Is R Hell Firster and Jewish Abortionist Exonerator Crook Gov. Abbott Forces Texans to Bow to Is R Hell First to Receive Harvey Aid. Vote This Traitor and Fraud Out of Office!

Texas Kisses Ring of Israel Turns Back on America Being Great Again


By Steve Robertson, Braveheart and Sami Jamil Jadallah

The small city of Dickinson, Texas lost some three-quarters of its 830 homes during the recent Hurricane Harvey storm. Then, to add insult to injury the residents and business owners of the city were somehow contractually forced to give up their 1st Amendment Rights (Freedom of Speech) and then bow and kiss the ring of the Apartheid State of Israel in order to get basic disaster relief funding.

I can tell you one thing, having lived in Texas for some twenty years my blood was brought to a quick boil by the news of this crock of crap and treasonous act that clearly allowed the monstrous and murderous apartheid state of Israel to point a financial gun at the head of the city and good people of Dickinson.

Yes, it’s true, Texas does have questionable pockets non-sane thinking people like those in a small part of San Antonio who follow and/or support the Evangelical Christian minister John Hagee of Cornerstone Church, a man who has successfully misrepresented the Bible’s teachings and seduced his congregation into drinking the Israeli cool aide of the Jews somehow being designated as “the chosen one’s” and then financially supporting the expulsion of Palestinians and apartheid through his church’s funding of Israeli settlements.

John Hagee is known for having bamboozled his congregation into giving Israel tens of millions of dollars while contributing nothing to his hometown of San Antonio (a good reason to deny his church and/or any other such church who follows in these footsteps, their tax exemption status). However, most people in Texas that I’ve ever known are good and caring Christian people who understand the difference between what’s right and what’s wrong. They’re taught to recognize and stand up to bullies, never buy a pig in the poke and can smell a lie a mile away.

Haaretz and the Jerusalem Post, among others headlines, stated “Texas Town Says: NO Hurricane Relief If You Boycott Israel.” It was reported that Dickinson, Texas website is accepting applications from individuals and businesses who have been devastated by Hurricane Harvey however applicants are required “to verify;

  1. they do not boycott Israel and
  2. will not boycott Israel during the terms of agreement.”  This treasonous nonsense is clearly spelled out in Section 11 of the application mandates.

Bryan Milward, Dickinson’s assistant city manager, referred to a Texas state law passed in May that requires all contractors to certify they are not participating in the boycott of Israel. In fairness to Mr. Milward, he emphasized the city is not performing background checks on the political views of it citizens and he emphasized that he does not expect to reject applications if individuals or companies do not answer or respond to this requirement.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), while not taking legal actions to overturn or challenge the newly passed Texas law, did take issue declaring “We believe that the requirements is widely unconstitutional and we’re urging anybody who is being affected by it, anybody asked to sign the certification, to contact the ACLU of Texas.”  This weak, at best, stance and fifty cents, as we would say in Texas, “can get you a lukewarm cup of coffee.”

The Israeli Lobby and its many Fifth Column agents in state legislatures and in Congress have deviously attempted to pass self-serving, rope-a-dope and treasonous laws that strategically link American citizens and/or companies who participate in the Boycott Divestment Sanction (BDS) movement as a fine-able and criminal offense by US law.

Fortunately, such constitutional blasphemy hasn’t crawled far away from the cat and mouse sandbox mentality of Zionist Christians who believe they can dupe Jewish people into settling in the land of Palestine so that when the End of Days occurs and Jesus will come back.  Yep, it’s true, adults actually think that when this occurs, it will be a good day for those who convert to Christianity and for those Jewish people who don’t, and it will be a bloodbath.

Laughably, when Jewish people are asked why they would take such soul robbing money from Christians to settle in Palestine, they look you square in the eye and tell you to your face, “We’ll take these fools (the Christians) money all day. This is never going to happen.”

Back in reality, the First Amendment clearly protects both freedoms of speech and of association. Even hate speech is protected without exception.  Knowing such, and of the personal vulnerabilities of aspiring and long-standing politicians, special agents have been known to infiltrate these voting circles and use campaign contributions and/or a variety of blackmail techniques to bias votes so as to insure that Israel is given the ONLY exception by First Amendment rights.  As a result, many states are passing provisions that make it impossible for any group, organization or business that does business within their state or locality to participate in the boycott against Israel.

“The First Amendment protects Americans right to boycott, the government cannot condition hurricane relieve or any other public benefit on a commitment to refrain from protected political expression” and boycotting Israel is an absolute right protected under the First Amendment. – Texas ACLU legal director

The proponents and supporters of Israel argue: “that refusing to do business with a country is not protected speech”, claiming that laws directed against the BDS movement are no different from laws that prevent Americans from doing business with countries like Iran, Cuba or Sudan.  This nonsensical logic, easily spoon feed to those of drooling intellect, denies the rights of good citizens to refuse doing business with the apartheid state of Israel.

History has proven that when Americans of good heart and conscious chose to boycott the apartheid government of South Africa our US government, at no time, forced American citizens to do business with this country.  This heroic action of the heart and a most basic stand for human rights brought apartheid to an end.  As a result, humanity was gifted to witness a new freedom, and with it, the election of Nelson Mandela. Once again, and to date, the only unconstitutional exception to the First Amendment rights is to Israel.

As we say in Texas, “It’s obvious even to the casual observer” that Israel is taking over our country, church by church, city by city, state by state, law by law, and legislator by legislator through any and all means of insidious infiltration and obfuscation imagined. Under our First Amendment rights, we are ensured the freedom of which we choose to associate with, or not.

If the people of our country remain asleep (as they presently are) and take no action or stand of integrity within the framework of our US constitution, then we will likely find our country fighting another proxy war for Israel. Beyond this next potential development the majority of American Christian gentiles, dis-affectionately referred to by the “invader chosen ones” as “goyim,” a term meaning “cattle”, might soon wake up to learn that they themselves are now living in an Apartheid state, one that is ruled Israel.

In this stranger than fiction account from a recent July 19, 2017 New York Magazine article by Eric Levitz entitled “43 Senators Want to Make It a Federal Crime to Boycott Israeli Settlements” it discloses that: “The state of Israel maintains a military occupation of territories that were assigned to Palestinians by international law.

Palestinian residents of the occupied West Bank are subjected to the discriminatory rule of a foreign army, while their Israeli neighbors enjoy the full rights of citizenship — a situation that many former Israeli officials have likened to South African apartheid.

The United Nations has repeatedly held that Israel’s maintenance — and expansion — of settlements in the occupied West Bank constitutes a violation of international law. Nevertheless, the occupation persists, as it has for half a century. At present, there is no discernible, diplomatic path for bringing it to an end.”

In truth, the BDS movement arose as a last ditch effort to address Israel’s continual thumping of its nose to international law and various UN resolutions that have addressed four major issues:

  1. Israel’s illegal military occupation of Palestinian territories.
  2. Israel’s continued expansion settlements that are now home to more than 600,000 illegal Israeli settlers.
  3. Israel’s annexation of East Jerusalem, the historical and lawful capital of Palestine. 4) Palestinian’s Right of Return.

Regarding the fourth item, the Palestinian Right of Return, there are some 1.4 million Palestinians that have been permanently displaced from their homes and forced to escape and live in refugee camps that are based in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Gaza. These refugees have never been allowed to return to their homes and the UN, through its formation of the Palestinian Refugee program UNRWA, maintains a sum of $1.4 billion annual budget to provide for basic food, clothing, shelter, medical treatment, education and more for this long-standing refugee program.

Therefore, the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement emerged to exert worldwide economic and cultural pressure on the state of Israel because of its’ 50 year occupation and Apartheid oppression of Palestine. The result of the BDS movement has been to bring light to these gross humanitarian violations and the various products and agricultural produce that originate from Israel.

Thus, consumers are informed and empowered to use their good conscience and purchasing power to vote for a better world through how they spend. From a cultural perspective the BDS movement has encouraged many high-profile musicians like that of Roger Waters of Pink Floyd and world-class thinkers like that of physicist Stephen Hawking to boycott events they’ve been invited to attend within Israel.

The success logically sought by the BDS movement, found both in its’ reasoning and hoped for results stem from the historical precedence of the actions taken by the newly formed United Nations (UN) in 1946. At this time the UN began taking actions to eliminate the South African system of legalized racial discrimination from which was defined and known by the term “apartheid”.

To place a historical bearing on the colossal undertaking that occurred to finally overturn South Africa’s Apartheid, that ultimately resulted in the country’s first democratic election of the once imprisoned Nelson Mandela as President on October 3, 1994, this article gratefully acknowledges the following research of Enuga S. Reddy, Former UN Assistant Secretary-General, Principal Secretary, UN Special Committee Against Apartheid and Director, UN Centre Against Apartheid:

“On 22 June 1946 the Indian government requested that the discriminatory treatment of Indians in the Union of South Africa be included on the agenda of the very first session of the General Assembly.

In the decades that followed the world body would contribute to the global struggle against apartheid by drawing world attention to the inhumanity of the system, legitimizing popular resistance, promoting anti-apartheid actions by governmental and non-governmental organizations, instituting an arms embargo, and supporting an oil embargo and boycotts of apartheid in many fields.

Presently and by an unlikely coincidence, there are 43 Senators (29 Republicans and 14 Democrats) within the 115th US Congress (all of whom are US citizens and also dual citizens of Israel) who are attempting to pass legislative bill S.720, the Israeli Anti-Boycott Act.

This bill, spearheaded by one of Capitol Hill’s most powerful lobbying groups, The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), seeks to criminalize and threaten the very foundation of our US Constitution’s 1st Amendment rights of Freedom of Speech. For the record the two primary sponsors of the bill are Democrat Ben Cardin of Maryland and Republican Rob Portman of Ohio.

Shockingly and according to the proposed bill S.720, anyone found guilty of violating the prohibitions of the Israeli Anti-Boycott Act will face a minimum civil penalty of $250,000 and a maximum criminal penalty of $1 million and face 20 years in prison. If passed, this bill serves as falling ax above the head of any person of good conscious who seeks to exert their support of basic human rights from a Gandhi-like and Nelson Mandela perspective.

Should the public allow Congress and AIPAC to ever pass such a bill then Israel will have clearly and successfully broken the will and the back of our America’s people, its’ Congress and our US Constitution. If this ever occurs, it will clearly open the door to have foreign country control the US legislative process and make Israel, rather than America, great again.

At present, a great deal is at stake for the people of America and US our constitution. For some perplexing reason the US and the world have allowed themselves to be knowingly and/or unknowingly bullied by this “New World Order Cabal” and the small country of Israel which seems to be at the helm of worldwide banking cartels.

The long list of American Presidents and politicians who have heroically addressed and confronted the historical agenda of this Cabal is perhaps best summarized by America’s 4th President, James Madison (1751-1836) in his quote: “History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and it’s issuance.”

Could it be that the US, UN and other countries invisibly bend to the herculean financial leverage that is exercised by the Zionist Cabal and the NWO, whom may find both a safe haven and headquarters in Israel?

Importantly, there are two great questions:  

  1. Will our world and humanity allow a few manically insane people to control the many for their personal agendas of power, greed and the extermination of all personal freedoms?
  2. Do we have the wisdom, courage and inner power to collectively proclaim, “Not on my Shift” and act from the realized truth that “Love Wins.”?

Mossad’s Unit. 8200 Makes Vegas False Flag Deceptively “Interactive” for “Conspiracy Theorists” Unit 8200’s Logo is Luxor Pyramid Luxor

  • There is a revealing phone video that shows one non descript security officer (like Jesus Campos) and two other alleged plain clothes police officers herding concert attendees through Gate A back into the range of fire through Gate B. These civil lawyer “ambulance chasers” are being manipulated by MGM to ultimately establish the fact that no shots were fired by patsy Paddock from the MB 32nd floor. MGM lawyers will then play the “who knew!” card, and be exonerated of all civil liability. This allows MGM owners who sold their stock high via inside trading, to, after the filing of suits depresses share price, via inside trading MGM owners knowing civil lawyer’s can not in a Court of Law establish Paddock shot anyone beyond a reasonable doubt, and the suits will be dismissed, or at least exonerate the MGM not being able to establish Paddock as lone shooter, will even now at this time begin to buy up MGM shares sold high before the False Flag at rock bottom prices only to surge again when the suits are dismissed and Paddock is shown to be a non shooter. In the meantime, the FBI and MGM destroy as much evidence at the crime scene-like 9/11 ground zero, as humanly possible. Classic False Flag’s like 9/11 are not working anymore and so Mossad/FBI has modified 9/11 textbook False Flag to be intentionally “interactive” drawing internet sleuths in down the Rabbit Hole to MGM “plausible deniability.” Note Bene, LV False Flag is disappearing from Infowhores and almost every other Fake Jews News media. If the False Flag is exposed cut off it’s air Zionist media propaganda air supply as Alex has done for Mossad / 9/11, and now for AIPAC Sheldon Jaba the Jew Adelson, Bibi and Trump’s no.1 financial political supporter for the Vegas Jewish Mafia/Mossad counter intelligence False Flag .False Flag, or double reverse internet investigator interactive False Flag. The Vegas counter intelligence propaganda False Flag lying black psy op “interactive” deception gymnastics is what Israeli Military Intelligence Sec. 8200 specializes in. It’s a new generation of text book False Flag that is intentionally “interactive” with so called “Conspiracy Theorists.”

Who Cares about Patsy’s Oswald/Paddock’s Motive! Where is Video Evidence of GSW Victims at LV? Las Vegas Zionist Fantasy False Flag Football League Analysis for NFL Point Spread Gamblers/ Trump’s 9/11 to Bomb WMD Rocket Man Saddam, eh Kim to Stop The Golden Petro Yen!Trump’s 9/11

An American Trauma Surgeon Responds

An American Trauma Surgeon Responds:

Dear Dr. Roberts:

This note is in response to your invitation for medical professionals to comment on the LV shootings with respect to the authenticity of the publicly available videos and whether they prove or disprove that actual victims were injured or killed. I am a retired surgeon with experience in managing patients with massive blood loss in an operating room setting and in other in-hospital cases of marked hemodynamic instability from hemorrhage.

