Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us
                 July 28, 2007

A Catechism of Conciliarism, part 1

The Nature of Truth

by Thomas A. Droleskey

At the suggestion of Father Benedict Hughes, CMRI, a question-and-answer catechism, similar in style to A Catechism of the Social Reign of Christ the King has been prepared as a ready reference guide to the matter of conciliarism.

The scope of this "catechism" is limited to explaining the basic Modernist foundations of conciliarism, starting with the nature of truth. Outside of the purview of this effort is a discussion of canonical matters, which is wise to leave to those who are trained formally and thus well-versed in canon law as a result of their course work and demonstrated scholarship in the field. It is important to understand the Modernist mind in order to be able to assess their novel language of obscurity, ambiguity, contradiction and paradox without being fooled by the window dressing of Catholicism around which such language is wrapped.

1) What is conciliarism?

Conciliarism refers to the ethos of Modernist novelties in the areas of doctrine, liturgy and pastoral practice that have been wrought in the fifty-nine years since the false pontificate of Angelo Roncalli, who convened the "Second" Vatican Council.

2)What is the essential problem with conciliarism?

The essential problem with conciliarism is its attack upon the nature of truth by its assertions, sometimes subtle and sometimes bold, that the Catholic Church's dogmatic declarations do not have to be understood in exactly the same way as they had been in the past.

3) Can you provide an example of such assertions?

Well, there are many from which to draw. Here are two, one coming from William Levada, the current prefect of the counterfeit church of conciliarism's Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, the other coming from Joseph Ratzinger, who goes by the name of Benedict XVI in his false pontificate:

"We believe that the apostles and their successors received the mission to interpret revelation in new circumstances and in the light of new challenges. That creates a living tradition that is much larger than the simple and strict passing of existing answers, insights and convictions from one generation to another." (William Levada, interview to Whispers in the Loggia website, March, 2007)

The text [of the Second Vatican Council] also presents the various forms of bonds that rise from the different degrees of magisterial teaching. It affirms -- perhaps for the first time with this clarity -- that there are decisions of the Magisterium that cannot be a last word on the matter as such, but are, in a substantial fixation of the problem, above all an expression of pastoral prudence, a kind of provisional disposition. Its nucleus remains valid, but the particulars, which the circumstances of the times have influenced, may need further ramifications.

“In this regard, one may think of the declarations of Popes in the last century about religious liberty, as well as the anti-Modernist decisions at the beginning of this century, above all, the decisions of the Biblical Commission of the time. As a cry of alarm in the face of hasty and superficial adaptations, they will remain fully justified. A personage such as Johann Baptist Metz said, for example, that the Church's anti-Modernist decisions render the great service of preserving her from immersion in the liberal-bourgeois world. But in the details of the determinations they contain, they become obsolete after having fulfilled their pastoral mission at the proper moment.” (Joseph Ratzinger, L'Osservatore Romano, July 2, 1990)


4) Why is this conciliarist conception of doctrinal truth wrong?

The conciliarist conception of doctrinal truth is wrong because it admits that it is possible for propositions that have been condemned repeatedly by the Catholic Church to be reconciled with their very opposites.

5) What's wrong this this?

In all charity, you're a slow one, huh? All right, let me explain this patiently for you.

Truth can be defined, on the merely natural level, as a phenomenon which exists in the nature of things and that does not depend upon human acceptance for its binding force or validity.

6) I might be slow. However, I do need some more explanation.

Certainly. You are a particular age no matter how old you look and no matter how old you tell others you are. Your age is an objective fact that does not depend upon its being accepted by anyone, including yourself, as being what it is. You were born on a particular date in a particular year. You can attempt to alter your physical appearance (plastic surgery, tummy tuck, whig, hair dye) or tell lies about when you were born. None of this changes anything about how old you are. (Just as a total aside, each of us should be proud to be however old we are as that is the length of time that God in His Holy Providence has seen fit to sustain our lives, giving us more time to do penance for our sins before we die. We should not do anything to alter our physical appearance for in doing so we seek, as a matter of vanity, to lie and to demean God's Holy Providence.)

7) Can you provide some more elaboration?

Pardon me as I sigh noticeably and take a deep breath. This is all so very obvious, you know.

One of the truths of the physical order is the law of metabolism. One who ingests more calories than his body can burn off gains weight. I do not like this law. Indeed, I hate it. However, it is a truth of the physical order. As such, you see, it does not depend upon whether or not I like it for its inherent validity, its truthfulness.

8) Ah, you seem to be in need of burning off calories. This seems to be a truth that you accuse me of being too slow to grasp. Anyhow, you refer to truths of the physical order. Are there other kinds of truth?

