Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us
                May 20, 2011

As The Conciliar Fowler Lays More Snares

Part Four

by Thomas A. Droleskey

[26] For among my people are found wicked men, that lie in wait as fowlers, setting snares and traps to catch men. [27] As a net is full of birds, so their houses are full of deceit: therefore are they become great and enriched. [28] They are grown gross and fat: and have most wickedly transgressed my words. They have not judged the cause of the widow, they have not managed the cause of the fatherless, they have not judged the judgement of the poor. [29] Shall I not visit for these things, saith the Lord? or shall not my soul take revenge on such a nation? [30] Astonishing and wonderful things have been done in the land.

[31] The prophets prophesied falsehood, and the priests clapped their hands: and my people loved such things: what then shall be done in the end thereof? (Jeremias 5: 26-31.)

This website, which, completely within the Providence of God, is ill-regarded by most of the relatively small numbers of people who are might be aware, however dimly, of its existence and unsupported by the even fewer number of souls who do read the articles posted hereon, has attempted warn readers in the past four years that one of the goals of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has been to merge the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition that was promulgated by Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII in 1961 and 1962 with the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service that was promulgated by Giovanni Montini/Paul VI on April 3, 1969, and went into effect on November 30, 1969, the First Sunday of Advent.

Proceeding With the "Reform of the Reform" After All

So few people have wanted to believe the evidence that I have presented thus far to demonstrate that this is indeed the case, that Ratzinger/Benedict has proven himself to be thoroughly consistent throughout his false "pontificate," now in its seventh ignominious year, of seeking to "find" the "real" meaning of the "Second" Vatican Council that creates a bridge between the ultra-progressivists to his "left" flank and the hard-core traditionalists to his "right" flank, thereby institutionalizing a "moderate" and "restrained" concept of "the council" and a "devout" liturgical synthesis that cherry picks the best of the "extraordinary" and of the "ordinary forms" of what passes for the Roman Rite in the counterfeit church of conciliarism to produce a "lasting" "reform" and "renewal" truly worthy of a "new liturgical movement." There might be that "springtime" in Ratzinger/Benedict's false church after all. Or, of course, this is what he thinks will be the case.

Traditionally-minded Catholics in the conciliar structures, especially those among their ranks who consider themselves to be the august gatekeepers of what is and is not "true" traditionalism, heaping scorn on those who reject their pontifications and grand insights that are proved wrong more often than not, have said that this is not the case. Ultra-progressivists want to "push the envelope" on conciliarism's liturgical revolution more and more, chafing under the collar at the few cosmetic changes that are soon to take place on the decks of their One World Ecumenical Church. Neither believe the evidence before their very eyes that the false "pontiff" intends to institute a full "reform of the reform," doing away permanently with the 1961/1962 Missal of Roncalli/John XXIII as the one issued by Montini/Paul VI is rendered more "stable" and "permanent" and thus more pleasing to those who like supposedly devout ceremonies that are devoid of the Catholic Faith in a manner befitting the style of the high church Anglicans.

What is this evidence? Well, for those with a retention deficit disorder ("RDD"--smile), permit me to present the evidence in this regard once again:

Neither the Missal of Pius V and John XXIII -- used by a small minority -- nor that of Paul VI -- used today with much spiritual fruit by the greatest majority -- will be the final 'law of prayer' of the Catholic Church." ("Father" Federico Lombardi, Zenit, July 15, 2007.)

From this point of view, then, the new prayer for the Jews in the liturgy in the ancient rite does not weaken, but postulates an enrichment of the meaning of the prayer in use in the modern rite. Exactly like in other cases, it is the modern rite that postulates an enriching evolution of the ancient rite. In a liturgy that is perennially alive, as the Catholic liturgy is, this is the meaning of the coexistence between the two rites, ancient and modern, as intended by Benedict XVI with the motu proprio "Summorum Pontificum."

This is a coexistence that is not destined to endure, but to fuse in the future "in a single Roman rite once again," taking the best from both of these. This is what then-cardinal Ratzinger wrote in 2003 – revealing a deeply held conviction – in a letter to an erudite representative of Lefebvrist traditionalism, the German philologist Heinz-Lothar Barth. (Sandro Magister, A Bishop and a Rabbi Defend the Prayer for the Salvation of the Jews.)


The evidence is there. It is right before our eyes. Ratzinger/Benedict has done us the great courtesy of spelling out his conciliar agenda throughout the course of his priestly life. Very few people take him seriously at his word as they project their own wistful desires into his mind and heart, believing him to be concerned about "Catholic Tradition" when he is concerned about synthesizing opposites into new doctrinal and liturgical theses, if you will.

As was noted in part one of this series, Ratzinger/Benedict really meant it when he wrote the following in Principles of Catholic Theology twenty-nine years ago:

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. (Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, pp. 389-390)


Preternaturally clever man that he is, Ratzinger/Benedict is resisting the "integralists" very firmly with pretended "kindness" by "permitting" them to have "generous" access to a "modernized" version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition. There is just on teeny-weeny little thing that he wants in return from the "integralists:" absolute surrender to the contention that the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service is doctrinally sound and good in and of itself as they submit themselves to the decrees of the "Second" Vatican Council and the "magisterium" of the conciliar "popes" without complaint. With that accomplished, Ratzinger/Benedict believes, what he thinks is the Catholic Church can join with other "believers" to fight the "dictatorship of relativism" in the world that exists, at least proximately speaking, in large measure because of the triumph of Protestant and naturalist concepts of evolution of truth in the conciliar structures.

Paragraph Nineteen was inserted into the text of Universae Ecclesiae, April 30, 2011, to calm the troubled waters of his own false church, throwing down the gauntlet to the bishops and the priests of the Society of Saint Pius X and other "hard-core" "radical traditionalists" in the "resist but recognize" movement, telling them that the time to get on board the S. S. One World Ecumenical Church is now or never. Make up your minds, he is saying:

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Pope Benedict XVI's easing of restrictions on use of the 1962 Roman Missal, known as the Tridentine rite, is just the first step in a "reform of the reform" in liturgy, the Vatican's top ecumenist said.

The pope's long-term aim is not simply to allow the old and new rites to coexist, but to move toward a "common rite" that is shaped by the mutual enrichment of the two Mass forms, Cardinal Kurt Koch, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, said May 14.

In effect, the pope is launching a new liturgical reform movement, the cardinal said. Those who resist it, including "rigid" progressives, mistakenly view the Second Vatican Council as a rupture with the church's liturgical tradition, he said.

Cardinal Koch made the remarks at a Rome conference on "Summorum Pontificum," Pope Benedict's 2007 apostolic letter that offered wider latitude for use of the Tridentine rite. The cardinal's text was published the same day by L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper.

