-683) confirmed this condemnation: “And, we in like manner, anathematize the inventors of the new error: namely, Theodore, Bishop of Pharan, Cyrus of Alexandria, Sergius, Phyrrus … and also Honorius, who did not purify this apostolic Church by the doctrine of the apostolic tradition, but rather attempted to subvert the immaculate faith by profane treason [Greek version: he allowed the immaculate ⟨Church⟩ to be stained by profane treason]” (D.H. 563).

[23] A quote from the Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita. See Msgr. George Dillon, Grand Orient Freemasonry Unmasked (London: Britons Publishing Company, 1965), p. 95. For background and commentary on the document, see John Vennari, The Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita (Rockford: TAN Books and Publishers, Inc., 1999; republished in 2017 by The Fatima Center). See also Taylor R. Marshall, Infiltration: The Plot to Destroy the Church from Within (Manchester: Crisis Publications, 2019).

[24] Pope Benedict XVI spoke of “a passion of the Church” in reference to the Third Secret of Fatima. For more insights on this subject, see Salza and Siscoe, op. cit., pp. 8-10, 679-681.

11 Comments

    Loading...