Yes. There are moral truths that govern human behavior that exist in the nature of things and are knowable by reason. We call these truths the Natural Law. It is possible by reason alone to come to an understanding, albeit imperfect, to know moral right from moral wrong. The Roman orator Cicero said that the Natural Law is absolute, universal and eternal. Absolute refers to the fact that nothing that contradicts it can be true. Universal refers to the fact of its applicability in the souls of all men everywhere on the face of the earth. Eternal refers to the fact that it will the same at all times.

There are also supernatural truths, which are revealed by God Himself through His Catholic Church, which is the exclusive repository and infallible explicator of these supernatural truths. These truths are incapable of being changed or understood differently than they had always been understood.

9) Has the Catholic Church declared dogmatically on the nature of dogmatic truth?

Yes, many times. The [First] Vatican Council contradicted the contentions made by William Levada and Joseph Ratzinger concerning the "adaptability" of truth to the "needs" of modern times:

Hence, that meaning of the sacred dogmata is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy Mother Church, and there must never be an abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.... If anyone says that it is possible that at some given time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmata propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has always understood and understands: let him be anathema.


10) Do men such as William Levada and Joseph Ratzinger know about this dogmatic declaration?

Yes. They had to assent to it each time they advanced in the minor orders and before their ordinations to the transitional diaconate and the priesthood. This assent is found in the following articles of the Oath Against Modernism, which was issued by Pope Saint Pius X in 1910:

Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical' misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. . . .

Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.


11) How do conciliarists, as you call them, reconcile their belief that dogmatic truth can "evolve" over time?

Conciliarists have many devices by which they seek to reconcile their novelties and errors with the dogmatic truths of the Catholic Faith, starting with outright falsehoods that "nothing" has changed (see, for example, Joseph Ratzinger's claims about the "two forms of the one Roman Rite" in his accompanying letter to his conciliar "bishops" following the release of Summorum Pontificum on July 7, 2007). The deliberate falsification of the past to accommodate current novelties is called positivism, which holds that something is true because it has been asserted positively as being true. A chap named Lewis Carroll wrote about this in Alice in Wonderland. So did George Orwell in 1984.

Another method used by Modernists to reconcile their belief in the "evolution" of dogma is to assert, as Ratzinger did in his 1990 L'Osservatore Romano article and his December 22, 2005, address to the members of his conciliar curia, that the "problem" with truth is that it is merely perceived imperfectly by the human mind, which is necessarily conditioned by the circumstances of the moment. What appears to be true at one time may not be true at another time. This does not, according to Modernists, mean that those who "misperceived" truth at one point were malicious, only that they failed to apprehend it in all of its "infinite" varieties, some of which only manifest themselves as time evolves.

The final method by which the Modernists seek to reconcile relies upon the thought of the German "philosopher" of the late-Eighteenth and early-Ninteenth Centuries, Georg Hegel, who believed, that history was a process of a series of clashes between competing ideas. The original idea, the thesis, contains within itself the seeds of its own internal contradiction, which is called the antithesis. The clash between the thesis and its antithesis produces a new idea, the synthesis. The new idea then spawns its own antithesis, producing yet another clash that results in a new synthesis. This "dialectical" process goes on and on until one arrives at which is called the state of "Ideal Spirit."

Admitting that there are many adaptations of Hegelian thought, including those proffered by one Karl Marx, those possessed of the Hegelian dialectic see the world through the prism of "clash," believing that the clash of opposites produces various "syntheses" that are representative of "progress" in man's evolutionary understanding of himself and of God, who, some Hegelians contend openly, others believe privately, is in the process of evolving Himself.

Thus it is that Hegelians, such as the late Father Hans Urs von Balthasar, a mentor of Joseph Ratzinger's, believe that there is paradox and contradiction even in the words recorded in Sacred Scripture as having been uttered by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ Himself. It is up to modern thinkers and theologians to investigate these paradoxes and contradictions so as to make them "understandable" to "modern" man.

12) It seems as though your explanations are getting longer. Bracing myself for another long explanation, has there ever been a papal condemnation of the Modernist view of dogmatic truth?

Your rude behavior will be ignored as I repeat to you that the likes of William Levada and Joseph Ratzinger (and Angelo Roncalli, Giovanni Montini, Albino Luciani and Karol Wojtyla) had to swear in the Oath Against Modernism against the very things that they propagated with such enthusiasm in the course of their priestly lives.