Cardinal Koch said Pope Benedict thinks the post-Vatican II liturgical changes have brought "many positive fruits" but also problems, including a focus on purely practical matters and a neglect of the paschal mystery in the Eucharistic celebration. The cardinal said it was legitimate to ask whether liturgical innovators had intentionally gone beyond the council's stated intentions.

He said this explains why Pope Benedict has introduced a new reform movement, beginning with "Summorum Pontificum." The aim, he said, is to revisit Vatican II's teachings in liturgy and strengthen certain elements, including the Christological and sacrificial dimensions of the Mass.

Cardinal Koch said "Summorum Pontificum" is "only the beginning of this new liturgical movement."

"In fact, Pope Benedict knows well that, in the long term, we cannot stop at a coexistence between the ordinary form and the extraordinary form of the Roman rite, but that in the future the church naturally will once again need a common rite," he said.

"However, because a new liturgical reform cannot be decided theoretically, but requires a process of growth and purification, the pope for the moment is underlining above all that the two forms of the Roman rite can and should enrich each other," he said.

Cardinal Koch said those who oppose this new reform movement and see it as a step back from Vatican II lack a proper understanding of the post-Vatican II liturgical changes. As the pope has emphasized, Vatican II was not a break or rupture with tradition but part of an organic process of growth, he said.

On the final day of the conference, participants attended a Mass celebrated according to the Tridentine rite at the Altar of the Chair in St. Peter's Basilica. Cardinal Walter Brandmuller presided over the liturgy. It was the first time in several decades that the old rite was celebrated at the altar. (Benedict's 'reform of the reform' in liturgy to continue, cardinal says.)


I know. I know. There will be some traditionalists in the conciliar structures who will declaim that Kurt Koch, the new "Walter Kasper" for the conciliar church, "does not speak" for the "pope." May I, in all charity, please, point out that anyone who says this will be harkening back to the delusional thinking that made its unfortunate way into print in 2008 when some omniscient traditionalist gatekeepers used all of their venomous sanctimony to denounce as "guilty of rash judgment" anyone who would contend that a letter Walter "Cardinal" Kasper, then the president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity and the head of the head of the "Pontifical" Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, to Rabbi David Rosen, the Chairman of International Jewish Committee on Interreligious Consultations, in February of 2008 on the matter of the revised "Good Friday Prayer for the Jews" did not represent the "mind of the 'pope'", who could not have been expected to know, less to approve, of the letter's contents. It turned out, of course, that Walter Kasper did know the mind of his fellow German Modernist quite well, that he expressed precisely what Ratzinger believed, beliefs that Kasper reiterated to Vatican Radio and in L'Osservatore Romano in early-2008 and that the "pope" himself expressed in Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week: From the Entrance into Jerusalem to the Resurrection (see Impressed With His Own Originality, Accepting "Popes" As Unreliable Teachers, Boilerplate Ratzinger, Coloring Everything He Says and Does, part one and Coloring Everything He Says and Does, part two).

The track record, on matters of this sort in the conciliar church is perfectly clear. Kurt Koch, much like Walter Kasper before him, understands full well the mind of the conciliar "pontiff" quite well. Summorum Pontificum was at its outset and is now and will ever be a diabolical trap to "move" traditionally-minded Catholics away from the "narrow-mindedness" of a "too rigid" attachment to their parochial view of tradition so that their spirits could be "pacified" and their "horizons broadened" by a gradual revolution away from their rigidity to an acceptance of the concept of the evolution of the liturgy just as much as they must accept the concept of evolution of dogma according to Ratzinger/Benedict's philosophically absurd and dogmatically condemned "hermeneutic of continuity and discontinuity" that is the very antithesis of what he swore in The Oath Against Modernism to oppose! (See, for example, Scholarship in Conciliarism's Land of Oz.)

Still Asserting Falsehoods as Lies

Kurt "Cardinal" Koch, a Swiss national, is, of course, the current president of the "Pontifical" Council for Christian Unity and the head of the "Pontifical" Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews. He repeated the same "no rupture, same Faith" mantra as was included in Ratzinger/Benedict's Explanatory Letter to the "Bishops" that accompanies the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum and in the text of Universae Ecclesiae, April 30, 2011:

Cardinal Koch said those who oppose this new reform movement and see it as a step back from Vatican II lack a proper understanding of the post-Vatican II liturgical changes. As the pope has emphasized, Vatican II was not a break or rupture with tradition but part of an organic process of growth, he said. (Benedict's 'reform of the reform' in liturgy to continue, cardinal says.)


This is just so much positivism, dissected and refuted in part two, that only a brief bit of time needs to spent reiterating and reinforcing the point made two days ago, namely, that the conciliar revolutionaries have told us that their liturgical "reform" was quite indeed a break with the past and that it meant to express a new "religion" for a "new church." Who said such a thing? One of the fathers of the "Second" Vatican Council, George Patrick Dwyer, who was the Bishop of Leeds, England from September 24, 1957, to the time he was appointed as the conciliar archbishop of Birmingham, England, on October 5, 1965, serving until his retirement on September 1, 1981 (dying six years, sixteen days thereafter), told us that this was so:

In a similar manner Archbishop Dwyer said 'the Latin past of the Church' has been 'all but expunged... reduced to a memory in the middle distance.'  (As quoted in Rama Coomaraswamy, The Destruction of Christian Tradition, p. 243.)


And although Giovanni Montini/Paul VI kept insisting that the new "Mass" was the "same" in all of its essentials to the "old," he also insisted that that "old" Mass had been replaced, something that is no longer the party line of the conciliar Vatican today, men who are known to change the party line when he suits them to do so in a manner evocative of the Bolsheviks who stood atop the Kremlin's Red Square every May Day and every anniversary of their revolution, insisting all the while that the party line had never changed:

'Let everyone understand well that nothing has been changed in the essence of our traditional Mass... There is nothing in this idea, absolutely... The new rite, the Mass, is the same as always. If anything, its identity has been made more recognizable in certain of its aspects' (Allocution, Nov. 16, 1969). 'It is in the name of tradition that we ask all our sons and daughters, all catholic communities, to celebrate with dignity and fervor the renewed liturgy. The adoption of the Novus Ordo Missae is certainly not left to the free choice of priests or faithful... The New Ordo was promulgated to take the place of the old...'(Custos, quid de nocte, May 24, 1976; as quoted in Rama Coomaraswamy, The Destruction of Christian Tradition, p. 243.)


This, of course, is the party line that was mouthed by the likes of James Likoudis and Kenneth Whitehead in their apologia pro conciliarism, The Pope, the Council and the Mass. They seem not to have noticed that there is a new party line out of the conciliar Vatican now, pretending that the new party line, that the "Tridentine Mass" was never "replaced" by the Novus Ordo service, has been theirs all along. Nice work if you can get it, I suppose. Integrity of one's position is not a strong suit to be found amongst the the conciliar revolutionaries and their eager "conservative" defenders.

