Thomas A. Droleskey
It was almost nine years ago, on August 17, 1998, that then President William Jefferson Blyth Clinton testified before a Federal grand jury about the false testimony he had given in a deposition in the Paula Jones harassment case exactly eight months before, on January 17, 1998. Clinton used a televised speech from the White House on the evening of August 17, 1998, to admit that he had had a relationship with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky that was "inappropriate." A few days thereafter, while the First Family was "vacationing" in the Virgin Islands, photographers just "happened" to take a photograph of Bill and Hillary Clinton dancing on a beach.
This "photo opportunity,"
of course, just did not "happen." The whole thing was staged to demonstrate that the then president and his wife were making the best of their allegedly difficult circumstances. The photograph was taken at a time during which Hillary Clinton claimed in her autobiography, Living History, that she was barely speaking to her husband. Then again, taking anything either of the Clintons says or writes at face value is rather absurd. Neither of them is averse to creating a "reality" that suits their purposes, as was noted on this site last week (Two Families in Alternate Worlds). One can count on them to measure their words and actions quite carefully to extract the precise response they desire from any particular constituency group at any given point in time. Calculation is of the essence of the Clintons' whole existence.
Well, the same has long been true of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. Although his appointment as the prefect of the then named Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1981 by Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II worried many of us in the "conservative" camp, Ratzinger came across as something of an "enforcer" of allegedly "orthodox" Catholic doctrine in the 1980s, also making a number of comments critical of the state of the conciliar church in his famous interview with Italian journalist Vittorio Messori that became the basis of The Ratzinger Report. It is clear now that this "reinvention" of himself as someone other than the theologian whose alliances (at least at various points) with the likes of Fathers Karl Rahner and Hans Urs von Balthasar and Yves Congar and Henri de Lubac gave many of us pause for concern in 1981 was, if you will, quite Clintonian. It was manufactured.
Father Giulio Maria Tam, who was ordained by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre of the Society of Saint Pius X, put it this way in 1991, in a report written just three weeks before the Archbishop's death, which occurred on March 25, 1991, noted the following Ratzinger strategy, as summarized by the Fathers Moderator of the Traditio website, to try to win over traditionally-minded Catholics, including those in the Society of Saint Pius X:
- Ratzinger first paints himself as "traditional," or at least "conservative," to win the admiration of the Newchurch "conservatives" by attacking only exaggerated Modernism, such as liberation theology. However, he fosters a more subtle Modernism, as the lie in Summorum pontificum of 2007 that the Catholic and Apostolic Traditional Latin Mass and Hannibal Bugnini's 1969 Novus Ordo service are "a single rite."
- Having deceived the Newchurch "conservatives" that he is their friend, he confirms Vatican II errors such as:
- collegiality: the pope is the first among equals, that is, the other bishops
- religious freedom: all religions are equal
- oecumenism: the error that all religions have equal saving power, most recently confirmed on July 10, 2007, in a Newvatican document personally approved by Benedict-Ratzinger
- Once Ratzinger has duped the Newchurch "conservatives," who now have "their eyes full of thankful tears" and want to remain friends with Ratzinger, they eliminate or soft-pedal their objections to Vatican II errors
- Ratzinger proceeds to engineer his Neo-modernist Revolution, now with the tacit approval of the Newchurch "conservatives," through his office as Prefect of the New Order Congregation of the Faith:
- the acceptance of Martin Luther's heretical doctrine on justification by the concordat of October 31, 1999, with the Lutherans (the most conservative of whom were smart enough to see through Ratzinger's plan and refused to sign)
- the confirmation of the Vatican II error that the Church of Christ is not exclusively the Roman Catholic Church (March 4, 2000)