Additionally, however, Pope Saint Pius X wrote in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907, about the Modernist belief that truth is only perceived in the mind and can never be grasped perfectly as the circumstances of men change over time:

Hence it is quite impossible to maintain that they absolutely contain the truth: for, in so far as they are symbols, they are the images of truth, and so must be adapted to the religious sense in its relation to man; and as instruments, they are the vehicles of truth, and must therefore in their turn be adapted to man in his relation to the religious sense. But the object of the religious sense, as something contained in the absolute, possesses an infinite variety of aspects, of which now one, now another, may present itself. In like manner he who believes can avail himself of varying conditions. Consequently, the formulas which we call dogma must be subject to these vicissitudes, and are, therefore, liable to change. Thus the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of dogma. Here we have an immense structure of sophisms which ruin and wreck all religion

It is thus, Venerable Brethren, that for the Modernists, whether as authors or propagandists, there is to be nothing stable, nothing immutable in the Church. Nor, indeed, are they without forerunners in their doctrines, for it was of these that Our predecessor Pius IX wrote: "These enemies of divine revelation extol human progress to the skies, and with rash and sacrilegious daring would have it introduced into the Catholic religion as if this religion were not the work of God but of man, or some kind of philosophical discovery susceptible of perfection by human efforts."[14] On the subject of revelation and dogma in particular, the doctrine of the Modernists offers nothing new. We find it condemned in the Syllabus of Pius IX, where it is enunciated in these terms: ''Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the progress of human reason"; and condemned still more solemnly in the Vatican Council: ''The doctrine of the faith which God has revealed has not been proposed to human intelligences to be perfected by them as if it were a philosophical system, but as a divine deposit entrusted to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence also that sense of the sacred dogmas is to be perpetually retained which our Holy Mother the Church has once declared, nor is this sense ever to be abandoned on plea or pretext of a more profound comprehension of the truth." Nor is the development of our knowledge, even concerning the faith, barred by this pronouncement; on the contrary, it is supported and maintained. For the same Council continues: "Let intelligence and science and wisdom, therefore, increase and progress abundantly and vigorously in individuals, and in the mass, in the believer and in the whole Church, throughout the ages and the centuries -- but only in its own kind, that is, according to the same dogma, the same sense, the same acceptation."


13) Are there any other examples of papal condemnations of the Modernist belief about the evolution of dogmatic truth?

Well, the entirety of Pope Saint Pius X's Pascendi Dominci Gregis discusses this at great length. Also to be considered is Pope Pius XII's Humani Generis, August 12, 1950, which contains a rebuke of the so-called "New Theologians" (Henri de Lubac, Karl Rahner, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Maurice Blondel) who influenced the mind of Joseph Ratzinger. Pope Pius XII discussed the warfare of the New Theologians, otherwise known as neo-modernists, against the nature of dogmatic truth, founded in a rejection of and hatred for Scholastic Philosophy:

Moreover they assert that when Catholic doctrine has been reduced to this condition, a way will be found to satisfy modern needs, that will permit of dogma being expressed also by the concepts of modern philosophy, whether of immanentism or idealism or existentialism or any other system. Some more audacious affirm that this can and must be done, because they 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. They add that the history of dogmas consists in the reporting of the various forms in which revealed truth has been clothed, forms that have succeeded one another in accordance with the different teachings and opinions that have arisen over the course of the centuries.

It is evident from what We have already said, that such tentatives not only lead to what they call dogmatic relativism, but that they actually contain it. The contempt of doctrine commonly taught and of the terms in which it is expressed strongly favor it. Everyone is aware that the terminology employed in the schools and even that used by the Teaching Authority of the Church itself is capable of being perfected and polished; and we know also that the Church itself has not always used the same terms in the same way. It is also manifest that the Church cannot be bound to every system of philosophy that has existed for a short space of time. Nevertheless, the things that have been composed through 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. These things are based on principles and notions deduced from a true knowledge of created things. In the process of deducing, this knowledge, like a star, gave enlightenment to the human mind through the Church. Hence it is not astonishing that some of these notions have not only been used by the Oecumenical Councils, but even sanctioned by them, so that it is wrong to depart from them.

Hence to neglect, or to reject, or to devalue so many and such great resources which have been conceived, expressed and perfected so often by the age-old work of men endowed with no common talent and holiness, working under the vigilant supervision of the holy magisterium and with the light and leadership of the Holy Ghost in order to state the truths of the faith ever more accurately, to do this so that these things may be replaced by conjectural notions and by some formless and unstable tenets of a new philosophy, tenets which, like the flowers of the field, are in existence today and die tomorrow; this is supreme imprudence and something that would make dogma itself a reed shaken by the wind. The contempt for terms and notions habitually used by scholastic theologians leads of itself to the weakening of what they call speculative theology, a discipline which these men consider devoid of true certitude because it is based on theological reasoning.


14) Why is Scholastic Philosophy or Theology important to retain?