The retired surgeon from Florida made many excellent points already and I will try not to repeat them. Here are some additional problems with the scene as presented in the publicly available videos:

1.)  We do not see CPR being conducted on anyone that I am aware of. This would be extremely unusual for a massive shooting. Surely someone would have captured it on their cell phone. Even if it took a while for the EMT’s to arrive, it would be reasonable for non-medical personnel in the audience who have taken a basic CPR course to have started it.

2.)  Given the alleged number of victims, we should have seen some evidence of arterial bleeding, no doubt at least several instances of massive hemorrhage (arterial bleeding is often associated with blood being ejected from the site of injury, a so-called arterial “pumper”). What is the probability that no one captured an example of it?

3.)  If some of the rounds were from a fully automatic high caliber rifle or machine-gun like weapon(s), some of the victims should have had obvious massive and visible trauma to the head, neck and extremities. So far, I have seen no evidence of it.

4.)  There is a complete absence of the kind of urgency one would expect from the professionals who allegedly responded on display in the videos available. Where are the EMT’s with their stretchers rushing to the victims? We see pictures of people in the audience crouching down, laying down, crawling, walking and running away but no evidence that any of them have sustained a gun shot wound(s).

5.) If hundreds of people were actually injured (not counting those who allegedly died at the scene) and taken to local emergency rooms, someone should have captured evidence on their cell phones of severely injured victims being wheeled into ER trauma rooms and being taken to surgery. I have not seen any videos from emergency rooms in which victims with actual wounds are displayed. Surely some of the local media would have arrived at the local hospital ER’s to take pictures and to interview the uninjured persons accompanying their friends/relatives. No interviews have appeared in which surgeons who attended the victims have been carefully questioned for the extent of injuries sustained. Similarly, no pathologists have been interviewed about their necropsy findings.

6.)  Where are the death certificates of those who died at the scene? Where are the autopsy reports which would have been mandatory? I have seen pictures of alleged deceased persons but not actual proof of death(s). Moreover, why have there been no news conferences from the hospital(s) reporting on the progress or subsequent deaths of injured patients? Surely, someone with critical injuries must have died by now if the event was not staged. The only videos I have seen depict alleged shooting victims who do not appear to have sustained a GSW.

7.)  If hundreds of injuries/deaths occurred, the video evidence should have been overwhelmingly in support of it given that almost everyone has a smart phone with camera capability. Yet, we have clearly been shown videos which do not support it. That is very strange and suggests that better video evidence is lacking, as would be expected if much or all of the scene was staged.

8.)  It has been reported that a mass casualty drill was taking place in LV either at or prior to the alleged mass casualty event. Many false flag events have been preceded by a drill that “went live.” It has also been reported that citizen researchers who have called the closest local hospitals have been told that they had no record of gunshot victims. These claims need to be substantiated.

9.)  The fact that advertisements/requests were placed asking for “Crisis Actors” in the LV area strongly suggests that the event was either partially or totally staged.

These represent only a few of the problems that come to mind at this point.

This reader writes that there was an active shooter drill underway in Las Vegas:

There was a FEMA “active shooter” drill going on that very same week in Vegas. Look into it more. It may have overlapped with the real situation to purposefully sow confusion and throw the scent.

Based on developments in England, this reader speculates that laws are coming our way that criminalize independent citizen investigations:

In your October 11 article “More Responses to the Military Surgeon’s Letter”, you ask “Is the real conspiracy one of establishing official stories as fact regardless of evidence?”

There is a strong case for that contention. I refer you to the October 2 Guardian article titled “Amber Rudd: Viewers of Online Terrorist Material Face 15 Years in Jail”. The link to this article is

In the article, the Home Secretary is quoted thus: “I want to make sure those who view despicable terrorist content online, including jihadi websites, far-right propaganda and bomb-making instructions, face the full force of the law.”

The inclusion of “far-right propaganda” in her statement is ominous. It appears that the stage is being set for the thwarting of all independent investigation in the aftermath of a tragedy, with severe legal penalties for those who do not comply.

And this from England:

Regarding your question “Why then are what clearly seem to be crisis actors employed?”.
I’m going to take a wild guess. They are preparing us for war and so they don’t want the people to see blood and guts and just how horrendous the injuries are as it might cause people to think about the reality of war. The shocking images would make people fear what war will do to their friends and family and then they will object and oppose the war mongering of the politicians.
They used actors to make being shot seem not so bad – your clothes stay clean and you are soon up and about again – so “Let’s have a war, it’s nothing to worry about”.

Once again, the question that should be on our minds is why such a public event as the mass shooting of 573 people is not a completely clear transparent event?
Why the lack of hard evidence? Why instead do we have videos of non-medical personnel incorrectly carrying non-wounded people?

Some claim that the bullets were fired from too far a distance to do much serious damage. This is the answer to why none of the 500+ reported wounded have been reported to have died from complications from their wounds. So, why then did 58 or 59 people die on site from the bullets? Alternatively, how is it possible that automatic fire into a packed audience only hit 58 or 59 people and the 500+ only suffered minor injuries by wood splinters and pieces of concrete thrown up by the bullets, thus, no deaths from the injuries?

Why is it that with these terror events—Las Vegas, Boston Marathon Bombing, 9/11 itself—drills reflecting the alleged events were being conducted? Why has the media, not only the US media, but also the world media, never asked this question? How is it that almost every time that there is a terrorist event, a drill of that event is taking place?

After all this time, how can this question remain unasked and unanswered?

How is it possible that 573 people can be shot in a public place, and aware people can have no confidence in the official story?

We know we were lied to about the JFK and RFK assassinations, the Martin Luther King assassination, the Gulf of Tonkin, the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty, Saddam Hussein’s “weapons of mass destruction,” Assad’s use of chemical weapons, Russian invasion of Ukraine, Gaddafi, Yemen, Somalia, Obama’s overthrow of the Honduras government, and Maduro in Venezuela still targeted for overthrow along with the governments of Ecuador and Bolivia. The lies we know about are voluminous. There are 3,000 structural engineers and high rise architects, and also physicists, nano-chemists, first responders, high placed former government officials, and military and airline pilots who challenge the official 9/11 story. And all of these experts are dismissed by the presstitute media, which in total probably doesn’t have an IQ of 100, as “conspiracy theorists.” Can you imagine a dumbshit American media talking head calling an internationally known nano-chemist at the University of Copenhagen a “conspiracy theorist” for publishing a peer-reviewed scientific article that he and his team of scientists found reacted and unreacted nano-thermite in the dust residue of the World Trade Center?

This is the American media, a collection of dumbshit whores who sell their souls to official lies. America has no greater enemy than its own media.


Ziocon Alex Jones, SNAP, Non Pope Francis, Profit All Together off of Child Pornography, Here’s The Proof!


  1. Every American must demand that the Squeaky Wheel of the World, Israel, stop having any say in our affairs and end all dual citizenships and prosecute them for doing 9/11 to us. Israel is our enemy not our friend. End all aid to them also.

    Veteran’s Today

The Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) wrote on their website that the Pope’s efforts should start with stamping out online sexual deviancy inside the Catholic church. This pompous holier than thous demand by SNAP is not just improbable, but totally impossible for the satanic Non Pope Apostate Francis to meet. Chaos Frank is actively supporting homosexuality and therefore Pederasty via high profile advocates  like Fr. Martin S.J. and Fr. Timothy Radcliff, o.p. both practicing Sodomites who won’t publicly admit to practicing what they preach.  But first and foremost, Argentine “Dirty War” indicted Child trafficker Francis “a bishop dressed in white we thought was The Pope” has satanically attacked sacramental marriage, procreation, and holy family life as the only true and lasting foundation of Church and human society by “The Joy of Love.” The title sounds like a 70’s Sex Guide! Francis, the Black Pope Vatican Illuminati, is now conspiring to overturn the Catholic Church’s teaching against artificial birth control “Humanae Vitae”  “Of Human Life.”  In tepidly condemning child porn via this Vatican false flag conference,  Francis, the liar as always, is speaking out of both sides of his mouth. A month ago, Francis summoned  a high ranking Vatican diplomat (No.3 in rank) from the D.C. Nuncio, or Vatican City State,  D.C. embassy back to  Rome. The FBI initially informed the Non Pope and asked  Francis to withdraw  this article unnamed D.C.Nuncio child pornographer’s  Diplomatic Immunity so as  to be arrested for child pornography by The FBI. To the contrary, Francis ordered the D.C. Nuncio child pornographer to flee his US post immediately and secretly, a fugitive from US Justice, solely to disappear within the walls of the Vatican City State devoid of further publicity (by Infowhores) and immune from US child pornography prosecution. And a month later Francis hosts this Child Pornography Vatican false flag event.  Zio Anti Catholic Alex and fading, faltering ziocon Infowhores, obsessed reporting anti Catholic Vatican fairy tales by fake Vatican Illuminati insider Leo Zagami (just google this nut), did not report the D.C. Nuncio child porn  story, but Fake News, Newsweak  did.  Zio anti Catholic Alex and Infowhores has no more moral integrity than The Non Pope when it comes to uncovering child rape, pornography, in the Vatican. Furthermore, Alex to save any loss of his Infowhore’s snake oil fortune from defamation suit by “I love infants” Jimmy Afantis, sold out and covered up  Pizzagate. . Moreover, The Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests, this year was civil Rico sued by SNAP’s former CFO, accused of defrauding by Plaintiff lawyer referral kickback the abused children they claim to advocate for. (Google the Suit Brief PDF on line). Filing this Suit caused the immediate resignation of SNAP’s regional CEO’s across the US. SNAP has for years profiteered off of clerical Child rape as a front – like ziocon Alex and Infowhores and Pizzagate denial, victimizing the victims twice and publicly destroying the Church’s reputation, just like Alex and Leo (to sell his creepy delusional anti Catholic books) have done. SNAP is the same show as Alex and Leo, Francis and the anti child porn Vatican false flag. Only Mary-Our Lady of Fatima can Help us. Not these liars!  Deus Providebit!

Las Vegas Zionist Fantasy False Flag Football League Analysis for NFL Point Spread Gamblers/ Trump’s 9/11 to Bomb WMD Rocket Man Saddam, eh Kim to Stop The Golden Petro Yen!

All Knowledge is Conditioned by The State of The Knower

Infowhore’s Comments (excepting Tel a Heb Trolls) is a source of hope and redemption from Is R Hell firster,  fake Jew, non semetic Hebrew, anti Gentile Fed/Corporate Media/ military industrial complex mind control over Jewamerica, i.e. The United Slaves of Is R Hell, here and across the globe via Goldman Sachs “national” banks.  Zio anti Catholic masonic sympathizer Alex’s Messiah Complex broadcast narcissistically as an end in itself using Infowhores as a life support system best  serves as an absurd foil for true American Patriotism, America First over Is R Hell First for The Awake who leave anti Alex and Infowhores comments. Alex only woke me up to put me back to sleep again as a controlled opposition mind controlled zombie.  There was a time when I would be outraged by Comments on Infowhores of those who saw right through Alex and called him CIA/Mossad controlled opposition.  Now I am  grateful for the true light these Comments  shine, that eventually informed me of the ins and outs of controlled opposition media mind control that Alex sells.

Las Vegas Zionist  Fantasy False Flag Football  League Analysis for NFL Point Spread GamblersTrump’s 9/11 to Bomb WMD Rocket Man Sadam, eh Kim to Stop The Golden Petro Yen! 

Bibi Netanyahu- The Leader of the Fed. Debt Enslaved  World and of  Zionist International state sponsored  Goldman Sach’s  CIA/Mossad terror -not Iran-  is  both politically supportive of super Zionist President Trump (Soros/Romney rigged election voting machines (which they own)  in key Rust Belt States to falsely elect Trump ) and in turn Bibi receives geopolitical  support only in Bibi’s delusional psychotic geopolitical out look of course  by  Pres. Slump’s brain washed UN speech denunciations of IRAN, which according to Ash Can German Nazi BibI seeks to holocaust Is R Hell. Trump in a 180 degree turn from Trump’s Campaign Trail characterization of Assad as “courageous, waging a lone battle against ISIS terrorists, at the NWO UN denounced ASSAD, as “murderous dictator” who kills his own people. In truth,  Bibi and Slump have murdered hundreds of thousands of Assad’s people  In Syria since 2012 via Mossad/CIA proxy army, ISIS while blaming Assad for Mossad staged chemical weapon attacks, and denouncing Iran as a world state sponsor of terrorism seeking to annihilate Is R Hell to achieve World Domination.  The Donald is the only one who believes Bibi’s bullshit, and vice versa. These two do not care if anyone else does. The do not realize Syria is lost, Iran, China, Russia, and Turkey are all powerful in the Middle East. When the Golan is taken back by a Palestinian Brigade fighting ISIS, Is R Hell looses the source of 40% of their fresh water, as well as Genie Gas and Oil, key to an Tel A Viv pipeline and portal with the Gaza Strip to exploiting the “Leviathon” of the coast of Palestine/Syria. Both cannot accept that the Petro dollar is dead as a door nob as a world currency, major Rotheschild and Rockefeller energy conglomerations such as Exxon and Chevron because of sanctions against Russia and now Quitar have completely lost their energy standing throughout North Africa, Eurasia, and China. World traders will buy debt free Russian State development bonds, not satanic fake Jew non Hebrew Bank of London United Slaves of Is R Hell treasury junk bonds. The US will never supply the EU with LNG.  Ukraine will inevitable throw out the fake Jew, non Hebrew, Soros branded bankster Nazis oligarchs, just like Putin has. Hopefully, half of the Israelis (secular Europeans) who voted against terrorist Likud and Bibi (Bibi rigged the voting machines in Is R Hell, just like he did for Trump) along with 48% of Israeli Arabs, replace the allegedly soon to be indicted (the indictment never seems to come) Bibi with a national unity candidate for a one state solution, The State of Palestine. And while they are at it, vote out Makmud Abbas, like Hamas, a Mossad asset. So what can be done to save Is R Hell?  As always, a false flag to start a world war can be done to save the day! Tried and true. Las Vegas Zionist  Fantasy False Flag Football  League Analysis for NFL Point Spread Gamblers :

Both allegedly to be indicted Zionist P.M. Bibi and Is R Hell firster Pres. Slump in rigging elections and the Neo Con War of Terror to promote greater Is R Hell,  in tandem, are supported by Vegas yiddish  mafia god father, Is R Hell firster- F America!  Sheldon Adelson. Both Trump and Adelson are  Las Vegas casino owner Zionist Mob connected  to BiBi  politically via “Israeli/American” Is R Hell AIPAC , Firsters, “The Zionist Council. ”  In turn both P.M. terrorist  Bibi and Is R Hell Firster Potus Slump  are politically and financially bankrolled by Adelson via Zionist fake “Russian” bankster gold laundering loans from G.H. Bush’s 9/11 Hammer Project Fitzgerald Cantor Bonds now backed by Afghan Heroin(another complete turn around by Slump on Afghanistan as well as 9/11 Truth blaming the Taliban)/ Tel a Heb Ukraine child sex slaving via Sheldon’s money laundering Las Vegas and global casinos including China.