- the rejection of previous Papal Bulls on such issues as the conduct of the Holy Inquisition and the religious errors of Galileo (March 8, 2000)
- the publication of Summorum pontificum, to spread the error that the Catholic and Apostolic Traditional Latin Mass and Hannibal Bugnini's 1969 Novus Ordo service are "a single rite"
Although Fr. Tam's preliminary work was praised by Archbishop Lefebvre on March 3, 1991, three weeks before the archbishop's death, by 2000 Fr. Tam's documentation of Ratzinger's continuing Neo-modernist Revolution became an embarrassment to SSPX's czar Bernard Fellay, who was by that time angling toward a sellout of the SSPX to Benedict-Ratzinger and the New Order. Therefore, in 2003, Fellay forced Fr. Tam out of the SSPX. (See:
Traditio: Commentaries from the Mailbox July 30, 2007)
As been the subject of much commentary on this site, the Hegelian bent of the mind of Joseph Ratzinger, which rejects Scholasticism and seeks to find complexity and ambiguity as truth is misrepresented as being subject to the vicissitudes of the perception of the human mind in the context of the historical circumstances in which it finds itself, has no problem in saying and/or doing two entirely contradictory things on the same subject at different points in time. And it must be remembered that he, Joseph Ratzinger, has admitted that he has never really changed from the "progressive" he was viewed to be as a peritus at the "Second" Vatican Council. Here is a report found on the Tradition in Action website:
Many conservative Catholics today claim that there are two Joseph Ratzingers. The first would be the progressivist Fr. Ratzinger who followed his mentor Karl Rahner and was one of the most prominent periti at Vatican II. The second would be the conservative Card. Ratzinger who, some 20 years later, assumed the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
In fact, according to the words of Card. Ratzinger himself, he did not change. In an interview given on a trip to Brazil in 1990 to the daily O Estado de S. Paulo, he affirmed that his thinking remained essentially the same.
At right, an excerpt from the interview entitled 'Pastoral Action Requires Spirituality;' directly below, a photocopy of the entire page; below, our translation from Portuguese of the part in yellow .
O Estado de Sao Paulo - What are the more significant differences between the Ratzinger of Vatican II and the Ratzinger of today? Who changed more: you or the Church?
Cardinal Ratzinger – I do not see a real, profound difference between my work at Vatican Council II and my present day work. While preparing this course for Bishops, I went to review a course of ecclesiology that I taught for the first time in 1956. Naturally, I found elements that needed to be updated. But as for the fundamental vision, I found a profound similarity. What I proposed to the Bishops in Rio de Janeiro (in this trip) was the same fundamental vision that I set out (then).
(Interview with Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger by Walter Falceta, Jr, 'Acao pastoral requer espiritualidade' in O Estado de S. Paulo, July 29, 1990.)
Card. Ratzinger: I am the same
A course on ecclesiology? Even in 1956, you see, Father Joseph Ratzinger was speaking about the "Church" in terms of "imperfect" communion, that Protestant "ecclesial communions" had elements of "sanctification" that were being used by God to effect the salvation of souls. This is what he believed at the Second Vatican Council. This is what is taught in Lumen Gentium. This is what was reaffirmed recently in the document about Lumen Gentium that was released last month by William Levada, Ratzinger's hand-picked successor as the prefect of the conciliar Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a man who does indeed believe that it is possible for past dogmatic statements to understood differently than they had been in the past. (See:
Anathematized by His Own Words)
The Tradition in Action site also indicates that Father Joseph Ratzinger was an admirer of the "Anonymous Christian" error of the late Father Karl Rahner, which is why Ratzinger's comments on salvation are clouded in complexity and ambiguity and paradox in any number of ways:
In the following text, Fr. Joseph Ratzinger is quite clear regarding his adhesion to the false theory of the 'anonymous Christians' proposed by Karl Rahner. Ratzinger's notion that the Catholic Church - which he calls 'a system' - is not necessary for salvation also becomes clear.