The precision of Scholasticism makes it necessary to define terms accurately, ruling out all alternate explanations and definitions, answering anticipated objections one by one. It is a system of rigorous analysis not subject to ambiguity, uncertainty, paradox or contradiction. One of the chief aims of all Modernists, including the conciliarists, is to divest themselves of Scholasticism in order to introduce ambiguity, uncertainly, paradox and contradiction as natural and normal parts of the language of what purports to be the Catholic Church, although it is in fact the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

15) Can you cite any other proof provided by a true pope that Modernists despise Scholasticism in order to introduce elements of modern philosophical systems into Catholic thought?

Yes, Pope Saint Pius X took note of this very fact in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907:

It remains for Us now to say a few words about the Modernist as reformer. From all that has preceded, it is abundantly clear how great and how eager is the passion of such men for innovation. In all Catholicism there is absolutely nothing on which it does not fasten. They wish philosophy to be reformed, especially in the ecclesiastical seminaries. They wish the scholastic philosophy to be relegated to the history of philosophy and to be classed among absolute systems, and the young men to be taught modern philosophy which alone is true and suited to the times in which we live. They desire the reform of theology: rational theology is to have modern philosophy for its foundation, and positive theology is to be founded on the history of dogma. As for history, it must be written and taught only according to their methods and modern principles. Dogmas and their evolution, they affirm, are to be harmonized with science and history. In the Catechism no dogmas are to be inserted except those that have been reformed and are within the capacity of the people. Regarding worship, they say, the number of external devotions is to be reduced, and steps must be taken to prevent their further increase, though, indeed, some of the admirers of symbolism are disposed to be more indulgent on this head. They cry out that ecclesiastical government requires to be reformed in all its branches, but especially in its disciplinary and dogmatic departments They insist that both outwardly and inwardly it must be brought into harmony with the modern conscience which now wholly tends towards democracy; a share in ecclesiastical government should therefore be given to the lower ranks of the clergy and even to the laity and authority which is too much concentrated should be decentralized The Roman Congregations and especially the index and the Holy Office, must be likewise modified. The ecclesiastical authority must alter its line of conduct in the social and political world; while keeping outside political organizations it must adapt itself to them in order to penetrate them with its spirit. With regard to morals, they adopt the principle of the Americanists, that the active virtues are more important than the passive, and are to be more encouraged in practice. They ask that the clergy should return to their primitive humility and poverty, and that in their ideas and action they should admit the principles of Modernism; and there are some who, gladly listening to the teaching of their Protestant masters, would desire the suppression of the celibacy of the clergy. What is there left in the Church which is not to be reformed by them and according to their principles?


16. How do Modernists attempt to promote their concepts of the evolution of dogmatic truth?

Modernists attempt to promote their concepts of the evolution of dogmatic truth in many ways, some of which have been discussed earlier. One of the chief ways by which the notion of evolution of truth has worked its way insidiously into the lives of ordinary Catholics is through the liturgical novelty known as the Novus Ordo Missae, which admits of many legitimate variations and "adaptations" as permitted in the General Instruction to the Roman Missal, the governing document  of the new order service. It was necessary to accustom Catholics to radical, ceaseless and ever-evolving "forms of worship" in their parishes so as to accustom them to the approved and unapproved novelties of conciliarism.

17. What do you mean?

Each of us has a sensus Catholicus as a result of our Baptism. That is, we have the Supernatural Virtue of Faith infused into our souls when we are Baptism, permitting us to see the world through lens of the true Faith. This supernatural ability (sense of the Catholic Faith, which is what sensus Catholicus means) is enhanced by means of our growth in grace over the years or can be impaired by repeated Actual Sins, whether Mortal or Venial, and the resultant darkening of our intellects that takes place thereafter. Our sensus Catholicus, therefore, gives us the ability to recognize something as being opposed to the Faith even though we might not be able, at least at first glance, to explain in precise terms why what we are seeing or hearing is disturbing.

For example, many Catholics recognized the Novus Ordo as an abomination from the very beginning, refusing to have anything to do with it. Others went along with the changes, trusting that their apparent shepherds knew better than they did. The conciliarists counted on the laudable sense of a Catholic to obey his shepherds on matters of Faith and morals in order to introduce liturgical novelties in a blitzkrieg (lightning speed) to make it difficult for him to object to the approved doctrinal and pastoral novelties (the new ecclesiology--that there are "churches" and "ecclesial communities" that have "partial communion" with the Catholic Church, ecumenism, religious liberty, the separation of Church and State, episcopal collegiality) that appeared to be at odds with the authentic teaching and pastoral practice of the Catholic Church from time immemorial. After all, shouldn't a Catholic trust the "experts" rather than his own sensus Catholicus.