As has been noted earlier in this series, even the then Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger admitted several times, once in the foreword to the French edition of Monsignor Klaus Gamber's The Reform of the Roman Liturgy and then in his own autobiography, Milestones, that the liturgy that emerged after the "Second" Vatican Council was "fabricated" and represented a "rupture" with the past. The assertions found in his Explanatory Letter to the "Bishops" that accompanies the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, July 7, 2007, and in the text of Universae Ecclesiae, April 30, 2011, that were reiterated recently by Kurt "Cardinal" Koch are nothing other than acts of pure positivism that are affronts to truth. It is necessary for these untruths to be asserted positivistically, however, in order for the "reform of the reform" to proceed as the "Missal of John XXIII" eventually disappears, having been merged with a more "reverent" version of the "Missal of Paul VI."

Anyone who contends otherwise believes in an ecclesiastical version of the tooth fairy.

"Pacifying Spirits" on the Ground Level

"Cardinal" Koch also noted that the "reform of the reform" would occur only after there has been a period of "purification," meaning that any traditionally-minded Catholics who are inordinately attached to the "Tridentine Mass" or to "outdated" theological beliefs will just have to be dealt with in a spirit of patience and "tolerance," something that Ratzinger/Benedict himself has said on several occasions is necessary to do (see Interview of the Holy Father during the flight to France, September 12, 2008, Meeting with the French Bishops in the Hemicycle Sainte-Bernadette, Lourdes, 14 September 2008, and Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church concerning the remission of the excommunication of the four Bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre, March 10, 2009.)

Here, simply for your convenience, what Koch said on this subject of "purification":

"However, because a new liturgical reform cannot be decided theoretically, but requires a process of growth and purification, the pope for the moment is underlining above all that the two forms of the Roman rite can and should enrich each other," he said. (Benedict's 'reform of the reform' in liturgy to continue, cardinal says.)


Yes, we are in the midst of a "new liturgical reform" that requires a "process of growth and purification." It is only "for the moment" that the "pope" wants the two "forms of the Roman rite" to enrich each other so that there can be the merger of the two into a "new, new, new" missal that will stand the test of time, incorporating elements of tradition and of conciliarism into a new liturgical synthesis that would be, as Ratzinger/Benedict sees it, the capstone of his entire work as a priest.

This, to cite just one of many examples of how this is occurring presently on the "ground level," is what the longtime vicar general of the Archdiocese of Indianapolis, Indiana, "Monsignor" Joseph A. Schaedel, sought to do with Holy Rosary Church in the City of Indianapolis when it started operating as a "dual function" parish upon the arrival of the then Father Paul Petko, then with the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter, on September 14, 1997. Although the original written agreement made between the group that sought out a Fraternity priest to come to Indianapolis specified that the Sacrament of Confirmation would be conferred in the traditional rite, the coordinator of religious education there at the time, who had been questioned by "Monsignor" Schaedel as to whether the traditional catechetical materials that were being used had the approval of "Archbishop" Daniel Buechlein (to which the coordinator responded, "Why wouldn't he approve them?," something that did not endear the person to the vicar general), reported that "Monsignor" Schaedel kept putting off any decision, saying that it would be preferable to have the children "confirmed" at the RCA Dome in downtown Indianapolis by Buechlein in the conciliar rite. (Questions on this matter were sent to "Monsignor" Schaedel," two weeks ago yesterday, that is on Thursday, May 5, 2011, the Feast of Pope Saint Pius V. He has not responded as of yet.) That was a non-starter for the religious education coordinator, who insisted to the "monsignor's" face that the archdiocese keep to its word on the matter. Father Arnaud Devillers, who is a true priest, having been ordained by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, was eventually given delegation by the archdiocese to administer the Sacrament of Confirmation in the traditional rite.

It was after the departure of Father Petko, who was a staunch opponent of the Novus Ordo service, that "Monsignor" Schaedel was able to begin the process of "pacifying the spirits" of those attached to the "Latin Mass" at Holy Rosary Church, working thereafter with with two priests from the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter who, for one reason or another, were attracted enough to the kind of dual function parish that I know for a fact some priests in the Fraternity abhor to seek incardination in the Archdiocese of Indianapolis. Now that's what you call "pacification of spirits."

Mind you, "Monsignor" Schaedel has seen this as his duty. He believes that this is the "mind" of what thinks is the Catholic Church. He believes that he is building a prototype where the "two forms of the Roman Rite" can coexist in peace for the sake of parish "unity," a point made in The Criterion newspaper of the Archdiocese of Indianapolis, on July 27, 2007, twenty days after the issuance of Summorum Pontificum:

It could be that the unity that has come out of the liturgical diversity at Holy Rosary Parish is based on the principle that neither the ordinary or extraordinary form of the Mass is superior to the other.

“People, in this day and age, if you have two different things, they always want to get to the point where they can say which one is better,” Msgr. Schaedel said. “Is the English better than the Latin or vice versa?

“Neither one is better. Both of them are allowed and encouraged by the Church. (English? Latin? Parish Builds Unity Out of Liturgical Diversity.)


Unfortunately for "Monsignor" Schaedel, Unity and Peace Cannot Be Based in Error and Falsehood. Yes, a false "peace" can give rise to a false "unity" as things that are repugnant to God of their very nature, such as the Novus Ordo service, and anathematized propositions accepted as being "good" or as representing "progress" and a "step forward" for "human dignity" and "religious liberty" are praised by putative shepherds of the Catholic Church for having "broadened the horizons" of Catholics and non-Catholics alike. Such is, leaving aside all subjective motivations that are known only to God, the work of Antichrist, not of those who take seriously the following parts of The Oath Against Modernism that was "abrogated" in 1967 by Giovanni Montini/Paul VI, who had sworn to uphold its tenets that he was using his "pontificate" to demolish:

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.

I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God. (Pope Saint Pius X, The Oath Against Modernism, September 1, 1910.)


Catholics must reject error and falsehood and apostasy and sacrilege in their entirety without compromise whatsoever. Such is not the spirit of conciliarism, which is why it is an evil thing to convince Catholics who know better to be silent about truth in order to live in a "friendly" and "welcoming" environment in a parish that is controlled by men who have convinced themselves that anyone who has rejected the "Second" Vatican Council, the Novus Ordo service and the "magisterium" of the conciliar "popes" is simply not a Catholic in good standing and must, therefore, be the object of a patient re-education so that their rebellious spirits can be pacified. This is, in other words, simply a form of what is considered to be "internal ecumenism" within the conciliar church that is actually more evangelical in its zeal to "convert" traditionally-minded Catholics to the "mind" of the "council" than ecumenism in the realm of "inter-religious dialogue" is to convert non-Catholics, who already believe that unity and peace can be achieved even though people are not of one mind and one heart on matters contained in the Sacred Deposit of Faith.