In the NFL Black Flag revenue loss debacle,  all three deluded Zionists, Bibi, Slump, and Jabba the phony Jew are betting the House on Las Vegas Zionist  Fantasy False Flag Football  League  point spread, a  Mossad/Bibi directed stock theater of terror production of Goyim die hard advertised on corporate Fake Jew media by the Is R Hell state sponsor of international Terror/Mossad  to advertise and thereby establish the  Las Vegas Zionist False Flag Fantasy Football Point Spread League.  And Bud, this one’s for you! Bibi, Slump, and Sheldon are betting the house, Las Vegas Zionist  False Flag Fantasy Football League Point Spread  Gambling is going to be the big and only winner by this false flag whether Goyim killings actually transpired in Las Vegas, or not- like Sandy Hook,  or whether the always lone crazed gun man actually died, or even if there was a lone crazed shooter or not. Probably not.

The  latest BibI, for Trump and Adelson,  Las Vegas  Zionist Fantasy Football Point Spread League False Flag,  Trump’s 9/11 to Bomb WMD Rocket Man Sadam, eh Kim to Stop The Golden Petro Yen!  accordingly to stock company formula , has been completely misconstrued in all facts and terrorist affiliations -from Antifa to Isis from the start as a  Mossad disinformation  psy op by Jew Corporate Media massed in Las Vegas the day before OJ’s release. Bibi, Slump, and Sheldon are the last to be told, not only do False Flags not work anymore,  but all Jew Goldman Sach’s false flags are now immediately pounced on, analyzed, and painstakingly exposed in every aspect and immediately attributed not to The Palestinians, or Radical Jihadists, or Iran, but BibI and Mossad, and hopefully to Zionist liar Potus Slump and Jabba The Jew Sheldon. The Stock Jew Media False Flag lies are being torn apart by internet investigators across the world at this very moment.  Infowhores is not one of those critical  investigators of course.  Alex and Infowhores  are cypto Is R Hell firster controlled opposition,  the absurd foil of non mind controlled internet reporters. Alex via Infowhores as controlled opposition does not expose the  Las Vegas Zionist  Fantasy False Flag Football  League  point spread, but supports it with and for Slump.

Just as no one, except Bibi, Slump, and Jaba  is fooled by False Flags to start a world war (certainly Putin is not fooled), no one is fooled by Infowhores two faced support of two faced Is R Hell firster Slump. The Las Vegas Zionist Fantasy False Flag Football Point Spread  League  (Bibi, Slump, and Jaba the Jew Sheldon) covers up the fake Jew corporate media coverage of the NFL (National Felons’ League) Black flag protests. CBS/CNN owns rights to broadcast The NFL and cover the Black flag protests at the same time.  Keep in mind that the Zionist Satanist can not use CNN anymore to brainwash the American Sheeple, no one views, only mass killing video games and the brain crushing NFL- most especially the always Allister Crowley esque Super Bowl half time show which has always been the exact same satanic ritual since 1997 albino and Michael Jackson,  or be it Black Panther Black Power Illuminati Boyounce, or bush exposed for nine year olds body challenged perpetual drug addict Lady Gag Gag. CBS/ESPN viewership by the Black felon domestic bitch beaters flag protests is devastated, at the same time, as a Soros media entity, CNN and CBS, ESPN must support Black Live’s matter Flag disrespect. The snake is eating its tail.  Circular self destructive snowflake NFL/Soros/ Jew Media hemorrhaging of media revenue fan base and advertising was not the straw (more like the anvil) that broke the camel’s back, this was:

Recently, apart from NFL Coaches, Management,  a star only  “white” on the team quarterback  was the only player to stand at Flag  attention. All black team Oakland Raiders  Flag protesting players allowed their white quarter back not sacked once last season to be sacked 4 consecutive times in the game,  and receivers blatantly dropped passes.  Unlike NFL Coach/ Team unity in protesting or not at other NFL game venues, this Raider instance showed the players apart from the Coaches and Quarter Back are willing for Black Live’s matter Black Flag  protest reasons to  “shave points.”   A Red Flag, this is a huge shock wave for Los Vegas Casino NFL point spread gambling, a money laundering racket worth billions a year, the life blood of Las Vegas Casinos.  The Oakland Raider  Black flag protest in shaving points for other reasons than criminal conspiracy, i.e. Sheldon, Wynn, Trump racket point spread shaving for organized sports gambling crime, raises a reasonable doubt in the NFL point spread gambling industry the Black NFL players on the field, at any given moment are out of  Sheldon, Trump Las Vegas NFL point spread gambling control and will not shave points  by criminal conspiracy (as they usually do) to make Las Vegas  Casino  owner Billion Aires like Sheldon Adelson and Trump, Billions untold in rigged NFL football point spread gambling on command, but for Black Lives Matter.  (LOL)

What can be done to stop this?  Cement cleats for NFL Blacks! Not possible.  Order a hit!  No, Contract  a  tried and true for world war too  Bibi/ Mossad False Flag targeting Trump supporting stereo typical  America Firster County Music Fans by a (to be pitied) patsy shooter  with Antifa flyer and ISIS Facebook affiliation. The Las Vegas Zionist Fantasy False Flag Football Point Spread League wins all NFL game point spread bets thereby and covers up the continued threat of Black NFL player Flag protest disrupting the point spread. Slump said as President, to  hail The Las Vegas Zionist Fantasy False Flag Football Point Spread League, he is ordering the  lowering of the NFL Black Flag to half mast to honor the fallen, all those who have given their lives so that  The Las Vegas Fantasy Zionist False Flag Football Point Spread Gambling  League might live in prosperity and freedom in this great county. Certainly the NFL Black Flag will still be at half mast this Sunday in all the NFL stadiums preventing the players from kneeling or shaving points during the game in protest of the only white player not kneeling. Oakland Raider’s, what does it say that your whole team is Black, except the Coaches and Quarterback.  This is truly a Black False Flag,  pun intended. In turn, Zionist Pres. Slump, gets a boast to his slumping America First spiel poll ratings after DACA  and saves his fake Jew fake Russian Vegas Mob Mafia casino and hotel empire due to  the The Las Vegas Fantasy False Flag Football Point Spread Gambling Zionist League, while Slump continues to go full Ziodotard for WWIII against Rocket man, Iran, and Assad, while at the same time insuring and thereby getting billions of point spread betting profits on Black NFL games via The Las Vegas Zionist  Fantasy False Flag Football Point Spread  League of  Sheldon Adelson.   Adelson is the central cash donor and Is R Hell AIPAC political supporter via Las Vegas Fantasy False Flag Football Point Spread  Zionist League terrorist of Bibi.  And in turn, BiBI’s Is R Hell supporter of  The Las Vegas Zionist  Fantasy False Flag Football Point Spread  League,  Casino owner Pres. Slump.  Trump was in 1986 facade owner of Jewish Vegas Mob engendered  Resorts International, which in its recent re incarnation as MGM Resorts International under  Zionist Media Mogul Kerk Korkerian , owns Mandalay Bay, Luxor, Excaliber, the complete shooting gallery of the The Las Vegas Fantasy Zionist False Flag Football Point Spread Gambling  League.  This is Trump’s 9/11 style false flag bomb Rocket Man weapons of mass destruction Sadam, I mean Kim to start WWIII and stop the Golden Petro Yen (LOL).  Note, just as Slump’s yiddish friend Lucky Larry Silverstein controlled the Towers security and access with Bush as President, so Adelson controls the Las Vegas False Flag Venue with President Slump.

Like Lee Harvey Oswald, patsy made up evil villain cut out Paddock (not a real historical person, but conjured up out of nothing like Barak by CIA) is a Mossad/CIA psy op distraction and disinformation ploy to eclipse public awareness of the true Cui Bono for the Las Vegas Casino Zionist NFl  Fantasy False Flag Football rigged point spread League: Adelson/Trump/BibI,  perpetrated the LAS Vegas Zionist League Fantasy False Flag Football false flag to regain total rigged control of  NFL game point spread, not letting a crisis go to waste, using the Vegas hoax false flag to promote  World War III. The NFL Flag gambling crisis, most especially The Oakland Raiders throwing a game precluding the rigged NFL point spread gambling racket, is the Cui Bono behind this manifest moronic Zionist League LV Casino owner Fantasy  Football False Flag. Zionist Vegas casino owner NFL point spread rigging is the billions of dollars gambling life blood of Vegas Casino Zionists League: Sheldon Adelson, who via AIPAC funds Trump (Zionist  League Vegas casino chrony) and Bibi in tandem. To invest total focus, as zio owned Time/Warner Infowhores is doing, just like other Fake Jew news, is to beg the question, how does Lee Ann know, and who told her to “believe” uncritically that Oswald and Paddock are the shooters, when there is. and there will never be any evidence of motive and Cui, historically, and in reality, for either Oswald or Paddock. False Flags do not work anymore. This one is well on the way to being analyzed and exposed, This is America First traitor, Is R Hell first and only Trump’s 9/11 to  bomb WMD Sadam, eh Rocket man Kim, to stop the golden petro Yen. The truth shows The Satanist Zionist child rapping cannibals one trick pony – False Flags- is dead. No one is fooled, except Alex Jones, who is not fooled but attempts to fool, and zio Alex denounced by Nemo and Mattsen as a fraud, is not believed. Hopefully it is only a matter of time before David Knight and Lee Ann Macadoo quit..

Vote for America under God First, Vote for Judge Roy More Patriots of Alabama!

September 25, 2017

Trump, Pence, McConnell, And Washington establishment vs. Judge Roy Moore

Facebook Twitter Google+

By Chuck Baldwin

By now everyone should know that President Donald Trump, Vice President Mike Pence, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and the entire Washington establishment, including virtually every professional lobbyist, are doing everything they can to defeat conservative constitutionalist Judge Roy Moore for the U.S. Senate in Alabama. They are all rallying around the quintessential neocon RINO New World Order toady Luther Strange.

I’ve known Roy Moore since he was a circuit court judge in Etowah County (Gadsden), Alabama. I saw the wooden Ten Commandments plaque in the Etowah County Courthouse (that Roy had personally carved himself) before he took it with him to Montgomery when he was elected as the Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice. I was with him when, at the behest of the ACLU and SPLC, a circuit court judge in Montgomery told him to remove the wooden plaque, which he refused to do. I was with him when, as Alabama Chief Justice, a federal judge ordered him to remove a Ten Commandments monument that he had placed in the capitol rotunda, which he again refused to do. I was with him during the trial when Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor prosecuted Judge Moore for refusing to remove the monument. I knew the Alabama governor, Fob James, who had initially appointed Pryor as attorney general. Fob told me personally that Pryor’s commitment to support Judge Moore was a litmus test to receiving the appointment.

It is an absolute fact that Fob James would have never appointed Pryor had Pryor not promised Fob that he would support Judge Moore’s right to post the Ten Commandments. Pryor promised Fob that he would support Roy Moore “all the way.” Pryor lied. But he didn’t just lie: Pryor was the chief prosecutor against Roy Moore. Pryor is a lying two-faced double-crossing Judas Iscariot. And Bill Pryor got his 30 pieces of silver for betraying Governor James and Judge Moore in the form of an appointment to the federal bench by the wretched and evil G.W. Bush – and many conservative Christians still believe that Bill Pryor (and G.W. Bush) is a “good Christian.” BARF!

Fob James had lion-like courage and was a staunch ally of Roy Moore. I stood behind Governor James when he held a press conference and told the nation that he would use the Alabama National Guard and state police if he had to do so in order to protect Judge Moore’s Ten Commandments plaque should any federal police agency try to enforce an order from a George H. W. Bush federal judge demanding that Judge Moore take it down.

Governor James was defeated for reelection by a Democrat in 1998. The establishment Republicans had forced Fob into a primary election against one of their toadies. Fob won that primary election, but the contest depleted his financial resources, and he lost the general election. In 2002, G.W. Bush’s chief political strategist Karl Rove was sent to Alabama to support a Republican lackey for governor who would roll over and leave Judge Moore to the mercy of the wolves. Rove succeeded. With a supporting governor out of the way, Rove helped orchestrate the prosecution, conviction, and removal from office of Judge Moore in 2003. Again, this was all done with the approbation (if not direction) of the “good Christian” G.W. Bush. And guess who is back in Alabama today trying to again defeat Judge Roy Moore? You guessed it: Karl Rove.

The point is, the Washington establishment has been doing everything it can to destroy Judge Roy Moore from as far back as the G.W. Bush administration and from federal judges appointed by Bush, Sr. Yes, Judge Moore’s biggest enemies have been establishment Republicans.

Now Judge Moore is running for the U.S. Senate from the State of Alabama against a neocon RINO establishment New World Order toady: Luther Strange. And once again, the President of the United States, the Vice President of the United States, the Majority Leader of the United States, and virtually the entire Washington establishment are doing everything they can to defeat this great American statesman: Judge Roy Moore.

Judge Moore is a graduate of West Point. He served as a company commander with the Military Police Corps in Vietnam. He was so respected by the men he led that they nicknamed him “Captain America.” He was a cowboy for a while. He has a black belt in martial arts. He went to law school and got his law degree. He was elected circuit court judge and twice elected Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice. He is a faithful husband, father, and grandfather. He is a Christian in the truest sense of the word – not just at election time. He is a constitutionalist. He has large portions of it memorized. He takes his oaths to the Constitution seriously. He is a man’s man. He is tough as nails. At the same time, he is as kind and gentle a man as one will ever find. He said “No” to unlawful demands to remove his Ten Commandments plaques and monuments at least three times on constitutional principles. He knows how to lose everything for doing what is right. Roy Moore knows how to fight, and he is nobody’s toady.