Rahner thesis of "anonymous Christianity" in essence affirms that every man is already a "Christian," even if he does not know it, by the simple fact of loving something other than himself: his neighbor, humanity, some value, etc. Such love would already be a true love of God and would merit him eternal salvation. This concept opened the door for the most diverse ecumenical encounters, not excluding with the pagan and demonic. Obviously, this conception is opposed to Catholic doctrine.
It seems useful to present this text to expose what is behind the "conservative" ecumenical and inter-religious aims of Benedict XVI.
Top right is a facsimile of the book cover; at right , a photocopy of the Italian text. Below, we present our translation.
"The New Covenant gives two answers to the question: What does man need to save himself? The two answers form just one in an apparent contradiction. They simultaneously affirm that only love is necessary and that only faith is necessary. Both, nevertheless, express the same disposition of overcoming oneself, by which man begins to abandon his own egoism and move toward his neighbor. This is why his brother, his fellow man, is the true touchstone of this disposition. In the 'you' of the brother, the 'You' of God remains unknown to the man.
"If, therefore, we consider our neighbor primarily as an 'unknown believer,' we should consider that he can appear under different 'clothing'....
"Men never save themselves through systems or by their obedience to systems, even if these systems contain the noblest things that exist, for example, the great religions of the world. The system is always an appeal turned toward the individual, and for this reason often takes the shape of an appeal 'against' [one's enemy]. At any rate, God does not invite us to be 'against,' but always to be 'for' that which the Bible calls 'agape' [spiritual love].
"In this respect, we should attentively examine the saying - correct in itself - that each one should live according to his own conscience. The conscience does not say different things to each one; rather it says the same to all: love without self-sufficiency. This is equivalent to those basic Christian dispositions that the New Covenant calls 'pistis' [faith] and 'agape [love].' It is the presence of these dispositions that distinguishes the 'anonymous Christians' (Rahner) from the pagans, while the absence of these dispositions characterizes hidden pagans from many Christians. One who has these dispositions has the 'essence of Christianity' and saves himself."
(Joseph Ratzinger, 'Necessita della missione della Chiesa nel mondo,' in La fine della Chiesa come Societa Perfetta, Verona: Mondator
Mondatori 1968, pp. 72-73).
Fr. Ratzinger defends the false theory of the 'anonymous Christian'
Remember also that Ratzinger, the disciple of Father Hans Urs von Balthasar, really does believe in the heresy of "universal salvation," as is clear from the document about the fate of infants who die before being baptized that was issued by the International Theological Commission eight months ago now. Yes, this is clear from many of his other words, no matter his use of paradox and ambiguity to obfuscate his true position. Leaving aside his embrace of condemned propositions (such as religious liberty and the separation of Church and State), his embrace of the "New Theology," which is simply Modernism in a re-labeled package, is well known.
It is, therefore, entirely wishful thinking for traditionally-minded Catholics yet ensnared in the multifaceted traps of the counterfeit church of conciliarism to believe that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has "evolved" into their friend. He has not. He wants traditionally-minded Catholics to be good--and quite quiet--citizens of his One World Ecumenical Church. He has given them all that he is ever going to give them by means of Summorum Pontificum. It will just be "too bad" if some conciliar "ordinaries," such as "Archbishop" Daniel DiNardo of the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston, Texas, believe that there is no "need" for any expansion of Motu Masses in their jurisdictions. (Although the subject of a separate, forthcoming article, the Houston archdiocese has a a huge "Catholic Charismatic Center" within view of Interstate 45, the Gulf Freeway, to the east of downtown Houston. Room enough for the novelty of Catholic Pentecostalism. No room for the Motu Mass.) These traditionally-minded Catholics in the conciliar structures are just as much on their own as the four priests in the underground church in Red China who were arrested recently, just weeks after Ratzinger's sellout of underground Catholics to the Communist authorities there.