The Venerable Anne Katherine Emmerich put the matter this way:

I saw that many pastors allowed themselves to be taken up with ideas that were dangerous to the Church. They were building a great, strange, and extravagant Church. Everyone was to be admitted in it in order to be united and have equal rights: Evangelicals, Catholics, sects of every description. Such was to be the new Church. . . But God had other designs. (Anne Katherine Emmerich, as quote in Yves Dupont, Catholic Prophecy, TAN Books and Publishers, 71.)


Yves Dupont, who collected and edited the compendium of prophecies contained in Catholic Prophecy, which was published in 1970, wrote a commentary that is very pertinent to the considerations of this four-part series of articles and, of course, to the true state of the Church Militant on earth today:

Comment: This passage is so plain that no elaboration seems necessary. Sister Emmerick alluded earlier to the same error. All efforts currently made in a spirit of appeasement to unite the churches will be cut short by the Great Holocaust. Reunion will never come about through compromise. (Anne Katherine Emmerich, as quote in Yves Dupont, Catholic Prophecy, TAN Books and Publishers, pp. 71-72.)



Who is in Good Standing in the Conciliar Structures?

Paragraph Nineteen of Universae Ecclesiae makes it abundantly clear that the days of "resist but recognize" are over for traditionally-minded Catholics in the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism. This is as it should be if Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is a true pope, which, of course, he is not. No one has any authority to resist a man that they recognize as a true pope on a matter of Faith and Morals, recognizing that any prelate guilty of personal scandal who refuses to reform or who makes errors of judgment in administrative matters (the appointment of bishops, diplomatic relations, the appointment of aides and members of the curia) can be be rebuked publicly after private entreaties are made. On matters of Faith and Morals, however, the teaching of the Catholic Church is clear: no one can "sift" through the teachings given in the Holy Name of the Catholic Church by a true and legitimate Sovereign Pontiff:

6. The doctrine of the synod by which it professes that "it is convinced that a bishop has received from Christ all necessary rights for the good government of his diocese," just as if for the good government of each diocese higher ordinances dealing either with faith and morals, or with general discipline, are not necessary, the right of which belongs to the supreme Pontiffs and the General Councils for the universal Church,schismatic, at least erroneous.

7. Likewise, in this, that it encourages a bishop "to pursue zealously a more perfect constitution of ecclesiastical discipline," and this "against all contrary customs, exemptions, reservations which are opposed to the good order of the diocese, for the greater glory of God and for the greater edification of the faithful"; in that it supposes that a bishop has the right by his own judgment and will to decree and decide contrary to customs, exemptions, reservations, whether they prevail in the universal Church or even in each province, without the consent or the intervention of a higher hierarchic power, by which these customs, etc., have been introduced or approved and have the force of law,—leading to schism and subversion of hierarchic rule, erroneous.

8. Likewise, in that it says it is convinced that "the rights of a bishop received from Jesus Christ for the government of the Church cannot be altered nor hindered, and, when it has happened that the exercise of these rights has been interrupted for any reason whatsoever, a bishop can always and should return to his original rights, as often as the greater good of his church demands it"; in the fact that it intimates that the exercise of episcopal rights can be hindered and coerced by no higher power, whenever a bishop shall judge that it does not further the greater good of his church,—leading to schism, and to subversion of hierarchic government, erroneous. (Pope Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei, August 28, 1794.)

The violent attacks of Protestantism against the Papacy, its calumnies and so manifest, the odious caricatures it scattered abroad, had undoubtedly inspired France with horror; nevertheless the sad impressions remained. In such accusations all, perhaps, was not false. Mistrust was excited., and instead of drawing closer to the insulted and outraged Papacy, France stood on her guard against it. In vain did Fenelon, who felt the danger, write in his treatise on the "Power of the Pope," and, to remind France of her sublime mission and true role in the world, compose his "History of Charlemagne." In vain did Bossuet majestically rise in the midst of that agitated assembly of 1682, convened to dictate laws to the Holy See, and there, in most touching accents, give vent to professions of fidelity and devotedness toward the Chair of St. Peter. We already notice in his discourse mention no longer made of the "Sovereign Pontiff." The "Holy See," the "Chair of St. Peter," the "Roman Church," were alone alluded to. First and alas! too manifest signs of coldness in the eyes of him who knew the nature and character of France! Others might obey through duty, might allow themselves to be governed by principle--France, never! She must be ruled by an individual, she must love him that governs her, else she can never obey.

These weaknesses should at least have been hidden in the shadow of the sanctuary, to await the time in which some sincere and honest solution of the misunderstanding could be given. But no! parliaments took hold of it, national vanity was identified with it. A strange spectacle was now seen. A people the most Catholic in the world; kings who called themselves the Eldest Sons of the Church and who were really such at heart; grave and profoundly Christian magistrates, bishops, and priests, though in the depths of their heart attached to Catholic unity,--all barricading themselves against the head of the Church; all digging trenches and building ramparts, that his words might not reach the Faithful before being handled and examined, and the laics convinced that they contained nothing false, hostile or dangerous. (Right Reverend Emile Bougaud, The Life of Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque. Published in 1890 by Benziger Brothers. Re-printed by TAN Books and Publishers, 1990, pp. 24-29.)

22. The obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are strictly bound is confined to those things only which are proposed to universal belief as dogmas of faith by the infallible judgment of the Church. -- Letter to the Archbishop of Munich, "Tuas libenter," Dec. 21, 1863. (Proposition condemned by Pope Pius IX, The Syllabus of Errors, December 8, 1864; see also two appendices below, reprised from five days ago to drive home the point that no one can sift through the words of a true pope to "determine" their orthodoxy as popes cannot err on matters of Faith and Morals.)


To be part of the One World Ecumenical Church that is the counterfeit church of conciliarism means to obey "Pope" Benedict XVI. Period. And "Pope" Benedict XVI has made it clear, so very, very clear, that Summorum Pontificum is merely a "grant" to "pacify spirits" and "broaden the horizons" of "narrow-minded" traditionalists, and, now that his trap has been sprung and so many Catholics have fallen into it, grateful to have a "reverent" liturgy, he is using Kurt "Cardinal" Koch, the "new and improved' version of Walter "Cardinal" Kasper, as his mouthpiece to announce to the world that the days of the "Missal of John XXIII" are numbered. All are welcome in the big tent of the conciliar circus except those who put into any question the doctrinal soundness of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service and/or put into question the "magisterium" of the conciliar "popes." Those who do not so obey will be denied the privilege of participating in the joys of the "reform of the reform" when it is implemented at some point in the reasonably near future. I am not shedding any tears about not being one of those so privileged.