Here are a couple of columns I wrote about the Washington establishment’s attacks on Roy Moore back in 2003 when it all happened:

Bill Pryor’s Shocking Comments During Roy Moore’s “Trial”

Bill Pryor Got His Judas Money

If Donald Trump was remotely serious about draining the swamp in Washington, D.C., he would know that Roy Moore is EXACTLY the kind of man that needs to be in the U.S. Senate. But it is obvious that Donald Trump didn’t mean a word he said about draining the swamp or about much of anything else, for that matter.

Even more than his evil establishment predecessor G.W. Bush, Trump is bringing the entire weight of the White House against Judge Roy Moore. Trump wants another establishment lackey in the U.S. Senate so badly that both he and his vice president are personally travelling to Alabama this week to help defeat Judge Moore.

Think about it: here is a man, Roy Moore, who must be regarded as one of the most courageous men of the 20th and now 21st centuries. Here is a man who has actually read and truly understands the U.S. Constitution. Here is a man who has proven that he is willing to take on the establishment elite. And the man who said he wanted to drain the swamp in D.C., Donald Trump, is doing everything he can to DEFEAT Roy Moore and help elect another swamp creature.

Ladies and gentlemen, the Trump White House, Mitch McConnell, and the entire Washington establishment are doing everything they can to DEFEAT Judge Roy Moore.

Don’t tell me Donald Trump is a conservative; don’t tell me Trump cares about the Constitution; don’t tell me Trump wants to drain the swamp; don’t tell me Trump is an “outsider”; don’t tell me Trump is “anti-establishment.” Bull Manure! Donald Trump is just another establishment toady who masqueraded as an anti-establishment outsider in order to get elected. There is NO WAY in this world a true anti-establishment outsider, a true conservative, or a true constitutionalist could support the neocon RINO globalist Luther Strange and oppose the conservative constitutionalist American hero Roy Moore. NO WAY! NO WAY! NO WAY!

This runoff election between Roy Moore and Luther Strange will take place next Tuesday, September 26. The winner will take on a Democrat in the general election. But this is considered a safe Republican seat, so whoever wins the Republican runoff next Tuesday will doubtless be the next U.S. Senator from Alabama. This person is filling the seat left vacant by Trump’s appointment of Jeff Sessions as America’s attorney general.

To date, Roy Moore enjoys a fair lead in the polls over Luther Strange. But, again, President Trump and Vice President Pence are scheduled to campaign for Strange this week. Mitch McConnell has already spent millions of dollars trying to defeat Moore and is still shelling it out (mostly in the form of blatantly untrue attack ads against Judge Moore). And get this: virtually the entire Trump team in Alabama is supporting ROY MOORE. But now Trump himself is going to Alabama to support LUTHER STRANGE.

I’m telling you, folks. Donald Trump has taken conservatives – and Christians – for a royal ride. It’s time for Christians and conservatives to snap out of the hypnotic trance Trump has put them in and start taking a good hard look at reality: Donald Trump campaigned (masqueraded) as an anti-establishment outsider. But since becoming President, he has done nothing but cater to the establishment. He has expanded the Warfare State for the establishment; he has increased federal spending for the establishment; he has filled his administration with establishment insiders; he has backed down on DACA for the establishment; he supports replacing Obamacare with an establishment-backed GOP health care bill that is just as bad OR WORSE than Obamacare; and his massive efforts to defeat Judge Roy Moore and support the establishment toady Luther Strange absolutely prove how disingenuous Trump was during the campaign.

We need to be praying for the people of the State of Alabama. They know Roy Moore. They thought they knew Donald Trump. Now, their discernment, understanding, and convictions are being put to the test in the most serious manner possible. The people who are supporting Roy Moore also supported Donald Trump. Now, Trump is coming back to the State of Alabama to support Moore’s neocon opponent. How the people of Alabama are going to digest all of this is anybody’s guess right now.

But I know Roy Moore personally. Unlike Donald Trump, he is the REAL DEAL.

On the day following the U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal to hear Judge Moore’s case – thus paving the way for his removal from office (which took place nine days later) – I wrote a column that ended with these words:

    • The bright side of all this gloominess is that, like Daniel of old, no matter how much treachery is brought against Roy Moore, God is still with him! The greater the attacks become, the stronger he becomes! Beyond that, the door that God allows to be closed to Roy Moore today will only serve to open an even larger and more influential door tomorrow.

I wrote that on November 4, 2003. See the column here:

The Supreme Court Closed The Door On Judge Moore, But God Will Open Another One!

Well, the tomorrow I predicted for Roy Moore is here. And I know God is with him yet today. I pray the people of Alabama will be too.

P.S. I recently brought a message that was taken from Psalm 11 entitled “If The Foundations Be Destroyed, What Can The Righteous Do?” In this message, I list 25 foundational principles that have either already been destroyed or are currently being destroyed – and what Christians should be doing about it. The current attacks against Judge Roy Moore make this message all the more relevant.

Find my DVD message “If The Foundations Be Destroyed, What Can The Righteous Do?” here:

“If The Foundations Be Destroyed, What Can The Righteous Do?”

P.P.S. People have requested that we include an audio file of my columns each week. So, beginning today, a free computerized audio file of this column can be downloaded here:

Free computerized mp3 audio file of this column

And please pray for Roy Moore and his family.

© Chuck Baldwin

Francis Non Pope Apostate Deposes Himself by Violently and Arrogantly Rebuking Brotherly Correction for His Heresies!
© [all rights reserved]
Correctio filialis de haeresibus propagatis
July 16th, 2017
Feast of our Lady of Mt Carmel
Most Holy Father,
With profound grief, but moved by fidelity to our Lord Jesus Christ, by love for the Church and
for the papacy, and by filial devotion toward yourself, we are compelled to address a correction to
Your Holiness on account of the propagation of heresies effected by the apostolic exhortation
Amoris laetitia and by other words, deeds and omissions of Your Holiness.
We are permitted to issue this correction by natural law, by the law of Christ, and by the law of
the Church, which three things Your Holiness has been appointed by divine providence to guard.
By natural law: for as subjects have by nature a duty to obey their superiors in all lawful things, so
they have a right to be governed according to law, and therefore to insist, where need be, that their
superiors so govern. By the law of Christ: for His Spirit inspired the apostle Paul to rebuke Peter
in public when the latter did not act according to the truth of the gospel (Gal. 2). St Thomas
Aquinas notes that this public rebuke from a subject to a superior was licit on account of the
imminent danger of scandal concerning the faith (Summa Theologiae 2a 2ae, 33, 4 ad 2), and ‘the
gloss of St Augustine’ adds that on this occasion, “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” (ibid.). The law of the Church also constrains us, since it states that “Christ’s
faithful . . . have the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence,
and position, to manifest to the sacred pastors their views on matters which concern the good of
the Church” (Code of Canon Law 212:2-3; Code of Canons of Oriental Churches 15:3).
Scandal concerning faith and morals has been given to the Church and to the world by the
publication of Amoris laetitia and by other acts through which Your Holiness has sufficiently made
clear the scope and purpose of this document. Heresies and other errors have in consequence
spread through the Church; for while some bishops and cardinals have continued to defend the
divinely revealed truths about marriage, the moral law, and the reception of the sacraments, others
have denied these truths, and have received from Your Holiness not rebuke but favour. Those
cardinals, by contrast, who have submitted dubia to Your Holiness, in order that by this timehonoured
method the truth of the gospel might be easily affirmed, have received no answer but
Most Holy Father, the Petrine ministry has not been entrusted to you that you might impose
strange doctrines on the faithful, but so that you may, as a faithful steward, guard the deposit
against the day of the Lord’s return (Lk. 12; 1 Tim. 6:20). We adhere wholeheartedly to the doctrine
of papal infallibility as defined by the First Vatican Council, and therefore we adhere to the
© [all rights reserved]
explanation which that same council gave of this charism, which includes this declaration: “The
Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that they might, by His revelation, make
known some new doctrine, but that, by His assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully
expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles” (Pastor aeternus, cap. 4). For
this reason, Your Predecessor, Blessed Pius IX, praised the collective declaration of the German
bishops, who noted that “the opinion according to which the pope is ‘an absolute sovereign
because of his infallibility’ is based on a completely false understanding of the dogma of papal
infallibility.”1 Likewise, at the 2nd Vatican Council, the Theological Commission which oversaw the
Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen gentium, noted that the powers of the Roman pontiff
are limited in many ways.2
Those Catholics, however, who do not clearly grasp the limits of papal infallibility are liable to be
led by the words and actions of Your Holiness into one of two disastrous errors: either they will
come to embrace the heresies which are now being propagated, or, aware that these doctrines are
contrary to the word of God, they will doubt or deny the prerogatives of the popes. Others again
of the faithful are led to put in doubt the validity of the renunciation of the papacy by Pope
Emeritus Benedict XVI. Thus, the Petrine office, bestowed upon the Church by our Lord Jesus
Christ for the sake of unity and faith, is so used that a way is opened for heresy and for schism.
Further, noting that practices now encouraged by Your Holiness’s words and actions are contrary
not only to the perennial faith and discipline of the Church but also to the magisterial statements
of Your predecessors, the faithful reflect that Your Holiness’s own statements can enjoy no greater
authority than that of former popes; and thus the authentic papal magisterium suffers a wound of
which it may not soon be healed.
We, however, believe that Your Holiness possesses the charism of infallibility, and the right of
universal jurisdiction over Christ’s faithful, in the sense defined by the Church. In our protest
against Amoris laetitia and against other deeds, words and omissions related to it, we do not deny
the existence of this papal charism or Your Holiness’s possession of it, since neither Amoris laetitia
nor any of the statements which have served to propagate the heresies which this exhortation
insinuates are protected by that divine guarantee of truth. Our correction is indeed required by
fidelity to infallible papal teachings which are incompatible with certain of Your Holiness’s
As subjects, we do not have the right to issue to Your Holiness that form of correction by which
a superior coerces those subject to him with the threat or administration of punishment (cf. Summa
Theologiae 2a 2ae, 33, 4). We issue this correction, rather, to protect our fellow Catholics – and those
outside the Church, from whom the key of knowledge must not be taken away (cf. Lk. 11:52) –
hoping to prevent the further spread of doctrines which tend of themselves to the profaning of
all the sacraments and the subversion of the Law of God.
* * *
© [all rights reserved]
We wish now to show how several passages of Amoris laetitia, in conjunction with acts, words, and
omissions of Your Holiness, serve to propagate seven heretical propositions.3
The passages of Amoris laetitia to which we refer are the following:
AL 295: ‘Saint John Paul II proposed the so-called “law of gradualness” in the
knowledge that the human being “knows, loves and accomplishes moral good by
different stages of growth”. This is not a “gradualness of law” but rather a gradualness
in the prudential exercise of free acts on the part of subjects who are not in a position
to understand, appreciate, or fully carry out the objective demands of the law.’
AL 296: “There are two ways of thinking which recur throughout the Church’s history:
casting off and reinstating. The Church’s way, from the time of the Council of
Jerusalem, has always been the way of Jesus, the way of mercy and reinstatement. The
way of the Church is not to condemn anyone for ever.”
AL 297: ‘No one can be condemned for ever, because that is not the logic of the
AL 298: ‘The divorced who have entered a new union, for example, can find
themselves in a variety of situations, which should not be pigeonholed or fit into
overly rigid classifications leaving no room for a suitable personal and pastoral
discernment. One thing is a second union consolidated over time, with new children,
proven fidelity, generous self-giving, Christian commitment, a consciousness of its
irregularity and of the great difficulty of going back without feeling in conscience that
one would fall into new sins. The Church acknowledges situations “where, for serious
reasons, such as the children’s upbringing, a man and woman cannot satisfy the
obligation to separate [footnote 329: In such situations, many people, knowing and
accepting the possibility of living “as brothers and sisters” which the Church offers
them, point out that if certain expressions of intimacy are lacking, “it often happens
that faithfulness is endangered and the good of the children suffers”.] There are also
the cases of those who made every effort to save their first marriage and were unjustly
abandoned, or of “those who have entered into a second union for the sake of the
children’s upbringing, and are sometimes subjectively certain in conscience that their
previous and irreparably broken marriage had never been valid”. Another thing is a
new union arising from a recent divorce, with all the suffering and confusion which
this entails for children and entire families, or the case of someone who has
consistently failed in his obligations to the family. It must remain clear that this is not
the ideal which the Gospel proposes for marriage and the family. The Synod Fathers
stated that the discernment of pastors must always take place “by adequately
distinguishing”, with an approach which “carefully discerns situations”. We know that
no “easy recipes” exist.’
AL 299: ‘I am in agreement with the many Synod Fathers who observed that “the
baptized who are divorced and civilly remarried need to be more fully integrated into
Christian communities in the variety of ways possible, while avoiding any occasion of
© [all rights reserved]
scandal. The logic of integration is the key to their pastoral care, a care which would
allow them not only to realize that they belong to the Church as the body of Christ,
but also to know that they can have a joyful and fruitful experience in it. They are
baptized; they are brothers and sisters; the Holy Spirit pours into their hearts gifts and
talents for the good of all. … Such persons need to feel not as excommunicated
members of the Church, but instead as living members, able to live and grow in the
Church and experience her as a mother who welcomes them always, who takes care
of them with affection and encourages them along the path of life and the Gospel.”’
AL 300: ‘Since “the degree of responsibility is not equal in all cases”, the consequences
or effects of a rule need not necessarily always be the same. [footnote 336] This is also
the case with regard to sacramental discipline, since discernment can recognize that in
a particular situation no grave fault exists.’
AL 301: ‘It is [sic] can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation
are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. More is
involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject may know full well the rule,
yet have great difficulty in understanding “its inherent values, or be in a concrete
situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise
without further sin.”’
AL 303: ‘Conscience can do more than recognize that a given situation does not
correspond objectively to the overall demands of the Gospel. It can also recognize
with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be
given to God, and come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself
is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the objective
AL 304: ‘I earnestly ask that we always recall a teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas and
learn to incorporate it in our pastoral discernment: “Although there is necessity in the
general principles, the more we descend to matters of detail, the more frequently we
encounter defects… In matters of action, truth or practical rectitude is not the same
for all, as to matters of detail, but only as to the general principles; and where there is
the same rectitude in matters of detail, it is not equally known to all… The principle
will be found to fail, according as we descend further into detail”. It is true that general
rules set forth a good which can never be disregarded or neglected, but in their
formulation they cannot provide absolutely for all particular situations.’
AL 305: ‘Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that
in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such
– a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace
and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end. [footnote 351: In certain
cases, this can include the help of the sacraments. Hence, “I want to remind priests
that the confessional must not be a torture chamber, but rather an encounter with the
Lord’s mercy. I would also point out that the Eucharist “is not a prize for the perfect,
but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak.”]’
AL 308: ‘I understand those who prefer a more rigorous pastoral care which leaves no
room for confusion. But I sincerely believe that Jesus wants a Church attentive to the
© [all rights reserved]
goodness which the Holy Spirit sows in the midst of human weakness, a Mother who,
while clearly expressing her objective teaching, “always does what good she can, even
if in the process, her shoes get soiled by the mud of the street”.’
AL 311: ‘The teaching of moral theology should not fail to incorporate these
The words, deeds and omissions of Your Holiness to which we wish to refer, and which in
conjunction with these passages of Amoris laetitia are serving to propagate heresies within the
Church, are the following:
– Your Holiness has refused to give a positive answer to the dubia submitted to you by Cardinals
Burke, Caffarra, Brandmüller, and Meisner, in which you were respectfully requested to confirm
that the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia does not abolish five teachings of the Catholic faith.
– Your Holiness intervened in the composition of the Relatio post disceptationem for the Extraordinary
Synod on the Family. The Relatio proposed allowing Communion for divorced-and-remarried
Catholics on a “case-by-case basis”, and said pastors should emphasize the “positive aspects” of
lifestyles the Church considers gravely sinful, including civil remarriage after divorce and premarital
cohabitation. These proposals were included in the Relatio at your personal insistence, despite the
fact that they did not receive the two-thirds majority required by the Synod rules for a proposal to
be included in the Relatio.
– In an interview in April 2016, a journalist asked Your Holiness if there are any concrete
possibilities for the divorced and remarried that did not exist before the publication of Amoris
laetitia. You replied ‘Io posso dire, si. Punto’; that is, ‘I can say yes. Period.’ Your Holiness then
stated that the reporter’s question was answered by the presentation given by Cardinal Schönborn
on Amoris laetitia. In this presentation Cardinal Schönborn stated:
My great joy as a result of this document resides in the fact that it coherently
overcomes that artificial, superficial, clear division between “regular” and “irregular”,
and subjects everyone to the common call of the Gospel, according to the words of St.
Paul: “For God has consigned all to disobedience, that He may have mercy on all”
(Rom. 11, 32). … what does the Pope say in relation to access to the sacraments for
people who live in “irregular” situations? Pope Benedict had already said that “easy
recipes” do not exist (AL 298, note 333). Pope Francis reiterates the need to discern
carefully the situation, in keeping with St. John Paul II’s Familiaris consortio (84) (AL
298). “Discernment must help to find possible ways of responding to God and
growing in the midst of limits. By thinking that everything is black and white, we
sometimes close off the way of grace and of growth, and discourage paths of
sanctification which give glory to God” (AL 205). He also reminds us of an important
phrase from Evangelii gaudium, 44: “A small step, in the midst of great human
limitations, can be more pleasing to God than a life which appears outwardly in order
© [all rights reserved]
but moves through the day without confronting great difficulties” (AL 304). In the
sense of this “via caritatis” (AL 306), the Pope affirms, in a humble and simple
manner, in a note (351) that the help of the sacraments may also be given “in certain
Your Holiness amplified this statement by asserting that Amoris laetitia endorses the approach to
the divorced and remarried that is practised in Cardinal Schönborn’s diocese, where they are
permitted to receive communion.
– On Sept. 5th 2016 the bishops of the Buenos Aires region issued a statement on the application
of Amoris laetitia. In it they stated:
6) En otras circunstancias más complejas, y cuando no se pudo obtener una
declaración de nulidad, la opción mencionada puede no ser de hecho factible. No
obstante, igualmente es posible un camino de discernimiento. Si se llega a reconocer
que, en un caso concreto, hay limitaciones que atenúan la responsabilidad y la
culpabilidad (cf. 301-302), particularmente cuando una persona considere que caería
en una ulterior falta dañando a los hijos de la nueva unión, Amoris laetítía abre la
posibilidad del acceso a los sacramentos de la Reconciliación y la Eucaristía (cf. notas
336 y 351). Estos a su vez disponen a la persona a seguir madurando y creciendo con
la fuerza de la gracia. …
9) Puede ser conveniente que un eventual acceso a los sacramentos se realice de
manera reservada, sobre todo cuando se prevean situaciones conflictivas. Pero al
mismo tiempo no hay que dejar de acompañar a la comunidad para que crezca en un
espíritu de comprensión y de acogida, sin que ello implique crear confusiones en la
enseñanza de la Iglesia acerca del matrimonio indisoluble. La comunidad es
instrumento de la misericordia que es «inmerecida, incondicional y gratuita» (297).
10) El discernimiento no se cierra, porque «es dinámico y debe permanecer siempre
abierto a nuevas etapas de crecimiento y a nuevas decisiones que permitan realizar el
ideal de manera más plena» (303), según la «ley de gradualidad» (295) y confiando en
la ayuda de la gracia.

