Twisting the Popes to Defend Modernism!

 

Preamble:

Anything but Sedevacantism” is the expression coined to describe the reality that among the neo-trads and ultraconservatives within Catholic spaces under modernist occupation, no thesis is too absurd. No idea too heretical. No explanation too far-fetched. As long as it doesn’t lead to the “dreaded” conclusion: That the Vatican II sect is not the Catholic Church, and its head is not a true Pope.

This is very much applicable to Modernist enthusiasts. Yes. Modernist enthusiasts are the worst offenders. In their case, “Anything but Sedevacantism” becomes a badge of dishonor, a motto of delusion.

 In the present article, we draw the sword of the perennial Magisterium, take up the shield of Sacred Tradition, and shine the torch of the pre-Vatican II Popes— to drive back the fog of Modernist lies peddled by one of it's avid heralds and instruct the blind in the truth they pretend to speak.


Absurd Lengths To Avoid Sedevacantist Position.

Before dealing with the specific case study for this article, it would be beneficial to outline few of the common absurd lengths modernist enthusiasts would go, even when all reason, history, and doctrine corner them, to avoid Sedevacantism: 

  • Twist the Popes: They cherry-pick lines from pre-Vatican II Popes, ignoring context, doctrine, and Magisterial intent. 
  • Canonize Ecumenical Confusion: They reinterpret efforts for conversion (e.g., reunion with Eastern schismatics) as Vatican II-style syncretism and ecumenism — whitewashing condemned errors.
  • Make Councils Say What They Never Said: They invoke the Council of Jerusalem or Nicaea to defend Vatican II's synodal anarchy, forgetting that those councils upheld Papal primacy and anathematized heresy.
  • Accuse the Faithful: Anyone who refuses to accept error as Catholic — they brand as Protestant, schismatic, outside the Church, or “not in union with the Pope,” even when the one they insist is “Pope” is manifestly not in union with the Faith.
  • Sacrifice Reason: When pressed with the contradiction of a “Church indefectible” yet teaching error, they blame everyone — the media, “misinterpretations,” or traditionalists — never the obvious cause.
  • Abandon Theology to Save Face: Rather than confess the post-Vatican II hierarchy has defected, they prefer to say the Holy Ghost guides the Church through decades of contradiction, apostasy, and liturgical ruin — a blasphemy against Divine Providence.

Yes, they will accept anything, including a Protestantized liturgy, and a synodal circus than admit one simple, sober truth: The See is vacant because the Faith cannot fail.


A Troll's Frolicking Spree

One of my most persistent modernist enthusiasts — a seasoned troll on X — once again surfaced to do what he does best: distort, distract, and deride. This time, he thundered forth a fresh batch of myths and fables thick with fog: 

Ecumenism Condemned by Ojeka?

Pope Pius XI encouraged union with the EO.

Encourage Ecumenism with the Malines Conversations,

Reorganized the Oriental Institute for this purpose.

Issued Ecclesium Dei, to encourage setting aside of biases toward the EO

            +++++

False religious liberty?

Ojeka believes PPXII is a heretic

Anni Sacri, Para 14: "Let those who hold the government of state be persuaded that there is no more solid social foundation than Christian teaching and the safeguarding of RELIGIOUS LIBERTY 

                            ++++ 

Collegiality and synodality condemned by Ojeka?

The Roman Catholic Church

To which Ojeka does not belong

Has been a Synodal/Conciliar Church since the Council of Nicaea in 325AD

Some say the Council of Jerusalem in 50AD. 

             +++++

SEDES have lost their Faith because they believe the Holy Spirit (God) has led the Roman Catholic Church including the full Magisterium and the last 6 Vicars of Christ on Earth down the Road of Perdition for the last 65 years. 

Yes, like a moth to the flame or a dog to its vomit, our Modernist enthusiast always returns — snorting clouds of confusion, peddling twisted quotes, and juggling half-truths in a carnival of lies.

In this episode he didn't fail to fling his fables. Let us now hold them up to the light of Sacred Tradition — and watch them vanish like the morning mist at the first rays of the rising sun. For though he has hardened his heart and proven himself repeatedly uninstructible, there are still souls of good will who may be misled by his deceits — and it is for them that we speak. But, just before that, we must narrate a self-exposing scenario related to the same trolling modernist enthusiast.