One of the many ironies of the iron-clad requirement for traditionally-minded Catholics who have been caught in the snares of that old conciliar fowler to refrain from criticizing the Novus Ordo and to accept the "Second" Vatican Council and the "teachings" of the conciliar "popes" is that the lords of conciliarism, at least for the most part, noting a few rare exceptions here and there , now and again, do not impose any sanctions on those who promote abject evils that even they, the lords of conciliarism, accept as evil.

Support the chemical and surgical assassination of innocent preborn children? No problem. You're in. (See, for example, Another Victim of Americanism; Behold The Free Rein Given to Error; Behold The Free Rein Given to Error; Unfortunate Enough to Be A Baby; Unfortunate Enough to Be A Baby; Beacon of Social Justice?; Spotlight On The Ordinary; What's Good For Teddy Is Good For Benny; Sean O'Malley: Coward and Hypocrite: More Rationalizations and Distortion; To Fall Into The Hands of the Living God and Just Another Ordinary Outrage Permitted by a Conciliar "Ordinary".)

Support the nonexistent "right" of those engaged in perverse acts against nature to "marry"--and cohabitate with a woman who is not your wife? No problem here. Stay right where you are in the place where "unity" is brought out of "diversity," the counterfeit church of conciliarism. (See Memo To Howard Hubbard: Public Scandal Is Never A Private Matter and Gov. Cuomo puts pressure on state lawmakers to say yes to perverted "marriages".)

Pay for children to be killed at an abortuary? No problem. No problem at all. You can remain a priest or a presbyter in good standing in the conciliar structures? (See What's Good For Manel Pousa is Good for Benedict XVI and What's Next? "Beatifying" Manel Pousa?)

Deny that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ died on the wood of the Holy Cross in atonement for our sins? Absolutely no problem. You can remain an "archbishop" in the counterfeit church of conciliarism and the president of the conference of conciliar "bishops" in the Federal Republic of Germany. (See Silence, Refusing Communion With Apostasy and, among many, many others, With A Shrug of the "Papal" Shoulders.)

Personally esteem symbols of false religions with your own priestly hands? Call places of false worship as "sacred"? Openly state that dogmatic truth is never expressed adequately at any one time by human language, therefore necessitating periodic "adjustments"? Openly embrace condemned propositions such as religious liberty and separation of Church and State? Praise the birth of the "ecumenical movement" that began at the so-called "World Missionary Conference" in Edinburgh, Scotland, in 1910, whose tenets were condemned by Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928? Say that Jews and Christians "worship the same God"? Give joint "blessings" with the "clergy" of non-Catholic religions? Not only is none of this any problem at all. Indeed, you can reign over us as our "pope." We'll call you "Pope" Benedict XVI. (See, among hundreds of other articles on this site, As We Continue To Blaspheme Christ the King and His True Church.)

Do the same as described in the previous paragraph for 9,666 days? Protect and promote "bishops" and "cardinals" who indemnified child molesters? We'll "beatify" you. We'll call you "Blessed John Paul the Great." (See "Beatifying" Yet Another Conciliar Revolutionary, "Canonizing" A Man Who Protected Moral Derelicts, Unimaginable Deceit and Duplicity, Not The Work of God, To Be Loved by the Jews, Perhaps Judas Was the First to Sing "A Kiss is Just a Kiss", Enjoy the Party, George, Enjoy the Party, and Anticlimactic "Beatification" for an Antipope.)

I did not invent any of this. It did not take a great of special "insight" forty-six and one-half months ago to know where Summorum Pontificum was going to lead. All one has to do is to accept the fact that none of the outrages listed above can come from the Catholic Church. It is that simple. Here are just a few reminders:

As for the rest, We greatly deplore the fact that, where the ravings of human reason extend, there is somebody who studies new things and strives to know more than is necessary, against the advice of the apostle. There you will find someone who is overconfident in seeking the truth outside the Catholic Church, in which it can be found without even a light tarnish of error. Therefore, the Church is called, and is indeed, a pillar and foundation of truth. You correctly understand, venerable brothers, that We speak here also of that erroneous philosophical system which was recently brought in and is clearly to be condemned. This system, which comes from the contemptible and unrestrained desire for innovation, does not seek truth where it stands in the received and holy apostolic inheritance. Rather, other empty doctrines, futile and uncertain doctrines not approved by the Church, are adopted. Only the most conceited men wrongly think that these teachings can sustain and support that truth. (Pope Gregory XVI, Singulari Nos, May 25, 1834.)

Just as Christianity cannot penetrate into the soul without making it better, so it cannot enter into public life without establishing order. With the idea of a God Who governs all, Who is infinitely Wise, Good, and Just, the idea of duty seizes upon the consciences of men. It assuages sorrow, it calms hatred, it engenders heroes. If it has transformed pagan society--and that transformation was a veritable resurrection--for barbarism disappeared in proportion as Christianity extended its sway, so, after the terrible shocks which unbelief has given to the world in our days, it will be able to put that world again on the true road, and bring back to order the States and peoples of modern times. But the return of Christianity will not be efficacious and complete if it does not restore the world to a sincere love of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. In the Catholic Church Christianity is Incarnate. It identifies Itself with that perfect, spiritual, and, in its own order, sovereign society, which is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ and which has for Its visible head the Roman Pontiff, successor of the Prince of the Apostles. It is the continuation of the mission of the Savior, the daughter and the heiress of His Redemption. It has preached the Gospel, and has defended it at the price of Its blood, and strong in the Divine assistance and of that immortality which has been promised it, It makes no terms with error but remains faithful to the commands which  it has received, to carry the doctrine of Jesus Christ to the uttermost limits of the world and to the end of time, and to protect it in its inviolable integrity. Legitimate dispenser of the teachings of the Gospel it does not reveal itself only as the consoler and Redeemer of souls, but It is still more the internal source of justice and charity, and the propagator as well as the guardian of true liberty, and of that equality which alone is possible here below. In applying the doctrine of its Divine Founder, It maintains a wise equilibrium and marks the true limits between the rights and privileges of society. The equality which it proclaims does not destroy the distinction between the different social classes. It keeps them intact, as nature itself demands, in order to oppose the anarchy of reason emancipated from Faith, and abandoned to its own devices. The liberty which it gives in no wise conflicts with the rights of truth, because those rights are superior to the demands of liberty. Not does it infringe upon the rights of justice, because those rights are superior to the claims of mere numbers or power. Nor does it assail the rights of God because they are superior to the rights of humanity. (Pope Leo XIII, A Review of His Pontificate, March 19, 1902.)

For the teaching authority of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men, and which is daily exercised through the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops who are in communion with him, has also the office of defining, when it sees fit, any truth with solemn rites and decrees, whenever this is necessary either to oppose the errors or the attacks of heretics, or more clearly and in greater detail to stamp the minds of the faithful with the articles of sacred doctrine which have been explained. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)


Please note that Pope Gregory XVI wrote that the truth can be found in the Catholic Church without "even a slight tarnish of error."