[6) In other, more complex cases, and when a declaration of nullity has not been
obtained, the above mentioned option may not, in fact, be feasible. Nonetheless, a
path of discernment is still possible. If it comes to be recognized that, in a specific
case, there are limitations that mitigate responsibility and culpability (cf. 301-302),
especially when a person believes they would incur a subsequent wrong by harming
the children of the new union, Amoris laetitia offers the possibility of access to the
sacraments of Reconciliation and Eucharist (cf. footnotes 336 and 351). These
sacraments, in turn, dispose the person to continue maturing and growing with the
power of grace. …
9) It may be right for eventual access to sacraments to take place privately, especially
© [all rights reserved]
where situations of conflict might arise. But at the same time, we have to accompany
our communities in their growing understanding and welcome, without this implying
creating confusion about the teaching of the Church on the indissoluble marriage.
The community is an instrument of mercy, which is “unmerited, unconditional and
gratuitous” (297).
10) Discernment is not closed, because it “is dynamic; it must remain ever open to
new stages of growth and to new decisions which can enable the ideal to be more
fully realized” (303), according to the “law of gradualness” (295) and with confidence
in the help of grace.]
This asserts that according to Amoris laetitia confusion is not to be created about the teaching of
the Church on the indissolubility of marriage, that the divorced and remarried can receive the
sacraments, and that persisting in this state is compatible with receiving the help of grace. Your
Holiness wrote an official letter dated the same day to Bishop Sergio Alfredo Fenoy of San Miguel,
a delegate of the Argentina bishops’ Buenos Aires Region, stating that the bishops of the Buenos
Aires region had given the only possible interpretation of Amoris laetitia:
Querido hermano:
Recibí el escrito de la Región Pastoral Buenos Aires «Criterios básicos para la
aplicación del capítulo VIII de Amoris laetítia». Muchas gracias por habérmelo enviado;
y los felicito por el trabajo que se han tomado: un verdadero ejemplo de
acompañamiento a los sacerdotes… y todos sabemos cuánto es necesaria esta cercanía
del obíspo con su clero y del clero con el obispo . El prójimo «más prójimo» del obispo
es el sacerdote, y el mandamiento de amar al prójimo como a sí mismo comienza para
nosotros obispos precisamente con nuestros curas.
El escrito es muy bueno y explícita cabalmente el sentido del capitulo VIII de
Amoris Laetitia. No hay otras interpretaciones.
[Beloved brother,
I received the document from the Buenos Aires Pastoral Region, “Basic Criteria
for the Application of Chapter Eight of Amoris laetitia.” Thank you very much for
sending it to me. I thank you for the work they have done on this: a true example of
accompaniment for the priests … and we all know how necessary is this closeness of
the bishop with his clergy and the clergy with the bishop. The neighbor ‘closest’ to
the bishop is the priest, and the commandment to love one’s neighbor as one’s self
begins for us, the bishops, precisely with our priests. The document is very good and
completely explains the meaning of chapter VIII of Amoris laetitia. There are no other
– Your Holiness appointed Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia as president of the Pontifical Academy
© [all rights reserved]
for Life and grand chancellor of the Pontifical Pope John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage
and Family. As head of the Pontifical Council for the Family, Archbishop Paglia was responsible
for the publication of a book, Famiglia e Chiesa, un legame indissolubile (Libreria Editrice Vaticana,
2015), that contains the lectures given at three seminars promoted by that dicastery on the topics
of ‘Marriage: Faith, Sacrament, Discipline’; ‘Family, Conjugal Love and Generation’; and ‘The
Wounded Family and Irregular Unions: What Pastoral Attitude’. This book and the seminars it
described were intended to put forward proposals for the Synod on the Family, and promoted the
granting of communion to divorced and remarried Catholics.
– Guidelines for the diocese of Rome were issued under Your Holiness’s authority permitting the
reception of the Eucharist under certain circumstances by civilly divorced and remarried Catholics
living more uxorio with their civil partner.
– Your Holiness appointed Bishop Kevin Farrell as prefect of the newly established Dicastery for
Laity, Family and Life, and promoted him to the rank of cardinal. Cardinal Farrell has expressed
support for Cardinal Schönborn’s proposal that the divorced and remarried should receive
communion. He has stated that the reception of communion by the divorced and remarried is a
‘process of discernment and of conscience.’ 6
– On January 17th, 2017, the Osservatore Romano, the official journal of the Holy See, published the
guidelines issued by the archbishop of Malta and the bishop of Gozo for the reception of the
Eucharist by persons living in an adulterous relationship. These guidelines permitted the
sacrilegious reception of the Eucharist by some persons in this situation, and stated that in some
cases it is impossible for such persons to practise chastity and harmful for them to attempt to
practise chastity. No criticism of these guidelines was made by the Osservatore Romano, which
presented them as legitimate exercises of episcopal teaching and authority. This publication was
an official act of the Holy See that went uncorrected by yourself.
His verbis, actis, et omissionibus, et in iis sententiis libri Amoris laetitia quas supra diximus, Sanctitas
Vestra sustentavit recte aut oblique, et in Ecclesia (quali quantaque intelligentia nescimus nec
iudicare audemus) propositiones has sequentes, cum munere publico tum actu privato, propagavit,
falsas profecto et haereticas:
(1) “Homo iustificatus iis caret viribus quibus, Dei gratia adiutus, mandata obiectiva legis divinae
impleat; quasi quidvis ex Dei mandatis sit iustificatis impossibile; seu quasi Dei gratia, cum
in homine iustificationem efficit, non semper et sua natura conversionem efficiat ab omni
peccato gravi; seu quasi non sit sufficiens ut hominem ab omni peccato gravi convertat.”
(2) Christifidelis qui, divortium civile a sponsa legitima consecutus, matrimonium civile (sponsa
vivente) cum alia contraxit; quique cum ea more uxorio vivit; quique cum plena intelligentia
naturae actus sui et voluntatis propriae pleno ad actum consensu eligit in hoc rerum statu
© [all rights reserved]
manere: non necessarie mortaliter peccare dicendus est, et gratiam sanctificantem accipere et
in caritate crescere potest.”
(3) “Christifidelis qui alicuius mandati divini plenam scientiam possidet et deliberata voluntate in
re gravi id violare eligit, non semper per talem actum graviter peccat.”
(4) “Homo potest, dum divinae prohibitioni obtemperat, contra Deum ea ipsa obtemperatione
(5) “Conscientia recte ac vere iudicare potest actus venereos aliquando probos et honestos esse
aut licite rogari posse aut etiam a Deo mandari, inter eos qui matrimonium civile contraxerunt
quamquam sponsus cum alia in matrimonio sacramentali iam coniunctus est.”
(6) “Principia moralia et veritas moralis quae in divina revelatione et in lege naturali continentur
non comprehendunt prohibitiones qualibus genera quaedam actionis absolute vetantur
utpote quae propter obiectum suum semper graviter illicita sint.”
(7) “Haec est voluntas Domini nostri Iesu Christi, ut Ecclesia disciplinam suam perantiquam
abiciat negandi Eucharistiam et Absolutionem iis qui, divortium civile consecuti et
matrimonium civile ingressi, contritionem et propositum firmum sese emendandi ab ea in
qua vivunt vitae conditione noluerunt patefacere.”7
These propositions all contradict truths that are divinely revealed, and that Catholics must believe
with the assent of divine faith. They were identified as heresies in the petition concerning Amoris
laetitia that was addressed by 45 Catholic scholars to the cardinals and Eastern patriarchs of the
Church.8 It is necessary for the good of souls that they be once more condemned by the authority
of the Church. In listing these seven propositions we do not intend to give an exhaustive list of
all the heresies and errors which an unbiased reader, attempting to read Amoris laetitia in its natural
and obvious sense, would plausibly take to be affirmed, suggested or favoured by this document:
a letter sent to all the cardinals of the Church and to the Eastern Catholic patriarchs lists 19 such
propositions. Rather, we seek to list the propositions which Your Holiness’s words, deeds and
omissions, as already described, have in effect upheld and propagated, to the great and imminent
danger of souls.
At this critical hour, therefore, we turn to the cathedra veritatis, the Roman Church, which has by
divine law pre-eminence over all the churches, and of which we are and intend always to remain
loyal children, and we respectfully insist that Your Holiness publicly reject these propositions, thus
accomplishing the mandate of our Lord Jesus Christ given to St Peter and through him to all his
successors until the end of the world: “I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou,
being once converted, confirm thy brethren.”
We respectfully ask for Your Holiness’s apostolic blessing, with the assurance of our filial devotion
in our Lord and of our prayer for the welfare of the Church.
* * *
© [all rights reserved]
In order to elucidate our Correctio, and to put forward a firmer defence against the spread of errors,
we wish to draw attention to two general sources of error which appear to us to be fostering the
heresies that we have listed. We speak, firstly, of that false understanding of divine revelation which
generally receives the name of Modernism, and secondly, of the teachings of Martin Luther.
A. The problem of Modernism
The Catholic understanding of divine revelation is frequently denied by contemporary theologians,
and this denial has led to widespread confusion among Catholics on the nature of divine revelation
and faith. In order to prevent any misunderstanding that might arise from this confusion, and to
justify our claim about the current propagation of heresies within the Church, we will describe the
Catholic understanding of divine revelation and faith, which is presumed in this document.
This description is also necessary in order to respond to the passages in Amoris laetitia where it is
asserted that the teachings of Christ and of the magisterium of the Church should be followed.
These passages include the following: “Unity of teaching and practice is certainly necessary in the
Church” (AL 3). “Faithful to Christ’s teaching we look to the reality of the family today in all its
complexity” (AL 32). “The teaching of the encyclical Humanae Vitae and the Apostolic
Exhortation Familiaris Consortio ought to be taken up anew” (AL 222). “The teaching of the Master
(cf. Mt 22:30) and Saint Paul (cf. 1 Cor 7:29-31) on marriage is set – and not by chance – in the
context of the ultimate and definitive dimension of our human existence. We urgently need to
rediscover the richness of this teaching” (AL 325). These passages might be seen as ensuring that
nothing in Amoris laetitia serves to propagate errors contrary to Catholic teaching. A description
of the true nature of adherence to Catholic teaching will clarify our assertion that Amoris laetitita
does indeed serve to propagate such errors.
We therefore ask Your Holiness to permit us to recall the following truths, which are taught by
Holy Scripture, Sacred Tradition, the universal consensus of the Fathers, and the magisterium of
the Church, and which summarise Catholic teaching on faith, divine revelation, infallible
magisterial teaching, and heresy:
1. The gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, whose historical character the Church
unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men,
really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into
2. Jesus Christ is true God and true man. In consequence, all his teachings are the
teachings of God Himself.10
3. All the propositions that are contained in the Catholic faith are truths communicated
© [all rights reserved]
by God.11
4. In believing these truths with an assent that is an act of the theological virtue of faith,
we are believing the testimony of a speaker. The act of divine faith is a particular form
of the general intellectual activity of believing a proposition because a speaker asserts
it, and because the speaker is held to be honest and knowledgeable with respect to the
assertion he is making. In an act of divine faith, God is believed when he says
something, and he is believed because he is God and hence is knowledgeable and
5. Belief in divine testimony differs from belief in the testimony of human beings who
are not divine, because God is all-knowing and perfectly good. In consequence, he can
neither lie nor be deceived. It is thus impossible for divine testimony to be mistaken.
Because the truths of the Catholic faith are communicated to us by God, the assent
of faith that is given to them is most certain. A Catholic believer cannot have rational
grounds for doubting or disbelieving any of these truths.13
6. Human reason by itself can establish the truth of the Catholic faith based on the
publicly available evidence for the divine origin of the Catholic Church, but such
reasoning cannot produce an act of faith. The theological virtue of faith and the act
of faith can only be produced by divine grace. A person who has this virtue but then
freely and knowingly chooses to disbelieve a truth of the Catholic faith sins mortally
and loses eternal life.14
7. The truth of a proposition consists in its saying of what is, that it is; scholastically
expressed, it consists in adaequatio rei et intellectus. Every truth is as such true, no matter
by whom or when or in what circumstances it is considered. No truth can contradict
any other truth.15
8. The Catholic faith does not exhaust all the truth about God, because only the divine
intellect can fully comprehend the divine being. Nonetheless every truth of the
Catholic faith is entirely and completely true, in that the features of reality that such a
truth describes are exactly as these truths present them to be. There is no difference
between the content of the teachings of the faith and how things are.16
9. The divine speech that communicates the truths of the Catholic faith is expressed in
human languages. The inspired Hebrew and Greek text of the Holy Scriptures is itself
uttered by God in all of its parts. It is not a purely human report or interpretation of
divine revelation, and no part of its meaning is due solely to human causes. In believing
the teaching of the Holy Scriptures we are believing God directly. We are not believing
the statements made by God on the basis of believing the testimony of some other,
non-divine person or persons.17
10. When the Catholic Church infallibly teaches that a proposition is a divinely revealed