Nevertheless, you see, the widespread reporting about Summorum Pontificum has raised concerns in some conciliar circles. One of the ways that Ratzinger has been communicating to his fellow conciliar revolutionaries that Summorum Pontificum, which is an effort to synthesize the egregious 1962 Missal of Angelo Roncalli with the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service, is not a threat to them is to have various Vatican spokesmen send signals that the revolution is proceeding apace. This is what happened a short while ago when the director of the German language division of Vatican Radio ruminated that it might be possible one day for there to be female "cardinals." And this is what happened when Vatican Radio just "happened" to report that Joseph Ratzinger/ Benedict XVI spent an hour in prayer on July 27, 2007, in front of a statue of "Our Lady of Medjugorje:"
The web portal of Radio Vatican reports in a post of July 21, 2007, that Pope Benedict XVI, currently staying in Lorenzago di Cadore until July 27, spent one hour praying in front of an image of Our Lady of Medjugorje.
Radio Vatican said that it was a very poignant moment. “The Pope went to the small chapel in the forest and prayed in front of the image of Our Lady of Medjugorje. An interesting story is connected with this image: it was brought in the 80’s and was stolen. After some time, the thief brought it back to the small chapel. The Pope prayed the Rosary and spent about one hour there,” said the Radio Vatican journalist.
• further information: Vatican Radio The Medjugorje Message: Pope prayed before image of Medjugorje Gosp
Both of these reports are purely gratuitous and are designed to send signals to various constituency groups that Summorum Pontificum does not represent a step back into the "past."
The "preconciliar" version of Catholicism is disparaged by the conciliar revolutionaries as "triumphalism" (one true Church, Social Reign of Christ the King, liturgical "archaism," philosophical rigidity as a result of Scholasticism presaging a bias against "modern" philosophies). Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II explicitly rejected "triumphalism" in an address to Catholic college educators that I heard delivered in person with my own ears at the Catholic University of America Field House on Sunday, October 7, 1979. All right, I cringed a little bit. I was too much of a papaloter at the time, however, to let that get in the way of what appeared to be a few jabs at "dissenting" theologians such as Father Charles Currran, who was seated two rows in back of me on that day.
Alas, Karol Wojtyla was not the only conciliar "pope" to disparage preconciliar "triumphalism." Joseph Ratzinger did so on July 24, 2007, just seventeen days after the issuance of Summorum Pontificum, speaking to the "priests" of the dioceses of Belluno-Feltre and Treviso:
It seems very important to me that we can now see with open eyes how much that was positive grew following the Council: in the renewal of the liturgy, in the synods, Roman synods, universal synods, diocesan synods, in the parish structures, in collaboration, in the new responsibility of laypeople, in intercultural and intercontinental shared responsibility, in a new experience of the Church's catholicity.
These are signals that are being sent to all of those steeped in the "liturgical renewal" of the "Second" Vatican Council that the revolution proceeds right on course. This is especially the case with the news report about Ratzinger's praying in front of a statue of "Our Lady of Medjugorje," something that did not have to be reported at all unless, that is, there was the intention of assuring charismatics that their place in the One World Ecumenical Church is quite secure and that Ratzinger/Benedict XVI might even be open to declaring positively about the false "apparitions" that are alleged to have been taking place every day for twenty-six years in Medjugorje and wherever else the alleged seers find themselves in the world on any given day.
I know. Some will protest by saying that Ratzinger has been skeptical of Medjugorje, refusing to sanction it when he was the prefect of the conciliar Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. All right. Fine. He also did not condemn it! In a position as the putative "pontiff," however, he makes it known through Vatican Radio that he prayed for an hour, including praying the Rosary, in front of a statue of "Our Lady of Medjugorje." What's the point of this? To show the world how personally pious he is? No. The point is to indicate an "openness," at least, to the legitimacy of this false apparition and, as noted above, to reassure charismatics, who have their chief champion right in the Apostolic Palace in the person of Father Raniero Cantalamessa, the "Preacher to the Papal Household," that all is well with their place in the conciliar church. They are not going be forced to "speak in tongues" in Latin.