Although some of the specific problems with the novelties of ambiguity and paradox found in the documents of the "Second" Vatican Council will be examined in the next installment of this series, the very existence that ambiguity and paradox and contradiction is a revolutionary development that marked a sharp departure from the clarity and certainty associated with the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church. An important way to break down our supernatural resistance to these novelties and revolutionary developments was to have us questioning our loyalty to the Church, if not our very sanity, by daring to look clearly at the simple fact that the Catholic Church has never been--and never can be--the author of ambiguity, uncertainty, paradox or confusion. God the Holy Ghost does not send mixed signals. Most Catholics do not understand this today because they have been robbed of their sensus Catholicus.

18. Are there any other methods by which novelty and ambiguity are insinuated into the lives of ordinary Catholics?

Yes, there are many. 

Modernists are very clever. Their very system admits of no systematic order, which is why Pope Saint Pius X, having been trained in Scholasticism, sought to address their errors systematically. Modernists combine elements of authentic Catholicism with error, sometimes a lot of error and sometimes just a little bit of error. Those not wishing to recognize the apostasy of the moment for what it is, a betrayal of the Faith that causes those who participate in it to fall from the Faith and thus to lose the ability to hold ecclesiastical office, believe that the appearance of a preponderance of Catholic-sounding material in a "papal" document minimizes any errors or ambiguities that might be found therein. This, however, admits that the Catholic Church can be permitted to speak ambiguously and that a little bit of error is acceptable in the official documents of the Catholic Church. This view was rejected totally by Pope Leo XIII in Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896:

The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a certain portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. "There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition" (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos).

The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodore :, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. "No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic" (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88).

The need of this divinely instituted means for the preservation of unity, about which we speak is urged by St. Paul in his epistle to the Ephesians. In this he first admonishes them to preserve with every care concord of minds: "Solicitous to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Eph. iv., 3, et seq.). And as souls cannot be perfectly united in charity unless minds agree in faith, he wishes all to hold the same faith: "One Lord, one faith," and this so perfectly one as to prevent all danger of error: "that henceforth we be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive" (Eph. iv., 14): and this he teaches is to be observed, not for a time only - "but until we all meet in the unity of faith...unto the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ" (13). But, in what has Christ placed the primary principle, and the means of preserving this unity? In that - "He gave some Apostles - and other some pastors and doctors, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ" (11-12).


In other words, if you fall from the Faith in one thing you fall from the Faith in its entirety. Modernists are actually enabled by those who contend that it is possible to remain a Catholic as long as one holds to a "minimal" number of the truths of the Faith, a novelty that is without any foundation in the thought of the Fathers of the Catholic Church and was smashed to smithereens by Pope Leo XIII in Satis Cognitum. Modernists expect that their best friends will be those who project Catholicism in the meaning of their words when they mean to convey a sense utterly at odds with the Catholic Church's authentic patrimony.


19. Can you provide me with any examples of this?

Oh, there are so many. Two from recent months will suffice.

One concerns a document of the International Theological Commission on Limbo that was approved by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI in January of 2007. The document is an effort to advance the late Father Hans Urs von Balthasar's heretical notion of "universal salvation" (that all people go to Heaven regardless as to what they believe or what they do in this passing, mortal vale of tears). Despite the teachings of popes, the International Theological Commission concluded that unbaptized babies go to Heaven because they have not committed any personal sins and that all people are entitled to salvation. There are erroneous propositions.

The Modernists know that even some traditionally-minded critics of their agenda will attempt to soothe the concerns of Catholics whose sense of the Faith leads them, quite rightly, to reject such errors. These traditionally-minded critics seek to take refuge in the belief that documents such as the one on Limbo are not the "official teaching" of the Catholic Church and thus do not represent any necessity of embracing sedevacantism. The Modernists count on such a reaction, knowing that the average Catholic doesn't make any distinction between official and unofficial. The Modernists know that they can insinuate their errors into the consciousness of the average Catholic so that he comes to think in their own Modernist terms without having to raise the specter of large numbers of traditionally-minded Catholics yet attached to their counterfeit One World Ecumenical Church saying that enough is enough and that apostates cannot hold ecclesiastical office.

This is what has been done with the "photo opportunities" of the false "popes" of conciliarism as they have posed with Protestant "clergymen" who do not have valid orders. The photographs of "joint blessings" given by a putative pope, say, Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II and an "Archbishop of Canterbury" of the false Church of England, communicate the lie that the layman of Canterbury has authority from God to communicate a blessing. Similar impressions are given when the conciliar "popes" pose with Talmudic rabbis, never once exhorting them to convert to the Catholic faith, and with Hindus and Buddhists and animists and other devil worshipers. The impression of religious indifferentism transcends all of the incessant conciliar Vatican denials that it is engaged in any indifferentist or syncretist activities. Modernists work by means of impressions, which leave very strong marks on the minds of those who witness such events. Catholicism is undermined as a direct result.