part of the Catholic faith and is to be believed with the assent of faith, Catholics who
assent to this teaching are believing what God has communicated, and are believing it
on account of His having said it.18
11. The languages in which divine revelation is expressed, and the cultures and histories
that shaped these languages, do not constrain, distort, or add to the divine revelation
© [all rights reserved]
that is expressed in them. No part or aspect of the Holy Scriptures or of the infallible
teaching of the Church concerning the content of divine revelation is produced only
by the languages and historical conditions in which they are expressed, but not by
God’s action in communicating truths. Hence, no part of the content of the teaching
of the Church can be revised or rejected on the grounds that it is produced by historical
circumstances rather than by divine revelation.19
12. The magisterial teaching of the Church after the death of the last apostle must be
understood and believed as a single whole. It is not divided into a past magisterium
and a contemporary or living magisterium that can ignore earlier magisterial teaching
or revise it at will.20
13. The Pope, who has the supreme authority in the Church, is not himself exempt from
the authority of the Church, in accordance with divine and ecclesiastical law. He is
bound to accept and uphold the definitive teaching of his predecessors in the papal
14. A heretical proposition is a proposition that contradicts a divinely revealed truth that
is included in the Catholic faith.22
15. The sin of heresy is committed by a person who possesses the theological virtue of
faith, but then freely and knowingly chooses to disbelieve or doubt a truth of the
Catholic faith. Such a person sins mortally and loses eternal life. The judgement of the
Church upon the personal sin of heresy is exercised only by a priest in the sacrament
of penance.23
16. The canonical crime of heresy is committed when a Catholic a) publicly doubts or
denies one or more truths of the Catholic faith, or publicly refuses to give assent to
one or more truths of the Catholic faith, but does not doubt or deny all these truths
or deny the existence of Christian revelation, and b) is pertinacious in this denial.
Pertinacity consists in the person in question continuing to publicly doubt or deny one
or more truths of the Catholic faith after having been warned by competent
ecclesiastical authority that his doubt or denial is a rejection of a truth of the faith, and
that this doubt or denial must be renounced and the truth in question must be publicly
affirmed as divinely revealed by the person being warned.24
(The above descriptions of the personal sin of heresy and of the canonical crime of heresy are
given solely in order to be able to exclude them from the subject of our protest. We are only
concerned with heretical propositions propagated by the words, deeds and omissions of Your
Holiness. We do not have the competence or the intention to address the canonical issue of heresy.)
B. The influence of Martin Luther
In the second place, we feel compelled by conscience to advert to Your Holiness’s unprecedented
sympathy for Martin Luther, and to the affinity between Luther’s ideas on law, justification, and
marriage, and those taught or favoured by Your Holiness in Amoris laetitia and elsewhere.25 This is
© [all rights reserved]
necessary in order that our protest against the seven heretical propositions listed in this document
may be complete; we wish to show, albeit in summary form, that these are not unrelated errors,
but rather form part of a heretical system. Catholics need to be warned not only against these
seven errors, but also against this heretical system as such, not least by reason of Your Holiness’s
praise of the man who originated it.
Thus, in a press conference on June 26th, 2016, Your Holiness stated:
I think that Martin Luther’s intentions were not mistaken; he was a reformer.
Perhaps some of his methods were not right, although at that time, if you read
Pastor’s history, for example – Pastor was a German Lutheran who experienced a
conversion when he studied the facts of that period; he became a Catholic – we see
that the Church was not exactly a model to emulate. There was corruption and
worldliness in the Church; there was attachment to money and power. That was the
basis of his protest. He was also intelligent, and he went ahead, justifying his reasons
for it. Nowadays, Lutherans and Catholics, and all Protestants, are in agreement on
the doctrine of justification: on this very important point he was not mistaken.26
In a homily in the Lutheran Cathedral in Lund, Sweden, on Oct 31st, 2016, Your Holiness stated:
As Catholics and Lutherans, we have undertaken a common journey of
reconciliation. Now, in the context of the commemoration of the Reformation of
1517, we have a new opportunity to accept a common path, one that has taken
shape over the past fifty years in the ecumenical dialogue between the Lutheran
World Federation and the Catholic Church. Nor can we be resigned to the division
and distance that our separation has created between us. We have the opportunity
to mend a critical moment of our history by moving beyond the controversies and
disagreements that have often prevented us from understanding one another.
Jesus tells us that the Father is the “vinedresser” (cf. v. 1) who tends and prunes the
vine in order to make it bear more fruit (cf. v. 2). The Father is constantly concerned
for our relationship with Jesus, to see if we are truly one with him (cf. v. 4). He
watches over us, and his gaze of love inspires us to purify our past and to work in
the present to bring about the future of unity that he so greatly desires.
We too must look with love and honesty at our past, recognizing error and seeking
forgiveness, for God alone is our judge. We ought to recognize with the same
honesty and love that our division distanced us from the primordial intuition of
God’s people, who naturally yearn to be one, and that it was perpetuated historically
by the powerful of this world rather than the faithful people, which always and
everywhere needs to be guided surely and lovingly by its Good Shepherd. Certainly,
there was a sincere will on the part of both sides to profess and uphold the true
© [all rights reserved]
faith, but at the same time we realize that we closed in on ourselves out of fear or
bias with regard to the faith which others profess with a different accent and
The spiritual experience of Martin Luther challenges us to remember that apart
from God we can do nothing. “How can I get a propitious God?” This is the
question that haunted Luther. In effect, the question of a just relationship with
God is the decisive question for our lives. As we know, Luther encountered that
propitious God in the Good News of Jesus, incarnate, dead and risen. With the
concept “by grace alone”, he reminds us that God always takes the initiative, prior to
any human response, even as he seeks to awaken that response. The doctrine of
justification thus expresses the essence of human existence before God.27
In addition to stating that Martin Luther was correct about justification, and in close accordance
with this view, Your Holiness has declared more than once that our sins are the place where we
encounter Christ (as in your homilies of September 4th, and September 18th, 2014), justifying this
view with St Paul, who in fact glories in his own “infirmities” (“astheneìais”, cf. 2 Cor. 12:5, 9) and
not in his sins, so that the power of Christ may dwell in him.28 In an address to members of
Communion and Liberation on March 7th, 2015 Your Holiness said:
The privileged place of encounter is the caress of Jesus’ mercy regarding my sin.
This is why you may have heard me say, several times, that the place for this, the
privileged place of the encounter with Jesus Christ is my sin. 29
Furthermore, in addition to other propositions of Amoris laetitia which have been listed in the letter
sent to all the cardinals and Eastern Catholic patriarchs, and which have been therein qualified as
heretical, erroneous, or ambiguous, we read also this:
We should not however confuse different levels: there is no need to lay upon two
limited persons the tremendous burden of having to reproduce perfectly the union
existing between Christ and his Church, for marriage as a sign entails ‘a dynamic
process…, one which advances gradually with the progressive integration of the
gifts of God’ (AL 122).
While it is true that the sacramental sign of matrimony entails a dynamic process toward holiness,
it is beyond doubt that by the sacramental sign the union of Christ with his Church is perfectly
reproduced by grace in the married couple. It is not a question of imposing a tremendous burden
on two limited persons, but rather of acknowledging the work of the sacrament and of grace (res
et sacramentum).
© [all rights reserved]
Surprisingly we notice here, as in several other parts of this Apostolic Exhortation, a close
relationship with Luther’s disparagement of marriage. For the German revolutionary, the Catholic
conception of a sacrament as effective ex opere operato, in an allegedly ‘mechanical’ way, is
unacceptable. Although he maintains the distinction of signum et res, after 1520, with The Babylonian
Captivity of the Church, he no longer applies it to marriage. Luther denies that marriage has any
reference to sacramentality, on the grounds that we nowhere read in the Bible that the man who
marries a woman receives a grace of God, and that neither do we read anywhere that marriage was
instituted by God to be a sign of anything. He claimed that marriage is a mere symbol, adding that
although it can represent the union of Christ with the Church, such figures and allegories are not
sacraments in the sense we use the term (cf. Luther’s Works {LW} 36:92). For this reason, marriage
– whose fundamental aim is to conceive children and to raise them up in the ways of God (cf. LW
44:11-12) – according to Luther belongs to the order of creation and not to that of salvation (cf.
LW 45:18); it is given only in order to quench the fire of concupiscence, and as a bulwark against
sin (cf. LW 3, Gen. 16:4).
Moreover, beginning with his personal vision about how human nature is corrupted by sin, Luther
is conscious that man is not always anxious to respect God’s law. Therefore, he is convinced that
there is a double manner by which God rules over mankind, to which corresponds a double moral
vision about marriage and divorce. Thus divorce is generally admitted by Luther in the case of
adultery, but only for non-spiritual people.
His reasoning is that there are two forms of divine government in this world: the spiritual and the
temporal. By his spiritual government, the Holy Spirit leads Christians and righteous people under
the Gospel of Christ; by his temporal government, God restrains non-Christians and the wicked
in order to maintain an outward peace (cf. LW 45:91). Two also are the laws regulating moral life:
one is spiritual, for those living under the influence of the Holy Spirit, the other is temporal or
worldly, for those who cannot comply with the spiritual one (cf. LW 45:88-93). This double moral
vision is applied by Luther to adultery in reference to Mt 5:32: hence, Christians must not divorce
even in the case of adultery (the spiritual law); but divorce exists and was granted by Moses because
of sin (the worldly law). The permission to divorce is thus seen as a limit put by God upon carnal
people to restrain their misbehaviour and prevent them from doing worse on account of their
wickedness (cf. LW 45:31).
How can we not see here a close similarity with what has been suggested by Your Holiness in
Amoris laetitia? On the one hand marriage is supposedly safeguarded as a sacrament, while on the
other hand divorce and remarriage are regarded ‘mercifully’ as a status quo to be – although only
‘pastorally’ – integrated into the life of the Church, thus openly contradicting the word of our
Lord. Luther was led to an acceptance of re-marriage by his identification of concupiscence with
sin; for he recognized marriage as a remedy for concupiscence. In reality, concupiscence is not as
such sinful, just as re-marriage when one has a living spouse is not a status, but a privation of truth.
© [all rights reserved]
However, Luther’s self-contradiction, generated by his two-fold view of marriage – itself seen as
something that pertains properly to the Law and not to the Gospel – is then supposedly overcome
by the precedence of faith: a “cordial trust” in order to adhere subjectively to God. He claims that
faith justifies man insofar as the punishing justice withdraws into mercy and is changed
permanently into forgiving love. This is made possible out of a “joyful bargain” (fröhlicher Wechseln)
by which the sinner can say to Christ: “You are my righteousness just as I am your sin” (LW 48:12;
cf. also 31:351; 25:188). By this “happy exchange”, Christ becomes the only sinner and we are
justified through the acceptance of the Word in faith.
In Your pilgrimage to Fatima for the beginning of this providential centenary, Your Holiness
clearly alluded to this Lutheran view about faith and justification, stating on May 12th, 2017:
Great injustice is done to God’s grace whenever we say that sins are punished by
his judgment, without first saying – as the Gospel clearly does – that they are
forgiven by his mercy! Mercy has to be put before judgment and, in any case, God’s
judgment will always be rendered in the light of his mercy. Obviously, God’s mercy
does not deny justice, for Jesus took upon himself the consequences of our sin,
together with its due punishment. He did not deny sin, but redeemed it on the
cross. Hence, in the faith that unites us to the cross of Christ, we are freed of our
sins; we put aside all fear and dread, as unbefitting those who are loved (cf. 1
Jn. 4:18).30
The gospel does not teach that all sins will in fact be forgiven, nor that Christ alone experienced
the ‘judgement’ or justice of God, leaving only mercy for the rest of mankind. While there is a
‘vicarious suffering’ of our Lord in order to expiate our sins, there is not a ‘vicarious punishment’,
for Christ was made “sin for us” (cf. 2 Cor. 5:21) and not a sinner. Out of divine love, and not as
the object of God’s wrath, Christ offered the supreme sacrifice of salvation to reconcile us with
God, taking upon himself only the consequences of our sins (cf. Gal. 3:13). Hence, so that we
may be justified and saved, it is not sufficient to have faith that our sins have been removed by a
supposed vicarious punishment; our justification lies in a conformity to our Saviour achieved by
that faith which works through charity (cf. Gal. 5:6).
Most Holy Father, permit us also to express our wonderment and sorrow at two events occurring
in the heart of the Church, which likewise suggest the favour in which the German heresiarch is
held under Your pontificate. On January 15th, 2016, a group of Finnish Lutherans were granted
Holy Communion in the course of a celebration of Holy Mass that took place at St Peter’s basilica.