The possibility of a "recognition" by Ratzinger/Benedict XVI of Medjugorje should not be dismissed. An 2006 article from This Rock magazine that appears on the website of the late Michael Davies (who, along with a man he debated in 1993 on the subject of Traction, Dr. E. Michael Jones, was one of the stalwart exploders of the Medjugorje hoax) contained this exchange between an interviewer and the conciliar "bishop" of the Diocese of Mostar-Duvno in Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Cnak: Some newspapers have written that this Pope visited Medjugorje incognito while he was a Cardinal and that he is preparing to recognize Medjugorje as a shrine, etc. Did you touch upon this topic?
We did and I wrote to and spoke with the Holy Father on it. He only laughed surprisingly.
"Bishop" Peric believed, it appears, that Ratzinger's laughter was a dismissal of the report that he had gone to Medjugorje incognito while a "cardinal." According to the rest of that part of the This Rock interview, it appears as though "Bishop" Peric certainly had good grounds for believing this to be the case:
The Holy Father told me: we at the Congregation always asked ourselves how can any believer accept as authentic, apparitions that occur every day and for so many years? Are they still occurring every day? I responded: Every day, Holy Father, to one of them in Boston, to another near Milano and still another in Krehin Gradac (Herzegovina), and everything is done under the protocol of “apparitions of Medjugorje”. Up till now there have been about 35,000 “apparitions” and there is no end in sight!
The Pope then continued: the previous Bishops’ Conference of the former Yugoslavia issued a statement of “non constat de supernaturalitate” (though the BCY did not use this specific formula, still the phrase “According to investigations made thus far, it cannot be affirmed that these events concern supernatural apparitions or revelations”, corresponds to the traditional formula in these matters). Has the current Bishops’ Conference of Bosnia-Herzegovina or the Croatian Bishops’ Conference reconfirmed the previous declaration?
I replied: There has been no joint reconfirmation, but each individual bishop when speaking on this issue refers to the Declaration. I added that I was sent to Mostar in 1992 and that I have been following the events from the beginning and that from the last declaration of the Bishops in 1991 up till now, nothing significant has changed, nothing new has happened, nor have any new elements occurred which would change the meaning of the events. In my opinion, from the numerous local facts, it is evident that these events can be defined not only by “non constat de supernaturalitate” ie: it is not certain that these events concern supernatural apparitions, but also by “constat de non supernaturalitate” ie: it is certain that these events do not concern supernatural apparitions. The numerous absurd messages, insincerities, falsehoods and disobedience associated with the events and “apparitions” of Medjugorje from the very outset, all disprove any claims of authenticity. Much pressure through appeals has been made to force the recognition of the authenticity of private revelations, yet not through convincing arguments based upon the truth, but through the self-praise of personal conversions and by statements such as one “feels good”. How can this ever be taken as proof of the authenticity of apparitions?
Finally the Holy Father said: we at the Congregation felt that priests should be of service to those faithful who seek Confession and Holy Communion, “leaving out the question of the authenticity of the apparitions”.
Ah, the man of contradiction and paradox, Joseph Ratzinger, has done it again. Leading a listener to believe he leans one way as he demonstrates himself to be open to another point of view at a later point in time. What a demoralizing blow it must be to "Bishop" Peric and to other Catholics in the structures of the counterfeit church conciliarism who have fought against Medjugorje to have their legs cut out from under them by the well-placed Vatican Radio report. (I know the feeling. See "Altar Girls, 1994." Fought against that one real hard with lots of conciliar luminaries, including speaking with Mother Teresa on the telephone at one point at the request of the late Father John A. Hardon, S.J. Oh, yes, the conciliarists cut the legs out from under their friends and apologists all of the time. Been there, done that.)