An Unwitting Self-Identification:  

I made the following intentional and strategic post: 

The Enemy claims: “Freedom is the power to choose anything in matters moral, religious, social...etc"

Catholic reply: “Freedom is the power to choose the good; to choose evil is to be enslaved.”

Sadly, some bear the tag "Catholic" but think, speak...like the enemy.

Telling!

An observant reader would notice that this post is principle-focused, not naming individuals. It leaves the door open for anyone who recognizes themselves in the critique — but only the guilty will feel stung.

This Modernist enthusiast replies, pulling out what is obviously for him a silver bullet -as he has appealed to this quote more than once on my timeline:

Then SEDES believe this is heresy by PPXII

Anni Sacri, Para 14:

"Let those who hold the government of state be persuaded that there is no more solid social foundation than Christian teaching and the safeguarding of RELIGIOUS LIBERTY"

Anyone a basic reading skill cannot miss the fact that in attempting to discredit my post, the response reveals the author as embracing the false notion of freedom the post described. 

Yes, his reply is self-demonstrating proof of the original warning. His words are a “case study” in my post’s thesis.

The irony is heightened: my post did not name names — yet the Modernist volunteer steps forward and says, “Here I am!”

Treated in this article under “Fable II is a simple respond with the full quote from Anni Sacri in context, showing that Pius XII was not teaching religious indifferentism.


FABLE I: “Ecumenism is Traditional – Pius XI Encouraged Union with the EO”

Truth: Yes, Pius XI desired the conversion of schismatics — but condemned ecumenism in it's essential nature as pan-Christianity. 

He says that behind the enticing words and blandishments of pan-Christians

…lies hid a most grave error, by which the foundations of the Catholic faith are completely destroyed. (Mortalium Animos, 4)

By pan Christians, he meant those who strive for the union of the Churches in a way that would allow different religions, even those that oppose one another, to be considered as equals. 

He explains that pan-Christianism proposes:

  • A federation of "churches" where each retains its own doctrines.
  • A compromise on dogmas to foster mutual understanding and external unity.
  • A false notion that unity is something yet to be achieved, rather than something that already exists in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church founded by Christ.

What key points can we glean from Mortalium Animos of Pope Pius XI? 

1. True Unity Requires Conversion to the Catholic Church

Pope Pius XI teaches that authentic Christian unity is only possible when non-Catholics return to the one true Church — the Roman Catholic Church.

This is not a human project or mutual agreement; it's a divine imperative rooted in Christ’s will: “That they all may be one... and there shall be one fold and one shepherd” (Jn 17:21; 10:16).

2. The Church of Christ Already Exists — It Is the Catholic Church

The Church is not a vague ideal or an invisible fellowship of believers.

It is a visible, hierarchical body, established by Christ, identifiable in history as the Roman Catholic Church under the Pope.

Any attempt to construct a new "Christian unity" by merging various sects denies the divine origin and continuity of the Catholic Church.

3. Ecumenical Dialogue Without Conversion Is a Deception

The Pope warns against false ecumenism — efforts to treat all Christian denominations as equal and to engage in dialogue without demanding conversion.

Such efforts give the impression that doctrinal differences don't matter, which is both misleading and spiritually dangerous.

He criticizes Pan-Christian assemblies, where Catholic representatives are invited to discuss union on the basis of equality, as if the true Church were one among many.

4. The Church Cannot Compromise Doctrine for the Sake of Unity

No genuine unity can be built by sacrificing truth.

Catholic doctrine is not negotiable. Dogma is from God, not man.

Attempts to water down doctrine to please others or minimize points of disagreement are tantamount to betraying the Faith.

Unity without truth is a lie. As the Pope wrote: “Charity must be joined with truth”.


Conclusion for the Ordinary Reader is that Pope Pius XI’s Mortalium Animos is a clear rejection of Modernist ecumenism, which seeks unity without truth. It is a call to clarity, reminding all Christians that unity means submission to the truth, not compromise. The one true Church already exists, and it is not to be reinvented through discussions or assemblies.