On 13th October, 2016, Your Holiness presided over a meeting of Catholics and Lutherans in the
Vatican, addressing them from a stage on which a statue of Martin Luther was erected.
1 Denzinger-Hünermann {DH} 3117, Apostolic letter Mirabilis illa constantia, March 4th, 1875.
2 Relatio of the Theological Commission on n. 22 of Lumen gentium, in Acta Synodalia, III/I, p. 247.
© [all rights reserved]
3 This section therefore contains the Correctio properly speaking, and is that to which the signatories intend
principally and directly to subscribe.
7 By these words, deeds, and omissions, and by the above-mentioned passages of the document Amoris
laetitia, Your Holiness has upheld, directly or indirectly, and, with what degree of awareness we do not seek
to judge, both by public office and by private act propagated in the Church the following false and heretical
1). ‘A justified person has not the strength with God’s grace to carry out the objective demands of the
divine law, as though any of the commandments of God are impossible for the justified; or as meaning
that God’s grace, when it produces justification in an individual, does not invariably and of its nature
produce conversion from all serious sin, or is not sufficient for conversion from all serious sin.’
2). ‘Christians who have obtained a civil divorce from the spouse to whom they are validly married and have
contracted a civil marriage with some other person during the lifetime of their spouse, who live more uxorio
with their civil partner, and who choose to remain in this state with full knowledge of the nature of their
act and full consent of the will to that act, are not necessarily in a state of mortal sin, and can receive
sanctifying grace and grow in charity.’
3). ‘A Christian believer can have full knowledge of a divine law and voluntarily choose to break it in a
serious matter, but not be in a state of mortal sin as a result of this action.’
4). ‘A person is able, while he obeys a divine prohibition, to sin against God by that very act of obedience.’
5). ‘Conscience can truly and rightly judge that sexual acts between persons who have contracted a civil
marriage with each other, although one or both of them is sacramentally married to another person, can
sometimes be morally right or requested or even commanded by God.’
6). ‘Moral principles and moral truths contained in divine revelation and in the natural law do not include
negative prohibitions that absolutely forbid particular kinds of action, inasmuch as these are always gravely
unlawful on account of their object.’
7). ‘Our Lord Jesus Christ wills that the Church abandon her perennial discipline of refusing the Eucharist
to the divorced and remarried and of refusing absolution to the divorced and remarried who do not express
contrition for their state of life and a firm purpose of amendment with regard to it.’
8 Here are, for these seven propositions, the references that were included in the letter to the cardinals and
© [all rights reserved]
1. Council of Trent, session 6, canon 18: “If anyone says that the commandments of God are impossible
to observe even for a man who is justified and established in grace, let him be anathema” (DH 1568).
See also: Gen. 4:7; Deut. 30:11-19; Ecclesiasticus 15: 11-22; Mk. 8:38; Lk. 9:26; Heb. 10:26-29; 1 Jn. 5:17;
Zosimus, 15th (or 16th) Synod of Carthage, canon 3 on grace, DH 225; Felix III, 2nd Synod of Orange, DH
397; Council of Trent, Session 5, canon 5; Session 6, canons 18-20, 22, 27 and 29; Pius V, Bull Ex omnibus
afflictionibus, On the errors of Michael du Bay, 54, DH 1954; Innocent X, Constitution Cum occasione, On the
errors of Cornelius Jansen, 1, DH 2001; Clement XI, Constitution Unigenitus, On the errors of Pasquier
Quesnel, 71, DH 2471; John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et paenitentia 17: AAS 77 (1985): 222;
Veritatis splendor 65-70: AAS 85 (1993): 1185-89, DH 4964-67.
2. Mk. 10:11-12: “Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
And if the wife shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery”.
See also: Ex. 20:14; Mt. 5:32, 19:9; Lk. 16:18; 1 Cor. 7: 10-11; Heb. 10:26-29; Council of Trent, Session 6,
canons 19-21, 27, DH 1569-71, 1577; Session 24, canons 5 and 7, DH 1805, 1807; Innocent XI,
Condemned propositions of the ‘Laxists’, 62-63, DH 2162-63; Alexander VIII, Decree of the Holy Office
on ‘Philosophical Sin’, DH 2291; John Paul II, Veritatis splendor, 65-70: AAS 85 (1993): 1185-89 (DH 4964-
3. Council of Trent, session 6, canon 20: “If anyone says that a justified man, however perfect he may be,
is not bound to observe the commandments of God and of the Church but is bound only to believe, as if
the Gospel were merely an absolute promise of eternal life without the condition that the commandments
be observed, let him be anathema” (DH 1570).
See also: Mk. 8:38; Lk. 9:26; Heb. 10:26-29; 1 Jn. 5:17; Council of Trent, session 6, canons 19 and 27;
Clement XI, Constitution Unigenitus, On the errors of Pasquier Quesnel, 71, DH 2471; John Paul II,
Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et paenitentia 17: AAS 77 (1985): 222; Veritatis splendor, 65-70: AAS 85
(1993): 1185-89, DH 4964-67.
4. Ps. 18:8: “The law of the Lord is unspotted, converting souls.”
See also: Ecclesiasticus 15:21; Council of Trent, session 6, canon 20; Clement XI, Constitution Unigenitus,
On the errors of Pasquier Quesnel, 71, DH 2471; Leo XIII, Libertas praestantissimum, ASS 20 (1887-88): 598
(DH 3248); John Paul II, Veritatis splendor, 40: AAS 85 (1993): 1165 (DH 4953).
5. Council of Trent, session 6, canon 21: “If anyone says that Jesus Christ was given by God to men as a
redeemer in whom they are to trust but not also as a lawgiver whom they are bound to obey, let him be
anathema”, DH 1571.
Council of Trent, session 24, canon 2: “If anyone says that it is lawful for Christians to have several wives
at the same time, and that this is not forbidden by any divine law, let him be anathema”, DH 1802.
Council of Trent, session 24, canon 5: “If anyone says that the marriage bond can be dissolved because of
heresy or difficulties in cohabitation or because of the wilful absence of one of the spouses, let him be
anathema”, DH 1805.
Council of Trent, session 24, canon 7: “If anyone says that the Church is in error for having taught and for
still teaching that in accordance with the evangelical and apostolic doctrine, the marriage bond cannot be
dissolved because of adultery on the part of one of the spouses and that neither of the two, not even the
innocent one who has given no cause for infidelity, can contract another marriage during the lifetime of
the other, and that the husband who dismisses an adulterous wife and marries again and the wife who
© [all rights reserved]
dismisses an adulterous husband and marries again are both guilty of adultery, let him be anathema”, DH
See also: Ps. 5:5; Ps. 18:8-9; Ecclesiasticus 15:21; Heb. 10:26-29; Jas. 1:13; 1 Jn. 3:7; Innocent XI, Condemned
propositions of the ‘Laxists’, 62-63, DH 2162-63; Clement XI, Constitution Unigenitus, On the errors of
Pasquier Quesnel, 71, DH 2471; Leo XIII, encyclical letter Libertas praestantissimum, ASS 20 (1887-88): 598,
DH 3248; Pius XII, Decree of the Holy Office on situation ethics, DH 3918; 2nd Vatican Council, Pastoral
Constitution Gaudium et spes, 16; John Paul II, Veritatis splendor, 54: AAS 85 (1993): 1177; Catechism of the
Catholic Church, 1786-87.
6. John Paul II, Veritatis splendor 115: “Each of us knows how important is the teaching which represents
the central theme of this Encyclical and which is today being restated with the authority of the Successor
of Peter. Each of us can see the seriousness of what is involved, not only for individuals but also for the
whole of society, with the reaffirmation of the universality and immutability of the moral commandments,
particularly those which prohibit always and without exception intrinsically evil acts”, DH 4971.
See also: Rom. 3:8; 1 Cor. 6: 9-10; Gal. 5: 19-21; Apoc. 22:15; 4th Lateran Council, chapter 22, DH 815;
Council of Constance, Bull Inter cunctas, 14, DH 1254; Paul VI, Humanae vitae, 14: AAS 60 (1968) 490-91;
John Paul II, Veritatis splendor, 83: AAS 85 (1993): 1199, DH 4970.
7. 1 Cor. 11:27: “Whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty
of the body and of the blood of the Lord.”
Familiaris consortio, 84: “Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance, which would open the way to the
Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of
fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the
indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the
children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they ‘take on themselves
the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples’.”
2nd Lateran Council, canon 20, DH 717: “Because there is one thing that conspicuously causes great
disturbance to holy Church, namely false penance, we warn our brothers in the episcopate, and priests, not
to allow the souls of the laity to be deceived or dragged off to hell by false penances. It is certain that a
penance is false when many sins are disregarded and a penance is performed for one only, or when it is
done for one sin in such a way that the penitent does not renounce another”.
See also: Mt. 7:6; Mt. 22: 11-13; 1 Cor. 11:28-30; Heb. 13:8; Council of Trent, session 14, Decree on Penance,
cap. 4; Council of Trent, session 13, Decree on the most holy Eucharist, DH 1646-47; Innocent XI, Condemned
propositions of the ‘Laxists’, 60-63, DH 2160-63; John Paul II, Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1385, 1451, 1490
9 Clement VI, Super quibusdam, to the Catholicos of the Armenians, question 14, DH 1065: “We ask whether
you have believed and do believe that the New and Old Testament, in all their books, which the authority
of the Roman Church has handed down to us, contain undoubted truth in all things.”
2nd Vatican Council, Dei verbum 18-19: “What the Apostles preached in fulfilment of the commission of
Christ, afterwards they themselves and apostolic men, under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, handed on
to us in writing: the foundation of faith, namely, the fourfold Gospel, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke
and John. Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that
the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand
on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day
He was taken up into heaven.”
See also: Lk. 1:1-4; Jn. 19:35; 2 Pet. 1:16; Pius IX, Syllabus, 7; Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, ASS 26 (1893-
© [all rights reserved]
94): 276-77; Pius X, Lamentabili sane, 13-17; Praestantia scripturae, ASS 40 (1907): 724ff.
10 1 Jn. 5:10: “He that believeth in the Son of God has the testimony of God in himself. He that believeth
not the Son, maketh him a liar.”
Council of Chalcedon, Definition, DH 301: “Following the holy fathers, we all with one voice teach the
confession of one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in
humanity, the same truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and a body; consubstantial with the Father
as regards his divinity, and the same consubstantial with us as regards his humanity.”
2nd Vatican Council, Dei verbum 4: “After speaking in many and varied ways through the prophets, ‘now at
last in these days God has spoken to us in His Son’. For He sent His Son, the eternal Word, who enlightens
all men, so that He might dwell among men and tell them of the innermost being of God. Jesus Christ,
therefore, the Word made flesh, was sent as “a man to men’. He ‘speaks the words of God’.”
See also: Mt. 7:29; Matt. 11:25-27; Mk. 1:22; Luke 4:32; John 1:1-14; Pius X, Lamentabili sane, 27.
11 1st Vatican Council, Dei Filius, cap. 3: “Faith, which is the beginning of human salvation, the Catholic
Church professes to be a supernatural virtue, by means of which, with the grace of God inspiring and
assisting us, we believe to be true what He has revealed.”
Pius X, Lamentabili sane, 22 (condemned proposition): “The dogmas that the Church holds out as revealed
are not truths which have fallen from heaven.”
See also: 1 Thess. 2:13; Pius X, Lamentabili sane, 23-26; Pascendi dominici gregis, ASS 40 (1907): 611; Paul VI,
Declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, DH 4538.
12 Jn. 3:11: “Amen, Amen, I say to thee, that we speak what we know and we testify what we have seen, and
you receive not our testimony.”
Jn. 14:6: “I am the way, the truth, and the life”
1 Jn. 5:9-10: “If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater. For this is the testimony
of God, which is greater, because he hath testified of his Son. He that believeth in the Son of God has the
testimony of God in himself. He that believeth not the Son, maketh him a liar.”
1st Vatican Council, Dei Filius, cap. 3, can. 2: “If anyone says that divine faith is not distinct from the natural
knowledge of God and of moral truths; that, therefore, for divine faith it is not necessary that the revealed
truth be believed on the authority of God who reveals it, let him be anathema.”
Pius X, Lamentabili sane, 26 (condemned proposition): “The dogmas of the faith are to be held only
according to their practical sense; that is to say, as preceptive norms of conduct and not as norms of
Piux X, Oath against the errors of Modernism, DH 3542: “I hold with certainty and I sincerely confess that faith
is not a blind inclination of religion welling up from the depth of the subconscious under the impulse of
the heart and the inclination of a morally conditioned will, but is the genuine assent of the intellect to a
truth that is received from outside by hearing. In this assent, given on the authority of the all-truthful God,
we hold to be true what has been said, attested to, and revealed, by the personal God, our creator and
See also: Jn. 8:46, 10:16; Rom. 11:33; Heb. 3:7, 5:12; Pius IX, Qui pluribus, Acta (Rome, 1854) 1/1, 6-13;
Syllabus, 4-5; Pius X, Lamentabili sane, 20; Pascendi dominici gregis, ASS 40 (1907): 604ff; John Paul II,
Declaration Dominus Iesus on the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church, 7.
13 Num. 23:19: “God is not a man that he should lie.”
© [all rights reserved]
Pius IX, Qui pluribus, DH 2778: “Who is or can be ignorant that all faith is to be given to God who speaks
and that nothing is more suitable to reason itself than to acquiesce and firmly adhere to what it has
determined to be revealed by God, who can neither deceive nor be deceived?”
1st Vatican Council, Dei Filius, cap. 3: “Faith, which is the beginning of human salvation, the Catholic
Church professes to be a supernatural virtue, by means of which, with the grace of God inspiring and
assisting us, we believe to be true what He has revealed, not because we perceive its intrinsic truth by the
natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God himself, who makes the revelation and can
neither deceive nor be deceived.”
1st Vatican Council, Dei Filius, cap. 3, can. 6: “If anyone says that the condition of the faithful and those