No one is unexpendable in the economy of conciliarism, however. As important as it is to Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI to round up and neutralize traditionally-minded Catholics (most of whom, with one or two exceptions, won't utter a word about the Vatican Radio report--or, worse yet, will try to minimize it, something that they would have never done years ago) by means of Summorum Pontificum, it is also important for him to reassure all of the various camps in the One World Ecumenical Church that what appears in the secular media to be a "step back" is actually a "great leap forward" to silence "integralists" once and for all, as he wrote in Principles of Catholic Theology had to be done:
Among the more obvious phenomena of the last years must be counted the increasing number of integralist groups in which the desire for piety, for the sense of mystery, is finding satisfaction. We must be on our guard against minimizing these movements. Without a doubt, they represent a sectarian zealotry that is the antithesis of Catholicity. We cannot resist them too firmly. (Principles of Catholic Theology, pp. 389-390)
Yes, last week Ratzinger evidenced an openness to the nonexistent scientific "evidence" about evolution. That was the same week he prayed in front of a statue of "Our Lady of Medjugorje" and the same week in which he spoke about the positive work of the conciliar liturgical "renewal." The man who said on December 22, 2005, that we must see "continuity in discontinuity," the man who said in Verona, Italy, on October 18, 2006, that religious liberty was a "novelty" instituted by Our Lord, the man who claims in 2007 that the Novus Ordo was not a "rupture" in Tradition when he written in 1992 the preface to a book that claimed this precise thing, the man who was under suspicion of heresy by the Holy Office of the Inquisition during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII, demonstrates over and over again that he has a "little something for everyone."
The Catholic Church is not about a "big tent" with different "perspectives" on the Faith. Pope Leo XIII noted this very clearly in Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896:
It is so evident from the clear and frequent testimonies of Holy Writ that the true Church of Jesus Christ is one, that no Christian can dare to deny it. But in judging and determining the nature of this unity many have erred in various ways. Not the foundation of the Church alone, but its whole constitution, belongs to the class of things effected by Christ's free choice. For this reason the entire case must be judged by what was actually done. We must consequently investigate not how the Church may possibly be one, but how He, who founded it, willed that it should be one. But when we consider what was actually done we find that Jesus Christ did not, in point of fact, institute a Church to embrace several communities similar in nature, but in themselves distinct, and lacking those bonds which render the Church unique and indivisible after that manner in which in the symbol of our faith we profess: "I believe in one Church." "The Church in respect of its unity belongs to the category of things indivisible by nature, though heretics try to divide it into many parts...We say, therefore, that the Catholic Church is unique in its essence, in its doctrine, in its origin, and in its excellence...Furthermore, the eminence of the Church arises from its unity, as the principle of its constitution - a unity surpassing all else, and having nothing like unto it or equal to it" (S. Clemens Alexandrinus, Stronmatum lib. viii., c. 17). For this reason Christ, speaking of the mystical edifice, mentions only one Church, which he calls His own - "I will build my church; " any other Church except this one, since it has not been founded by Christ, cannot be the true Church. This becomes even more evident when the purpose of the Divine Founder is considered. For what did Christ, the Lord, ask? What did He wish in regard to the Church founded, or about to be founded? This: to transmit to it the same mission and the same mandate which He had received from the Father, that they should be perpetuated. This He clearly resolved to do: this He actually did. "As the Father hath sent me, I also send you" (John xx., 21). "As thou hast sent Me into the world I also have sent them into the world" (John xvii., 18).
But the mission of Christ is to save that which had perished: that is to say, not some nations or peoples, but the whole human race, without distinction of time or place. "The Son of Man came that the world might be saved by Him" (John iii., 17). "For there is no other name under Heaven given to men whereby we must be saved" (Acts iv., 12). The Church, therefore, is bound to communicate without stint to all men, and to transmit through all ages, the salvation effected by Jesus Christ, and the blessings flowing there from. Wherefore, by the will of its Founder, it is necessary that this Church should be one in all lands and at all times. to justify the existence of more than one Church it would be necessary to go outside this world, and to create a new and unheard - of race of men.