Please note that Pope Leo XIII stressed that the Catholic Church "makes no terms with error but remains faithful to the command which it has received, to carry the doctrine of Jesus Christ to the uttermost limits of the world and to the end of time, and to protect it in its inviolable integrity."

Please note that that Pope Pius XI explained that the Catholic Church brings forth her teaching "with ease and security to the knowledge of men."

Anyone who says that this has been done by the counterfeit church of conciliarism, which has made its "reconciliation" with the false principles of Modernity that leave no room for the confessionally Catholic civil state and the Social Reign of Christ the King, is not thinking too clearly (and that is as about as charitably as I can put the matter). If the conciliar church has brought forth its teaching "with ease and security to the knowledge of men," why, as noted earlier in this article, is there such disagreement even between the "progressive" conciliarists and "conservative" conciliarists concerning the proper "interpretation" of the "Second" Vatican Council and its aftermath? Or does this depend upon what one means by "ease and security"?


Perhaps the matter can be summarized even more simply:

O my God, I firmly believe that Thou art one God, in three Divine Persons, Father, Son and Holy Ghost: I believe that Thy Divine Son became Man, and died for our sins, and that He will come to judge the living and the dead.  I believe these and all the truths which the Holy Catholic Church teaches, because Thou hast revealed them, Who can neither deceive nor be deceived.  Amen.


This in and of itself, putting aside all of the weighty and quite binding dogmatic declarations about the nature of Divine Truth issued by the authority of the Catholic Church, should be an end to all discussion whatsoever of the "need" for "understanding" the dogmas of the Faith in different ways at different times because the language used to express those dogmas in the past was necessarily "conditioned" by the historical circumstances in which they were pronounced. To assert that dogmatic expressions used in the past can be understood anew because the language that expressed them was "conditioned" by historical circumstances is to deny the nature of the Most Blessed Trinity, Who is immutable, and to blaspheme the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, Whose coming at Pentecost we will celebrate on Sunday, June 12, 2011, Who has directed our Popes and council fathers to express doctrine as they have been expressed consistently--and without even the shadow of ambiguity--prior to the "election" of Angelo Roncalli/John XIII on October 29, 1958.

A very perceptive reader sent me two pages from The Antichrist, a very fine book written by a priest who has a good friend of mine for many years, Father Vincent Miceli, who died on June 2, 1991, almost exactly twenty years ago now. The precursors or figures of Antichrist Father Vinceli mentioned in the passages below certainly describe the spiritual robber barons of the counterfeit church of conciliarism:

[Dominican theologian Father Tomasso] Campanella presents another serious insight concerning the role of the Antichrist. He states not only are godless tyrants, false prophets and heresiarchs types of the Antichrist, but the kingdoms they capture and corrupt; the movements they organize and direct, the evil philosophies of life they spread and the sects they spawn are also symbolically to be called antichrists and precursors of the Antichrist. There are examples of this type of interpretation in Holy Scripture. In Daniel and in the Apocalypse the Antichrist is described under the name of a great multiple beast. By the beast, Daniel means not only a single man who is the head, as when he indicates Alexander the Great as the one-horned goat, and Darius, King of Persia, as the two-horned ram, but Daniel is also indicating their kingdoms. Then too when the sacred writer speaks of Ammon, Moab, Esau and Israel, he is pointing out not only the individuals who bore the name in life, but also their clan, tribe, kingdom. So too when the Antichrist is mentioned his kingdom is also considered as the Antichrist. Thus in Daniel again, the lion means the king and the kingdoms of the Assyrians; the bear the king and kingdom of the Persians; the leopold the king and kingdom of the Greeks and the fourth beast with ten horns points to the king and kingdom of the Romans. But perhaps the best example to use in demonstrating this analogy is that found in the New Testament. The name Christ is applied, not only to the incarnate Son of God, but to the Church herself, the kingdom of God, the Mystical Body of which He is the head.

Campanella here touches a truth developed more explicitly and brilliantly by later theologians and philosophers. The Church is described today as the prolongation of Christ in time and the history of mankind. It was always known by prophets and holy men that evil is not merely personal but social and seeks a society of subjects for its permanent establishment as the City of Satan opposed to the City of God. Thus evil movements are merely apes of social movements toward God and goodness. For God is goodness itself. As God is an all-holy Family, the Blessed Trinity, and He wants to share His holiness with men through the prism of the family. He wants to establish of sanctified subjects. Man is lost or saved in families, societies, churches, movements. he loses himself eternally if he remains in evil societies by precursor or antichrists; he is saved eternally if he perseveres in the society of the saints founded by Christ Himself in His Church. The Family of Holiness, the Blessed Trinity, has decreed from all eternity that the members of the family of man should be sanctified by their acceptance in adoration, love and service to the divine family. Christ is the only way to incorporation into the glorified communion of saints. The Antichrist and his shadows, personal and social, are the way to the dismal alternative, the community of the wicked in the City of Satan.

Perhaps the most tragic example in all history of antichrists leading a nation astray is to be found in what happened in Jerusalem when Christ was brought to trial before Annas, Caiphas and Pilate. The high priest Caiphas, the former high priest and his father-in-law, Annas, the Sanhedrin, the chief priests and the Pharisees--all united in a conspiracy, not only rejected Christ and had him unjustly executed, but they also prevented the nation at large of the Chosen People from accepting the Redeemer God had sent them. St. Paul, recalling with sorrow this crime of his nation, would gladly have exchanged his own salvation, were such a deed morally permissible, for the return of his countrymen from the ranks of the Antichrist to the ranks of the followers of Christ. Another insight into the relationship between the precursor of the Antichrist and the kingdom, movement or sect he guides and corrupts is revealed here. The personal figure of the Antichrist fades and dies after a few years, but his movement usually survives for centuries after, causing unmeasured spiritual ruination to millions upon millions, to nation upon nation throughout the whole world. To this day, the Chosen People have not recovered from the betrayal of their leaders some well nigh two thousand years ago; to this day they have not accepted Christ. And to this day there are millions of Protestants and, Mohammedans and other heretics who, through no fault of their own, are afflicted with blindness toward the truth because of the sickness the inherited from their antichrist ancestors. (Father Vincent Miceli, The Antichrist, 1981.)


The counterfeit church of conciliarism is one of those "societies" of Antichrist. Its leaders are playing the roles played in the past by the Pharisees and the Sanhedrin. It is a mockery of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and of His one and only true Church that he founded upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope.

The Venerable Anne Katherine Emmerich described our days as follows:

"Then, I saw that everything that pertained to Protestantism was gradually gaining the upper hand, and the Catholic religion fell into complete decadence. Most priests were lured by the glittering but false knowledge of young school-teachers, and they all contributed to the work of destruction.