who have not yet attained to the only true faith is alike, so that Catholics may have a just cause for calling
in doubt, by suspending their assent, the faith which they have already received from the teaching of the
Church, until they have completed a scientific demonstration of the credibility and truth of their faith: let
him be anathema.”
2nd Vatican Council, Lumen gentium, 12: “The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy
One, cannot err in matters of belief.”
Paul VI, Declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, DH 4538: “All
dogmas, since they are divinely revealed, must be believed with the same divine faith.”
See also: Ap. 3:14; Innocent XI, Condemned propositions of the “Laxists”, 20-21, DH 2120-21; Pius IX, Syllabus,
15-18; Pius X, Lamentabili sane, 25.
14 Mk. 16:20: “They going forth preached everywhere, the Lord working withal, and confirming the word
with signs that followed.”
2 Cor. 3: 5: “Not that we are sufficient to think anything of ourselves, as of ourselves: but our sufficiency
is from God.”
1 Pet. 3:15: “Sanctify the Lord, Christ, in your hearts, being ready always to satisfy everyone that asketh you
a reason of that hope which is in you.”
Tit. 3:10-11: “A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: knowing that he, that is
such an one, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgement.”
Apoc. 22:19: “If any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away
his part out of the book of life and out of the holy city.”
1st Vatican Council, Dei Filius, cap. 3: “In order that the submission of our faith should be in harmony with
reason, it was God’s will that there should be linked to the internal assistance of the Holy Spirit external
indications of his revelation, that is to say divine acts, and first and foremost miracles and prophecies, which
clearly demonstrating as they do the omnipotence and infinite knowledge of God, are most certain signs of
revelation and are suited to the understanding of all people. Hence Moses and the prophets, and especially
Christ our Lord himself, worked many manifest miracles and delivered prophecies […] So that we could
fulfil our duty of embracing the true faith and of persevering unwaveringly in it, God, through his only
begotten Son, founded the Church, and endowed her with clear notes of his institution to the end that she
might be recognised by all as the guardian and teacher of the revealed word. To the Catholic Church alone
belong all those things, so many and so marvellous, which have been divinely ordained to make for the
manifest credibility of the Christian faith.”
1st Vatican Council, Dei Filius, cap. 3: “Although the assent of faith is by no means a blind movement of
the mind, yet no one can accept the gospel preaching in the way that is necessary for achieving salvation
without the inspiration and illumination of the Holy Spirit, who gives to all facility in accepting and believing
the truth. And so faith in itself, even if it does not work through charity, is a gift of God, and its operation
is a work belonging to the order of salvation.”
© [all rights reserved]
See also: 2nd Council of Orange, can. 7; Innocent XI, Condemned propositions of the “Laxists” 20-21; Gregory
XVI, Theses subscribed to by Louis-Eugène Bautain, 6, DH 2756; Pius IX, Syllabus, 15-18; Pius X, Pascendi
dominici gregis, ASS 40 (1907): 596-97; Oath against the errors of Modernism, DH 3539; Pius XII, Humani generis,
AAS 42 (1950): 571.
15 2nd Vatican Council, Gaudium et spes, 15: “Man judges rightly that by his intellect he surpasses the material
universe, for he shares in the light of the divine mind. [. . .] His intelligence is not confined to observable
data alone, but can with genuine certitude attain to reality itself as knowable.”
John Paul II, Fides et Ratio, 27: “Every truth, if it is authentic, presents itself as universal and absolute, even
if it is not the whole truth. If something is true, then it must be true for all people and at all times.”
John Paul II, Fides et Ratio, 82: “This prompts a second requirement: that philosophy verify the human
capacity to know the truth, to come to a knowledge which can reach objective truth by means of that adaequatio
rei et intellectus to which the Scholastic doctors referred.”
See also: Pius XII, Humani generis, AAS 42 (1950): 562-63, 571-72, 574-75; John XXIII, Ad Petri cathedram,
AAS 1959 (51): 501-2; John Paul II, Fides et Ratio, 4-10, 12-14, 49, 54, 83-85, 95-98.
16 1 Cor. 2:9-10: “As it is written: ‘That eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the
heart of man, what things God hath prepared for them that love him.’ But to us God hath revealed them,
by his Spirit.”
1 Cor. 2:12-13: “We have received not the spirit of this world, but the Spirit that is of God; that we may
know the things that are given us from God: which things also we speak.”
Pius XII, Humani generis, DH 3882-83: “Some hold that the mysteries of faith are never expressed by truly
adequate concepts but only by approximate and ever changeable notions, in which the truth is to some
extent expressed, but is necessarily distorted. Wherefore they do not consider it absurd, but altogether
necessary, that theology should substitute new concepts in place of the old ones in keeping with the various
philosophies which in the course of time it uses as its instruments, so that it should give human expression
to divine truths in various ways which are even somewhat opposed, but still equivalent, as they say. […] It
is evident from what We have already said, that such efforts not only lead to what they call dogmatic
relativism, but that they actually contain it.”
Paul VI, Declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 5, DH 4540:
“As for the meaning of dogmatic formulas, this remains ever true and constant in the Church, even when
it comes to be expressed with greater clarity and to be more fully understood. The faithful therefore must
shun the opinion, first, that dogmatic formulations, or some category of them, cannot signify the truth in
a determinate way, but can only offer changeable approximations to it, which to a certain extent distort or
alter it; and secondly, that these formulations only express the truth in an indeterminate way, and that one
must continue to seek this truth by further approximations of this kind.”
See also: Pius X, Lamentabili sane, 4.
17 1 Thess. 2:13 “We give thanks to God without ceasing: because, that when you had received of us the
word of the hearing of God, you received it not as the word of men, but (as it is indeed), the word of God.”
1 Tim. 3:16: “All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach.”
2 Pet. 1:20-21: “No prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. For prophecy came not by the
will of man at any time; but the holy men spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.”
Pius XII, Divino afflante Spiritu AAS 35 (1943): 299-300: “It is absolutely wrong and forbidden ‘either to
narrow inspiration to certain passages of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred,’ since
divine inspiration ‘not only is essentially incompatible with error but excludes and rejects it as absolutely
© [all rights reserved]
and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true.
This is the ancient and constant faith of the Church.’ This teaching, which Our Predecessor Leo XIII set
forth with such solemnity, We also proclaim with Our authority.”
2nd Vatican Council, Dei verbum, 11: “Holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles, holds that
the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical
because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been
handed on as such to the Church herself. In composing the sacred books, God chose men, and while
employed by Him they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through
them, they, as true authors, consigned to writing all and only those things which He wanted.”
See also: Jn. 10:16, 35; Heb. 3:7, 5:12; Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, DH 3291-92; Pius X, Lamentabili sane,
9-11; Pascendi dominici gregis, ASS 40 (1907): 612-13; Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus, AAS 12 (1920), 393; Pius
XII, Humani generis, DH 3887.
18 1 Thess. 2:13 “We give thanks to God without ceasing: because, that when you had received of us the
word of the hearing of God, you received it not as the word of men, but (as it is indeed), the word of God.”
1st Vatican Council, Dei Filius, cap. 3: “Faith, which is the beginning of human salvation, the Catholic
Church professes to be a supernatural virtue, by means of which, with the grace of God inspiring and
assisting us, we believe to be true what He has revealed, not because we perceive its intrinsic truth by the
natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God himself, who makes the revelation and can
neither deceive nor be deceived. […] Further, by divine and Catholic faith all those things are to be believed
which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the
Church as to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and
universal magisterium.
See also: Jn. 10:16; Heb. 3:7, 5:12; Pius XII, Mystici corporis Christi, AAS 35 (1943): 216.
19 Pius XII, Humani generis, DH 3883: “The Church cannot be tied to any and every passing philosophical
system. Nevertheless, those notions and terms which have been developed though common effort by
Catholic teachers over the course of the centuries to bring about some understanding of dogma are
certainly not based on any such weak foundation. They are based on principles and notions deduced from
a true knowledge of created things. In the process of deduction, this knowledge, like a star, gave
enlightenment to the human mind through the Church. Hence it is not surprising that some of these
notions have not only been employed by the Ecumenical Councils, but even sanctioned by them, so that it
is wicked to depart from them.”
Paul VI, Declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 5, DH 4540:
“As for the meaning of dogmatic formulas, this remains ever true and constant in the Church, even when
it comes to be expressed with greater clarity and to be more fully understood. The faithful therefore must
shun the opinion, first, that dogmatic formulations, or some category of them, cannot signify the truth in
a determinate way, but can only offer changeable approximations to it, which to a certain extent distort or
alter it; and secondly, that these formulations only express the truth in an indeterminate way, and that one
must continue to seek this truth by further approximations of this kind.”
John Paul II, Fides et Ratio, 87: “One must remember that even if the statement of a truth is limited to some
extent by times and by forms of culture, the truth or the error with which it deals can nevertheless be
recognised and evaluated as such, however great the distance of space or time.”
John Paul II, Fides et Ratio, 95: “The word of God is not addressed to any one people or to any one period
of history. Similarly, dogmatic statements, while reflecting at times the culture of the period in which they
were defined, formulate an unchanging and ultimate truth.”
© [all rights reserved]
John Paul II, Declaration Dominus Iesus on the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the
Church, 6: “The truth about God is not abolished or reduced because it is spoken in human language; rather,
it is unique, full, and complete, because he who speaks and acts is the Incarnate Son of God.”
See also: Jn. 10:35; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:20-21; Apoc. 22:18-19; Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, DH 3288;
Pius X, Lamentabili sane, 4; John Paul II, Fides et Ratio, 84.
20 Gal. 1:9: “If anyone preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.”
1st Vatican Council, Dei Filius, cap. 4, can. 3: “If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, with the
progress of knowledge, a sense should be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is
different from that which the Church has understood and does understand: let him be anathema.”
Pius X, Oath against the errors of Modernism, DH 3541: “I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed
down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers with the same sense and always with the same
meaning. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical fiction that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning
to another, different from the meaning which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error that
substitutes for the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by
her, some philosophical invention or product of human reflection, gradually formed by human effort and
due to be perfected in the future by unlimited progress.”
See also: 1 Tim. 6: 20; 2 Tim. 1:13-14; Heb. 13:7-9; Jude 3; Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, DH 2802; Pius X,
Lamentabili sane, 21, 54, 50, 60, 62; Pascendi dominici gregis, ASS 40 (1907): 616ff.; Pius XII, Humani generis, DH
3886; Paul VI, Declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, DH 4540.
21 1st Vatican Council, Pastor aeternus, cap. 4: “The Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not
so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might
religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles. […]
This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this
see so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of
Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance
of heavenly doctrine.”
2nd Vatican Council, Dei verbum¸ 10: “The task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether
written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living magisterium of the Church, whose
authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This magisterium is not above the word of God, but
serves it. It teaches only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and
explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit. It draws
from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.”
See also: Matt. 16:23; Gratian, Decretum, Part 1, Distinction 40, Chapter 6; Innocent III, 2nd sermon ‘On the
consecration of the supreme pontiff ’, ML, 656; 4th sermon ‘On the consecration of the supreme pontiff ’, ML 670; Pius IX,
letter Mirabilis illa constantia to the bishops of Germany, DH 3117 (cf. DH 3114).
22 Cf. John Paul II, 1983 Code of Canon Law, 751; Code of Canons of Oriental Churches, 1436.
23 Cf. Mk. 16:16; Jn. 3:18; Jn. 20:23; Rom. 14:4; Gal. 1:9; 1 Tim. 1:18-20; Jude 3-6; Council of Florence,
Cantate Domino, DH 1351; Council of Trent, Session 14, can. 9.
24 Cf. Matt. 18:17; Tit. 3:10-11; Pius X, Lamentabili sane, 7; John Paul II, Code of Canon Law, 751, 1364; Code
of Canons of Oriental Churches, 1436.
© [all rights reserved]
25 The signatories do not intend in this section principally to describe the thought of Martin Luther, a
subject concerning which all of them do not have the same expertise, but rather to describe certain false
notions of marriage, justification and law which appear to them to have inspired Amoris laetitia.