Anyone with average literacy can walk away with this message:  

If you want true Christian unity, then come home to the Catholic Church.

So? Pius XI wanted reunion by conversion, not interfaith dialogue. No shared prayers. No mutual recognitions. No false unity. The Eastern schismatics must return — not be affirmed.


Did Pius XI encourage Ecumenism with the Malines Conversations? 

Malines Conversations (1921–1926) were informal discussions with Anglicans, organized by Cardinal Mercier.

BUT: Pius XI never approved them as a theological dialogue aiming at “unity in diversity.” In fact, he suppressed the initiative when it threatened to promote indifferentism.


Did Pope Pius XI reorganized the Oriental Institute? 

Yes, Pope Pius XI did reorganize and significantly develop the Pontifical Oriental Institute (Pontificium Institutum Orientale), continuing the efforts initiated under Pope Benedict XV, who originally founded the Institute in 1917.

Key facts:

  • Pope Benedict XV founded the Oriental Institute on October 15, 1917, to promote the study of the Eastern Churches.
  • Pope Pius XI reorganized and expanded it after becoming Pope in 1922.
  • In 1928, he entrusted it to the Society of Jesus (Jesuits) for administration and academic leadership.
  • He also integrated it more deeply into the Congregation for the Oriental Churches, which he raised to the rank of a Congregation in 1917 (then called the Congregatio pro Ecclesia Orientali).

What was the purpose of Reorganization?

  • Promoting reunion efforts with Eastern Christians.
  • Ensuring scholarly rigor in Eastern theology, liturgy, canon law, and history.
  • Fostering ecumenical dialogue, although his own magisterial writings (e.g., Mortalium Animos) clearly condemned false ecumenism.

Conclusion:

Yes, Pius XI did reorganize the Oriental Institute to make it a more effective tool in understanding and engaging the Eastern Churches—but not to promote Modernist ecumenism, as some falsely imply.

 Ecclesiam Dei?

There is no document by Pope Pius XI titled Ecclesium Dei. This is likely a confusion with:

Ecumenist “John Paul II”’s 1988 document Ecclesia Dei, presented as an apostolic letter, which sought to reconcile Traditionalists attached to the Latin Mass. That’s 60 years later.

So, the troll’s claim is just blatant ignorance or fabrication. Such gross misinformation leads many unsuspecting readers into confusion about Church history and authority—a tragic outcome of that species of intellectual laziness which has its roots in modernist poison: Indifferentism. 


FABLE II: “Ojeka says Religious Liberty is false. But Pope Pius XII taught it!”

This claim misreads Anni Sacri, which must be understood in continuity with the consistent magisterial tradition. Anni Sacri (1950), §14 reads:

“Let those who hold the government of state be persuaded that there is no more solid social foundation than Christian teaching and the safeguarding of religious liberty.”

Let’s be clear: Pius XII never taught religious liberty as Vatican II later did. 

“Religious liberty" has historically had different meanings. Vatican II redefined it as a natural right of all religions before the State, whereas prior popes used it to refer to the Church’s freedom as the one true religion.

In the text cited, Pius XII was urging rulers to recognize freedom for the true Faith, not a "right" to spread heresy. 

Pius XII’s statement was primarily a call to allow the Catholic Church freedom to operate, especially in Communist or secularist regimes where Catholics were being imprisoned, suppressed, or driven underground.

He wasn’t promoting liberty for all religions as a principle, but urging that civil leaders recognize the rights of the true Faith and not suppress the Church.

This is in continuity with:

 “Error has no rights.” 
Pope Leo XIII, Libertas Praestantissimum, §23

 

“It is not lawful to demand, to defend, or to grant unconditional freedom of thought, speech, writing, or religion as if these were so many rights given by nature to man.” —Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, §33

 “Liberty is a power perfecting man when regulated by reason and virtue; but a power to do evil is not liberty but license.” —Ibid., §30

Pius XII never reversed this. Vatican II, however, did — in Dignitatis Humanae — and that's the real rupture. A ‘natural right’ is rooted in man’s nature as created by God—but God does not give a right to profess error, only the liberty to profess truth.