"In those days, Faith will fall very low, and it will be preserved in some places only, in a few cottages and in a few families which God has protected from disasters and wars.

"I see many excommunicated ecclesiastics who do not seem to be concerned about it, or even aware of it. Yet, they are (ipso facto) excommunicated whenever they cooperate to [sic] enterprises, enter into associations, and embrace opinions on which an anathema has been cast. It can be seen thereby that God ratifies the decrees, orders and interdictions issued by the Head of the Church, and that He keeps them in force even though men show no concern for them, reject them, or laugh them to scorn."

I saw that many pastors allowed themselves to be taken up with ideas that were dangerous to the Church. They were building a great, strange, and extravagant Church. Everyone was to be admitted in it in order to be united and have equal rights: Evangelicals, Catholics, sects of every description. Such was to be the new Church. . . But God had other designs. (Venerable Anne Katherine Emmerich, as quoted in Yves Dupont, Catholic Prophecy, TAN Book and Publishers, 1970, pp. 68-69.)


Do not fall into the snares and the traps of the old conciliar fowler. Persevere, no matter the difficulties and castigations that come your way from family members and former fellow parishioners and others who, in a spirit of false obedience to men they believe to be Catholic "popes" and "bishops" and "priests" over the years, believe that you are disloyal and schismatic and are even outside of the Catholic Church, in the truth. Persevere by the graces sent to you by Christ the King through the loving hands of His Most Blessed Mother, Mary our Immaculate Queen, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces. We would be lost without the graces that flow into our hearts and souls through the loving hands of the Queen of the Most Holy Rosary, Our Lady.

Today is the feast of Saint Bernardine of Siena, the great apostle of the Holy Name of Jesus. It is, of course, the Holy Name of Jesus that we proclaim one hundred fifty-three times every day when we pray all fifteen mysteries of Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary.

One of the saddest aspects of Modernity is that most people, Catholics and non-Catholics, alike, believe that they have the civil "right" to blaspheme the Holy Name of Our Divine Redeemer, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ or to refuse to bow their heads at the mention of the only Name given to men on earth and in Heaven by which we are to be saved. This sadness is compounded by the willingness of formerly Catholic institutions of higher education, such as Georgetown University, to cover up Saint Ignatius of Loyola's monogram for the Holy Name of Jesus, IHS, to placate the pro-abort statist, Caesar Obamus, when he spoke at Gaston Hall there on Wednesday, April 15, 2009 (see Ashamed of the NAME Above All Names). 

We must make reparation for these sins against the Holy Name of Jesus by the lords of Modernity and by the lords of Modernism, who have taught us that people have a "civil right" to teach error and thus blaspheme the Holy Name--or to call God by whatever title they want, and who dare themselves to blaspheme the Holy Name of Jesus as they dare to teach in His Holy Name by attempting to invoke His divine authority to justify their embrace of propositions that have been condemned by our true popes and anathematized by Holy Mother Church's true councils. At the same time, of course, we must make reparation to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary that have worsened the state of the Church Militant on earth and thus of the world-at-large that we may never fully grasp in this passing, mortal vale of tears.

This time of apostasy will end. Our Lady's Fatima Message will be fulfilled. Her Immaculate Heart will indeed triumph in the end.

May we continue to pray as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits.


Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!


Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

Saint Joseph, Patron of Departing Souls, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saint Bernardine of Siena, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?



Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani on the Modernist Methodology to Dispense with the True Social Teaching of the Catholic Church

Here the problem presents itself of how the Church and the lay state are to live together. Some Catholics are propagating ideas with regard to this point which are not quite correct. Many of these Catholics undoubtedly love the Church and rightly intend to find a mode of possible adaptation to the circumstances of the times. But it is none the less true that their position reminds one of that of the faint-hearted soldier who wants to conquer without fighting, or of that of the simple, unsuspecting person who accepts a hand, treacherously held out to him, without taking account of the fact that this hand will subsequently pull him across the Rubicon towards error and injustice.

The first mistake of these people is precisely that of not accepting fully the "arms of truth" and the teaching which the Roman Pontiffs, in the course of this last century, and in particular the reigning Pontiff, Pius XII, by means of encyclicals, allocutions and instructions of all kinds, have given to Catholics on this subject.

To justify themselves, these people affirm that, in the body of teaching given in the Church, a distinction must be made between what is permanent and what is transitory, this latter being due to the influence of particular passing conditions. Unfortunately, however, they include in this second zone the principles laid down in the Pontifical documents, principles on which the teaching of the Church has remained constant, as they form part of the patrimony of Catholic doctrine.

In this matter, the pendulum theory, elaborated by certain writers in an attempt to sift the teaching set forth in Encyclical Letters at different times, cannot be applied. "The Church," it has been written, "takes account of the rhythm of the world's history after the fashion of a swinging pendulum which, desirous of keeping the proper measure, maintains its movement by reversing it when it judges that it has gone as far as it should.... From this point of view a whole history of the Encyclicals could be written. Thus in the field of Biblical studies, the Encyclical, Divino Afflante Spiritu, comes after the Encyclicals Spiritus Paraclitus and Providentissimus.  In the field of Theology or Politics, the Encyclicals, Summi Pontificatus, Non abbiamo bisogno and Ubi Arcano Deo, come after the Encyclical, Immortale Dei."

Now if this were to be understood in the sense that the general and fundamental principles of public Ecclesiastical Law, solemnly affirmed in the Encyclical Letter, Immortale Dei, are merely the reflection of historic moments of the past, while the swing of the pendulum of the doctrinal Encyclicals of Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII has passed in the opposite direction to different positions, the statement would have to be qualified as completely erroneous, not only because it misrepresents the teaching of the Encyclicals themselves, but also because it is theoretically inadmissible. In the Encyclical Letter, Humani Generis, the reigning Pontiff teaches us that we must recognize in the Encyclicals the ordinary magisterium of the Church: "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand assent, in that, when writing such Letters, the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their teaching authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say "He who heareth you heareth Me" (St. Luke 10:16); and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already belongs for other reasons to Catholic doctrine."

Because they are afraid of being accused of wanting to return to the Middle Ages, some of our writers no longer dare to maintain the doctrinal positions that are constantly affirmed in the Encyclicals as belonging to the life and legislation of the Church in all ages.  For them is meant the warning of Pope Leo XIII who, recommending concord and unity in the combat against error, adds that "care must be taken never to connive, in anyway, at false opinions, never to withstand them less strenuously than truth allows." (Duties of the Catholic State in Regard to Religion.)