A second example from recent months of how Catholic truth is undermined "unofficially" by the words and actions of the conciliar "popes" was the subject of the most recent article on this site, Listen to the Voice of God. Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI said that there was great evidence to support the evolution of the species, noting as his Hegelian wont that such "evidence" (which does not exist at all) does not clash with a belief in "intelligent design," leading to his belief in a form of "theistic evolutionism" as a synthesis between the "evidence" gathered by junk scientists and the religious beliefs of Catholics (and perhaps others, including some Jews and Protestants). Nothing "official" was promulgated. The impression given, however, is that the Catholic Church believes that evolution has been proved, at least to some degree or another, thus undermining the efforts of even serious conservative Catholic scholars in the field of Origins and Special Creation to convince Catholics that evolutionism is not only junk science but a thoroughly discredited ideology.

There are thus many, many ways in which conciliarism's attack on the whole nature of truth, including dogmatic truth, is advanced on a daily basis in the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, thereby predisposing unsuspecting Catholics to accept whatever they hear from the pulpit in the parishes that are occupied by the conciliarists at the present time without any degree of hesitation or doubt while the entire authentic patrimony of the Catholic Church is consigned to the Orwellian memory hole and/or deconstructed to suit the Modernist purposes of conciliarism.

20. Can you provide just one more example of this?

Yes, let me do so by referring to one of the official novelties of conciliarism, that of religious liberty, which contends that false religions have the right to publicly propagate their false beliefs and that these false beliefs can contribute to the betterment of human society. Dignitatis Humanae, which was issued by the "Second" Vatican Council on December 7, 1965, stated this as follows:

Religious communities also have the right not to be hindered in their public teaching and witness to their faith, whether by the spoken or by the written word. However, in spreading religious faith and in introducing religious practices everyone ought at all times to refrain from any manner of action which might seem to carry a hint of coercion or of a kind of persuasion that would be dishonorable or unworthy, especially when dealing with poor or uneducated people. Such a manner of action would have to be considered an abuse of one's right and a violation of the right of others.

In addition, it comes within the meaning of religious freedom that religious communities should not be prohibited from freely undertaking to show the special value of their doctrine in what concerns the organization of society and the inspiration of the whole of human activity. Finally, the social nature of man and the very nature of religion afford the foundation of the right of men freely to hold meetings and to establish educational, cultural, charitable and social organizations, under the impulse of their own religious sense.


Joseph Ratzinger said in Verona, Italy, in October of 2007 that religious liberty was a "novelty" instituted by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ Himself. There are two problems with this statement.

First, the "Catholic" Church did not discover this "novelty" until 1965.

Second, every pope who spoke on the matter prior to the false pontificate of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII had to be wrong, thus vitiating the nature of the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Catholic Church in the process. Alas, what is this to men who believe that "truth" is perceived imperfectly by the human mind, which perception is conditioned by a variety of historical circumstances that may need further modification. This is Modernism writ large.

21. What popes have condemned the notion of religious liberty and the notion of civil liberty of conscience?

Numerous popes have done so, including Pope Pius VII (in a letter to French bishops in 1814) and Gregory XVI, Pius IX and Leo XIII. Here is a passage from Pope Gregory XVI's Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832:

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

Here We must include that harmful and never sufficiently denounced freedom to publish any writings whatever and disseminate them to the people, which some dare to demand and promote with so great a clamor. We are horrified to see what monstrous doctrines and prodigious errors are disseminated far and wide in countless books, pamphlets, and other writings which, though small in weight, are very great in malice. We are in tears at the abuse which proceeds from them over the face of the earth. Some are so carried away that they contentiously assert that the flock of errors arising from them is sufficiently compensated by the publication of some book which defends religion and truth. Every law condemns deliberately doing evil simply because there is some hope that good may result. Is there any sane man who would say poison ought to be distributed, sold publicly, stored, and even drunk because some antidote is available and those who use it may be snatched from death again and again?


Here is what Pope Pius IX wrote in Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864:

For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of "naturalism," as they call it, dare to teach that "the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones." And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that "that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require." From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity," viz., that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way." But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;" and that "if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling."