Vatican II's Dignitatis Humanae §2 reads:

 

"This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. … This right means that all men are to be immune from coercion … whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits

 This statement:

  • Grants natural right to public religious error.
  • Contradicts the Syllabus, which denies any such natural right to profess false religions publicly.
  • Teaches freedom of conscience and religion in the public order, which the Church consistently condemned.

Also, Dignitatis Humanae, §3:

 "Religious communities … have the right not to be hindered in their public teaching and witness to their faith."

 This implies that even non-Catholic sects have the right from God to evangelize in public, contrary to Catholic teaching and condemned propositions.

Now, here are the propositions condemned by Pope Pius IX in Quanta Cura relevant to our topic:

Proposition 15 –

Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true."

Proposition 77 –

"In this our age it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship."

 Proposition 78 –

 "Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship."

 Proposition 79 –

"It is false that civil liberty of every form of worship, and full power given to all to manifest openly and publicly their opinions and ideas, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people."

Who, not being in enmity with good will, would not see a direct contradiction here? 

There is a world of difference between the true liberty of the Catholic Church—her God-given right to fulfill her mission—and the false liberty of error, which claims that every religion has equal rights before God and the State.

Modernists blur this distinction, baptizing the Revolution and calling it tradition.

Don’t be deceived: Pius XII never contradicted Pius IX. Vatican II’s Dignitatis Humanae did and so executed what Pope Pius XII had said can never be done: 

In his Allocution Ci Riesce, Pope Pius XII, Dec. 6, 1953 emphasized that religious tolerance, justified by particular reasons in determined cases, can never be elevated to a principle. In other words, it can never be understood as a natural right of man to error, still less as a moral recognition of error as a right.

This directly contradicts the Vatican II Declaration Dignitatis Humanae, which asserts a natural right to religious liberty even for those in error—provided public order is preserved.

Pius XII here affirms the classical Catholic position: error has no rights, though it may at times be tolerated for prudential reasons—not out of a supposed human right to profess or promote falsehood.

A tolerated evil may be permitted for the sake of peace or prudence; a right implies a moral claim before God and man. The Church has always permitted some false religions for the common good—she has never said they had a right to exist.

 True liberty is the freedom to do what is right, not the right to do what is wrong. The Church never taught that false religions have rights from God. She may tolerate them for the common good, but to assert a right to error is itself an error.

Vatican II thus contradicts the perennial Magisterium. No “development” can reverse what the Holy Spirit has definitively condemned. 

Pius XII urged tolerance for truth—not a right to error. Vatican II, by redefining religious liberty, contradicts the Magisterium it claimed to develop.


FABLE III: “Ojeka Condemns Collegiality and Synodality, but the Church Has Always Been Synodal!”

Ah yes, the old Modernist trick: confuse “councils” with “collegiality”.

Yes, the Church has had councils since the Acts of the Apostles — but those councils were guided by the Pope, not a democratic mob of bishops. The Church has always had councils, synods, and episcopal cooperation—under Peter, not beside or above him.

What Vatican II introduced with Lumen Gentium and its Nota Praevia was Collegiality: the idea that the pope governs with the bishops as a permanent “college,” not over them as sole Vicar of Christ. This blurs the monarchy of the Papacy, which Christ established.

Pope Pius VI condemned the Gallican Synod of Pistoia (1794) for similar ideas saying the proposition is contrary to the decrees of the Church, the teachings of the Fathers, and the perpetual practice of the Church — (Auctorem Fidei, §6)


Synodality today means listening, voting, democratizing doctrine, and opening the door to error in the name of “dialogue.” But the Church’s tradition of synods was pastoral, local, and always under Rome.

“The Roman Pontiff alone has the right to convoke synods, to preside over them, and to confirm them.” — Canon Law (1917), c. 284

Modern Synodality is not the old synodality—it’s a new model of Church. The Fathers had councils; Modernists have consensus.

“Synodality” and “collegiality” — as taught in Lumen Gentium of Vatican II — undermine the primacy of the Pope, treating bishops as a collective governing body with or without the Roman Pontiff.

This was explicitly condemned by Pope Pius IX:

“We cannot pass over in silence the audacity of those who... proclaim that the episcopate ought to be restored to its primitive condition… That is, they demand a liberty and independence for the bishops which the Church has never recognized and which she repudiates. —Pope Pius IX, Quartus Supra (1873), §22

 

 “The Pope possesses not only a primacy of honor, but real and supreme jurisdiction.”