That the one Church should embrace all men everywhere and at all times was seen and foretold by Isaias, when looking into the future he saw the appearance of a mountain conspicuous by its all surpassing altitude, which set forth the image of "The House of the Lord" - that is, of the Church, "And in the last days the mountain of the House of the Lord shall be prepared on the top of the mountains" (Isa. ii., 2). . . .
The Church of Christ, therefore, is one and the same for ever; those who leave it depart from the will and command of Christ, the Lord - leaving the path of salvation they enter on that of perdition. "Whosoever is separated from the Church is united to an adulteress. He has cut himself off from the promises of the Church, and he who leaves the Church of Christ cannot arrive at the rewards of Christ....He who observes not this unity observes not the law of God, holds not the faith of the Father and the Son, clings not to life and salvation" (S. Cyprianus, De Cath. Eccl. Unitate, n. 6).
But He, indeed, Who made this one Church, also gave it unity, that is, He made it such that all who are to belong to it must be united by the closest bonds, so as to form one society, one kingdom, one body - "one body and one spirit as you are called in one hope of your calling (Eph. iv., 4). Jesus Christ, when His death was nigh at hand, declared His will in this matter, and solemnly offered it up, thus addressing His Father: "Not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in Me...that they also may be one in Us...that they may be made perfect in one" John xvii., 20-21 23). Yea, He commanded that this unity should be so closely knit and so perfect amongst His followers that it might, in some measure, shadow forth the union between Himself and His Father: "I pray that they all may be one as Thou Father in Me and I in Thee" (Ibid. 21).
Agreement and union of minds is the necessary foundation of this perfect concord amongst men, from which concurrence of wills and similarity of action are the natural results. Wherefore, in His divine wisdom, He ordained in His Church Unity of Faith; a virtue which is the first of those bonds which unite man to God, and whence we receive the name of the faithful - "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Eph. iv., 5). That is, as there is one Lord and one baptism, so should all Christians, without exception, have but one faith. And so the Apostle St. Paul not merely begs, but entreats and implores Christians to be all of the same mind, and to avoid difference of opinions: "I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms amongst you, and that you be perfect in the same mind and in the same judgment" (I Cor. i., 10). Such passages certainly need no interpreter; they speak clearly enough for themselves. Besides, all who profess Christianity allow that there can be but one faith. It is of the greatest importance and indeed of absolute necessity, as to which many are deceived, that the nature and character of this unity should be recognized. And, as We have already stated, this is not to be ascertained by conjecture, but by the certain knowledge of what was done; that is by seeking for and ascertaining what kind of unity in faith has been commanded by Jesus Christ.
The heavenly doctrine of Christ, although for the most part committed to writing by divine inspiration, could not unite the minds of men if left to the human intellect alone. It would, for this very reason, be subject to various and contradictory interpretations. This is so, not only because of the nature of the doctrine itself and of the mysteries it involves, but also because of the divergencies of the human mind and of the disturbing element of conflicting passions. From a variety of interpretations a variety of beliefs is necessarily begotten; hence come controversies, dissensions and wranglings such as have arisen in the past, even in the first ages of the Church. Irenaeus writes of heretics as follows: "Admitting the sacred Scriptures they distort the interpretations" (Lib. iii., cap. 12, n. 12). And Augustine: "Heresies have arisen, and certain perverse views ensnaring souls and precipitating them into the abyss only when the Scriptures, good in themselves, are not properly understood" (In Evang. Joan., tract xviii., cap. 5, n. 1). Besides Holy Writ it was absolutely necessary to insure this union of men's minds - to effect and preserve unity of ideas - that there should be another principle. This the wisdom of God requires: for He could not have willed that the faith should be one if He did not provide means sufficient for the preservation of this unity; and this Holy Writ clearly sets forth as We shall presently point out. Assuredly the infinite power of God is not bound by anything, all things obey it as so many passive instruments. In regard to this external principle, therefore, we must inquire which one of all the means in His power Christ did actually adopt. For this purpose it is necessary to recall in thought the institution of Christianity.