Pope Leo XIII put the matter this way in Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885:

So, too, the liberty of thinking, and of publishing, whatsoever each one likes, without any hindrance, is not in itself an advantage over which society can wisely rejoice. On the contrary, it is the fountain-head and origin of many evils. Liberty is a power perfecting man, and hence should have truth and goodness for its object. But the character of goodness and truth cannot be changed at option. These remain ever one and the same, and are no less unchangeable than nature itself. If the mind assents to false opinions, and the will chooses and follows after what is wrong, neither can attain its native fullness, but both must fall from their native dignity into an abyss of corruption. Whatever, therefore, is opposed to virtue and truth may not rightly be brought temptingly before the eye of man, much less sanctioned by the favor and protection of the law. A well-spent life is the only way to heaven, whither all are bound, and on this account the State is acting against the laws and dictates of nature whenever it permits the license of opinion and of action to lead minds astray from truth and souls away from the practice of virtue. To exclude the Church, founded by God Himself, from the business of life, from the making of laws, from the education of youth, from domestic society is a grave and fatal error. A State from which religion is banished can never be well regulated; and already perhaps more than is desirable is known of the nature and tendency of the so-called civil philosophy of life and morals. The Church of Christ is the true and sole teacher of virtue and guardian of morals. She it is who preserves in their purity the principles from which duties flow, and, by setting forth most urgent reasons for virtuous life, bids us not only to turn away from wicked deeds, but even to curb all movements of the mind that are opposed to reason, even though they be not carried out in action.


Not even the fiercest proponent of the error of religious liberty, the late Father John Courtney Murray, S.J., could offer a way to reconcile his novelty with the consistent, perennial teaching of the Catholic Church in opposition to it. Joseph Ratzinger has found such a way by relying upon the Modernist war against the very nature of truth, believing that we must see "continuity in discontinuity" and by contending that our perception of truth changes with historical circumstances and the "needs" of "modern" man. This is, if you will pardon the expression, the antithesis of Catholicism and even of natural reason.

21. Well, this is quite enough for now.

I agree. The next installment in this series will focus on how the conciliarists have attacked specific Catholic doctrines and sought to replace them with novelties and/or undermined them with ambiguities.

In the meantime, of course, ladies and gentlemen, we rely upon the maternal intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, saying as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit. We continue to recognize that this is the time in salvation history in which God has known from all eternity each of us would be alive, participating in His mystical Passion, Death and Burial as apostates present themselves to the world as "Catholic" "bishops" and "priests" so as to confuse people and to give them bogus sacraments. We must continue, therefore, to do reparation for our own sins, offering our daily acts of prayer, penance, mortification and almsgiving to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary. And we must pledge to spend time with Our Beloved in His Real Presence, especially on this coming First Friday into the morning hours of First Saturday.

The final victory belongs to Christ the King as a result of the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, our Immaculate Queen. While we must be concerned about the present difficulties and never permit ourselves to be deceived by conciliarism--or to seek to excuse the crimes of the conciliarists by means of inventing novelties as novel as theirs, we must remember always that Our Lord wants us to plant seeds for His mystical Resurrection as the consecrated slaves of His Most Blessed Mother's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, starting with enthroning our own homes to His Most Sacred Heart and that same Immaculate Heart of Mary.

There is work for us to do every day of our lives to help cooperate with the graces won for us by the shedding of every single drop of Our Lord's Most Precious Blood and that flow into our souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, the Mediatrix of All Graces. We must be willing to do this work to remain faithful to the perennial teaching of the Church, entrusting our immortal souls to true bishops and to true priests in the Catholic catacombs without making any concessions to conciliarism or the legitimacy of its false shepherds.

Vivat Christus Rex!

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.


Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Ignatius Loyola, pray for us.

Saints Abdon and Sennen, pray for us.

Saint Martha, pray for us. Apollinaris, pray for us.

Saint Mary Magdalene, pray for us.

Saint Teresa of Avila, pray for us.

Saint Therese Lisieux, pray for us.

Saint Vincent de Paul, pray for us.

Saint Vincent Ferrer, pray for us.

Saint Bonaventure, pray for us.

Saint Athanasius, pray for us.

Saint Irenaeus, pray for us.

Saints Monica, pray for us.

Saint Jude, pray for us.

Saint John the Beloved, pray for us.

Saint Francis Solano, pray for us.

Saint John Bosco, pray for us.

Saint Dominic Savio, pray for us.

Saint  Scholastica, pray for us.

Saint Benedict, pray for us.

Saint Joan of Arc, pray for us.

Saint Antony of the Desert, pray for us.

Saint Francis of Assisi, pray for us.

Saint Gertrude the Great, pray for us.

Saint Clare of Assisi, pray for us.

Saint Thomas Aquinas, pray for us.

Saint Augustine, pray for us.

Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, pray for us.

Saint Francis Xavier, pray for us.

Saint Peter Damian, pray for us.

Saint Frances Xavier Cabrini, pray for us.