—Vatican,  Pastor Aeternus, 1870

You see? Ojeka rejects the new wine of heresy in the old skins of tradition. The Pope is monarch, not moderator. Synods are to serve truth, not manufacture it.

Synods are not parliaments. Bishops are not co-popes. The pope is not a moderator. Collegiality is revolution, not tradition.

 Peter was not one among many. He was set above the rest. Upon him alone Christ built His Church.


 FABLE IV: “Sedes Have Lost the Faith — They Say the Holy Ghost Led the Church Into Error for 65 Years”

This is the central delusion of the trolling modernist enthusiast: confusing the Church of Christ with the Modernist counter-church.

The true Church is indefectible. But her buildings, titles, and positions can be usurped — and have been.

This is not fantasy. It was foreseen:

Let no man deceive you by any means: for unless there come a revolt first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition… (2 Thessalonians 2:3)

Yes, St. Paul’s warning in 2 Thess. 2:3—that the Day of the Lord will not come “unless there come a revolt first” and the “man of sin be revealed”—applies strikingly to the Modernist revolution. 

This “revolt” (apostasia), say the Fathers, is a falling away from the true Faith. Pope St. Pius X identified Modernism as precisely such a deception, corroding doctrine from within under the guise of renewal. By abandoning Tradition for novelty, the post–Vatican II establishment has staged the spiritual climate foreseen by the Apostle: a mass defection from the rule of Faith, paving the way for the final Antichrist.

Again Our Lady of La Salette warned: 

“Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the Antichrist.”

“The Church will be in eclipse.”


 “When the shepherd becomes a wolf, the first duty of the flock is to flee.” —Dom Prosper Guéranger, The Liturgical Year

The sedevacantist does not say the Church has failed — only that the chair of Peter has been usurped, and that true Catholics must resist the false shepherds until God restores the throne.

The Church is the Bride of Christ, not the concubine of the world. She cannot err — but wolves can wear her garments and deceive the many.


Final Word: A Shepherd or a Showman?

Who truly holds the Faith?

  • He who kneels at the altar of the Mass of the Ages?
  • He who believes “extra Ecclesiam nulla salus”?
  • He who defends the papacy against being used as a mouthpiece for Modernism?

Or the modernist enthusiast — who:

  • Accepts a New Mass built on Protestant principles for ecumenical reasons,
  • Affirms false religious liberty, synodality, ecumenism, and all the rest, thus in apostasy from the true Catholic Faith, while retaining Catholic name, 
  • While mocking those who suffer for holding to what the Church always taught?

The Apostle waned 

 “Jesus Christ, yesterday, today, and the same forever. Do not be led away by various and strange doctrines.” —Hebrews 13:8-9

The Church of Christ is One — Not Synodal, Ecumenical, or Indifferentist

  • The trolling modernist enthusiast speaks in slogans; Ojeka speaks with the Popes.
  • The trolling modernist enthusiast quotes out of context; Ojeka cites the whole tradition.
  • The trolling modernist enthusiast worships Vatican II; Ojeka holds to what was believed always, everywhere, and by all.

Let the mask fall.

  •  “Error has no rights.”
  • “Heresy has no unity.”
  • “Peter has no colleagues.”

And to the trolling modernist enthusiast, we repeat the words of St. Paul:

 “Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?” — Galatians 4:16

Return, prodigal.

You are fighting not Ojeka, but the saints, the Popes, and the martyrs.

Their voice still echoes from catacomb and Council, from missal and martyrdom:

Hold fast to Tradition.

Say no to Modernism and it's ugly fruits!  











Comments

  1. Essays like yours l have come to realise are a Grace from God that I have stumbled upon, why I dont know, but really are helping my conversion to the true faith having led a life of terrible sin. May Our Lord bless you and guide you as a true shepherd and teacher of the true faith.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Blessed be God!
      It is edifying to know that it has been pleasing to the Divine Providence to make our articles be a help to some soul of good will.. may you wax stronger in our Holy Faith. Thank for your kind prayer. God speed you 🙏

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular Posts