The Catholic Church leaves no place for false apparitions and for falsehoods about religious liberty and the separation of Church and State and "ecclesial communions" being used by the "Spirit of Christ" as means of salvation. The counterfeit church of conciliarism has plenty of room in its big tent for such falsehoods.
Make no mistake about it, ladies and gentlemen, the true popes of the Catholic Church have warned us about these times. Pope Saint Pius X did so in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910:
We fear that worse is to come: the end result of this developing promiscuousness, the beneficiary of this cosmopolitan social action, can only be a Democracy which will be neither Catholic, nor Protestant, nor Jewish. It will be a religion (for Sillonism, so the leaders have said, is a religion) more universal than the Catholic Church, uniting all men become brothers and comrades at last in the "Kingdom of God". - "We do not work for the Church, we work for mankind."
And now, overwhelmed with the deepest sadness, We ask Ourselves, Venerable Brethren, what has become of the Catholicism of the Sillon? Alas! this organization which formerly afforded such promising expectations, this limpid and impetuous stream, has been harnessed in its course by the modern enemies of the Church, and is now no more than a miserable affluent of the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would bring back to the world (if such a Church could overcome) the reign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak, and of all those who toil and suffer.
The saint we commemorate today, Saint Alphonsus de Liguori, taught us that our only sure refuge is Our Lady, to whose maternal patronage we must fly at all times:
Mary obtains salvation for all who have recourse to her. Oh! If all sinners had recourse to Mary, who would ever be lost? . . . He who is protected by her will be saved; he who is not will be lost."
"If you persevere until death in true devotion to Mary, your salvation is certain."
We must persevere until death in true devotion to Mary, which excludes even the semblance of credence being given to false apparitions or doing or saying anything that disparages the immutability of her Divine Son's Deposit of Faith. The Immaculate Heart of Mary, which we venerate in a special way throughout this month of August, provides with the means by which we can offer reparation for our own many sins to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus. The Immaculate Heart of Mary has given us the Green Scapular to be the means by which we can help others attain salvation through her maternal intercession. (See
The Green Scapular for information on how to order great quantities of Green Scapulars to be distributed to friends and neighbors and colleagues and to former friends and neighbors and colleagues and parishioners.) Let us use this great Sacramental to help combat get those deceived by the errors of the day into Heaven, remembering once again these words of Saint Alphonsus:
"If you persevere until death in true devotion to Mary, your salvation is certain."
May our devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary as her consecrated slaves this August of 2007 help us to pray our Rosaries with greater fervor, remembering especially the intentions of the true bishop and the true priests who serve us in the catacombs without making any concessions to conciliarism or to its false shepherds. May the Immaculate Heart of Mary be our constant and sure refuge now and the hour of our deaths! For it is in the Immaculate Heart of Mary that we truly find a little something for everyone, that is, the Mercy of her Divine Son.
Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us now and the hour of our death. Amen.
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 Alphonsus de Liguori, pray for us.
Pope Saint Stephen I, pray for us.
Saint Stephen the Protomartyr, pray for us.
Saint Christopher, pray for us.
Saint James the Greater, pray for us.
Simon Stock, pray for us.
Saint John of the Cross, pray for us.
Saint Teresa of Avila, pray for us.
Saint Therese Lisieux, 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 Thomas Aquinas, pray for us.
Saint Bonaventure, 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 Vincent de Paul, pray for us.
Saint Vincent Ferrer, 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 Bernadette Soubirous, pray for us.
Saint Genevieve, pray for us.
Saint Vincent de Paul, 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 Miguel Augustin Pro, pray for us.
Francisco Marto, pray for us.
Jacinta Marto, pray for us.
Juan Diego, pray for us.
Sister Teresa Benedicta, 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.