Saint Lucy, pray for us.

Saint Monica, pray for us.

Saint Agatha, pray for us.

Saint Anthony of Padua, pray for us.

Saint Basil the Great, pray for us.

Saint Philomena, pray for us.

Saint Cecilia, pray for us.

Saint John Mary Vianney, pray for us.

Saint Athanasius, pray for us.

Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque, pray for us.

Saint Isaac Jogues, pray for us.

Saint Rene Goupil, pray for us.

Saint John Lalonde, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel Lalemont, pray for us.

Saint Noel Chabanel, pray for us.

Saint Charles Garnier, pray for us.

Saint Anthony Daniel, pray for us.

Saint John DeBrebeuf, pray for us.

Saint Alphonsus de Liguori, pray for us.

Saint Dominic, pray for us.

Saint Hyacinth, pray for us.

Saint Basil, pray for us.

Saint Vincent Ferrer, pray for us.

Saint Sebastian, pray for us.

Saint Tarcisius, pray for us.

Saint Bridget of Sweden, pray for us.

Saint Gerard Majella, pray for us.

Saint John of the Cross, pray for us.

Saint Teresa of Avila, pray for us.

Saint Bernadette Soubirous, pray for us.

Saint Genevieve, pray for us.

Pope Saint Pius X, pray for us

Pope Saint Pius V, pray for us.

Saint Rita of Cascia, pray for us.

Saint Louis de Montfort, pray for us.

Venerable Anne Catherine Emmerich, pray for us.

Venerable Pauline Jaricot, pray for us.

Father Maximilian Mary Kolbe, pray for us.

Padre Pio, pray for us.

Father Miguel Augustin Pro, pray for us.

Francisco Marto, pray for us.

Jacinta Marto, pray for us.

Juan Diego, pray for us.


The Longer Version of the Saint Michael the Archangel Prayer, composed by Pope Leo XIII, 1888

O glorious Archangel Saint Michael, Prince of the heavenly host, be our defense in the terrible warfare which we carry on against principalities and powers, against the rulers of this world of darkness, spirits of evil.  Come to the aid of man, whom God created immortal, made in His own image and likeness, and redeemed at a great price from the tyranny of the devil.  Fight this day the battle of our Lord, together with  the holy angels, as already thou hast fought the leader of the proud angels, Lucifer, and his apostate host, who were powerless to resist thee, nor was there place for them any longer in heaven.  That cruel, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil or Satan who seduces the whole world, was cast into the abyss with his angels.  Behold this primeval enemy and slayer of men has taken courage.  Transformed into an angel of light, he wanders about with all the multitude of wicked spirits, invading the earth in order to blot out the Name of God and of His Christ, to seize upon, slay, and cast into eternal perdition, souls destined for the crown of eternal glory.  That wicked dragon pours out. as a most impure flood, the venom of his malice on men of depraved mind and corrupt heart, the spirit of lying, of impiety, of blasphemy, and the pestilent breath of impurity, and of every vice and iniquity.  These most crafty enemies have filled and inebriated with gall and bitterness the Church, the spouse of the Immaculate Lamb, and have laid impious hands on Her most sacred possessions. In the Holy Place itself, where has been set up the See of the most holy Peter and the Chair of Truth for the light of the world, they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety with the iniquitous design that when the Pastor has been struck the sheep may be scattered.  Arise then, O invincible Prince, bring help against the attacks of the lost spirits to the people of God, and give them the victory.  They venerate thee as their protector and patron; in thee holy Church glories as her defense against the malicious powers of hell; to thee has God entrusted the souls of men to be established in heavenly beatitude.  Oh, pray to the God of peace that He may put Satan under our feet, so far conquered that he may no longer be able to hold men in captivity and harm the Church.  Offer our prayers in the sight of the Most High, so that they may quickly conciliate the mercies of the Lord; and beating down the dragon, the ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, do thou again make him captive in the abyss, that he may no longer seduce the nations.  Amen.

Verse: Behold the Cross of the Lord; be scattered ye hostile powers.

Response: The Lion of the Tribe of Juda has conquered the root of David.

Verse: Let Thy mercies be upon us, O Lord.

Response: As we have hoped in Thee.

Verse: O Lord hear my prayer.

Response: And let my cry come unto Thee.

Verse: Let us pray.  O God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, we call upon Thy holy Name, and as suppliants, we implore Thy clemency, that by the intercession of Mary, ever Virgin, immaculate and our Mother, and of the glorious Archangel Saint Michael, Thou wouldst deign to help us against Satan and all other unclean spirits, who wander about the world for the injury of the human race and the ruin of our souls. 

Response:  Amen.  



© Copyright 2007, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.