Appendix B

Monsignor Joseph Clinton Fenton on the Binding Nature of Papal Declarations

(As Extracted From a Previous Article)

The late Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton, who had taught my own late seminary professor, Father John Joseph "Jackie Boy" at Saint Bernard's Seminary in Rochester, New York, in the late-1930s, wrote a superb explication of the teaching authority of encyclical letters a year before Humani Generis, and I thank Mr. Jerry Meng, the author of Joseph Ratzinger Is Not the Pope, for providing me with information about Father Fenton's material, which appeared in the American Ecclesiastical Review, that I had read several years ago but had faded into the deeper recesses of my memory in the meantime. Thank you, Mr. Meng. To Father Fenton:

It would manifestly be a very serious fault on the part of a Catholic writer or teacher in this field, acting on his own authority, to set aside or to ignore any of the outstanding doctrinal pronouncements of the Rerum novarum or the Quadragesimo anno, regardless of how unfashionable these documents be in a particular locality or at a particular time. It would, however, be a much graver sin on the part of such a teacher to pass over or to discountenance a considerable section of the teachings contained in these labor encyclicals. In exactly the same way and for precisely the same reason it would be seriously wrong to contravene any outstanding individual pronouncement in the encyclicals dealing with the relations between Church and State, and much worse to ignore or disregard all of the teachings or a great portion of the teachings on this topic contained in the letters of Pius IX and Leo XIII.

It is, of course, possible that the Church might come to modify its stand on some detail of teaching presented as non-infallible matter in a papal encyclical. The nature of the auctoritas providentiae doctrinalis within the Church is such, however, that this fallibility extends to questions of relatively minute detail or of particular application. The body of doctrine on the rights and duties of labor, on the Church and State, or on any other subject treated extensively in a series of papal letters directed to and normative for the entire Church militant could not be radically or completely erroneous. The infallible security Christ wills that His disciples should enjoy within His Church is utterly incompatible with such a possibility.
(Doctrinal authority of Papal Encyclicals.)


To wit, Pope Saint Pius X wrote the following about the falsehood represented by the separation of Church and State:

That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. . . . Hence the Roman Pontiffs have never ceased, as circumstances required, to refute and condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State. (Pope Saint Pius X, Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906.)


Gee, I wonder who has spent a great deal of the past seventy-three months endorsing this false thesis: Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, that's who. This cannot be. It is impossible for a true Roman Pontiff to contradict another on a matter that is part of the Deposit of Faith that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ entrusted to His Catholic Church for Its eternal safekeeping and infallible explication.

Some glib commentators might protest that not every papal statement demands our assent, that we can "sift" through what a true pope says. This is false, which is one of the reasons why true popes never spoke in interviews as they knew that their words, which were carefully chosen and vetted by theological advisers (yes, the rendering of this word as "advisors" is also accepted usage), carried the weight of their papal office, that the faithful weren't and could not be expected to make unnecessary distinctions between "official" and "unofficial" words and deeds, which was the whole point of Words and Actions Without Consequences.

Monsignor Fenton elaborated on this point when applying the teaching stated by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis to the authority of papal allocutions:

Despite the fact that there is nothing like an adequate treatment of the papal allocutions in existing theological literature, every priest, and particularly every professor of sacred theology, should know whether and under what circumstances these allocutions addressed by the Sovereign Pontiffs to private groups are to be regarded as authoritative, as actual expressions of the Roman Pontiff's ordinary magisterium.  And, especially because of the tendency towards an unhealthy minimism current in this country and elsewhere in the world today, they should also know how doctrine is to be set forth in the allocutions and the other vehicles of the Holy Father's ordinary magisterium if it is to be accepted as authoritative.  The present brief paper will attempt to consider and to answer these questions.

The first question to be considered is this: Can a speech addressed by the Roman Pontiff to a private group, a group which cannot in any sense be taken as representing either the Roman Church or the universal Church, contain doctrinal teaching authoritative for the universal Church?

The clear and unequivocal answer to this question is contained in the Holy Father's encyclical letter Humani generis, issued Aug. 12, 1950.  According to this document: "if, in their 'Acta' the Supreme Pontiffs take care to render a decision on a point that has hitherto been controverted, it is obvious to all that this point, according to the mind and will of these same Pontiffs, can no longer be regarded as a question theologians may freely debate among themselves."[6]

Thus, in the teaching of the Humani generis, any doctrinal decision made by the Pope and included in his "Acta" are authoritative.  Now many of the allocutions made by the Sovereign Pontiff to private groups are included in the "Acta" of the Sovereign Pontiff himself, as a section of the Acta apostolicae sedis.  Hence, any doctrinal decision made in one of these allocutions that is published in the Holy Father's "Acta" is authoritative and binding on all the members of the universal Church.

There is, according to the words of the Humani generis, an authoritative doctrinal decision whenever the Roman Pontiffs, in their "Acta," "de re hactenus controversa data opera sententiam ferunt."  When this condition is fulfilled, even in an allocution originally delivered to a private group, but subsequently published as part of the Holy Father's "Acta," an authoritative doctrinal judgment has been proposed to the universal Church.  All of those within the Church are obliged, under penalty of serious sin, to accept this decision. . . .

Now the questions may arise: is there any particular form which the Roman Pontiff is obliged to follow in setting forth a doctrinal decision in either the positive or the negative manner? Does the Pope have to state specifically and explicitly that he intends to issue a doctrinal decision on this particular point?  Is it at all necessary that he should refer explicitly to the fact that there has hitherto been a debate among theologians on the question he is going to decide?

There is certainly nothing in the divinely established constitutional law of the Catholic Church which would in any way justify an affirmative response to any of these inquiries.  The Holy Father's doctrinal authority stems from the tremendous responsibility Our Lord laid upon him in St. Peter, whose successor he is.  Our Lord charged the Prince of the Apostles, and through him, all of his successors until the end of time, with the commission of feeding, of acting as a shepherd for, of taking care of, His lambs and His sheep.[7]  Included in that responsibility was the obligation, and, of course, the power, to confirm the faith of his fellow Christians.

And the Lord said: "Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat.  But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren."[8]

St. Peter had, and has in his successor, the duty and the power to confirm his brethren in their faith, to take care of their doctrinal needs.  Included in his responsibility is an obvious obligation to select and to employ the means he judges most effective and apt for the accomplishment of the end God has commissioned him to attain.  And in this era, when the printed word possesses a manifest primacy in the field of the dissemination of ideas, the Sovereign Pontiffs have chosen to bring their authoritative teaching, the doctrine in which they accomplish the work of instruction God has commanded them to do, to the people of Christ through the medium of the printed word in the published "Acta."

The Humani generis reminds us that the doctrinal decisions set forth in the Holy Father's "Acta" manifestly are authoritative "according to the mind and will" of the Pontiffs who have issued these decisions.  Thus, wherever there is a doctrinal judgment expressed in the "Acta" of a Sovereign Pontiff, it is clear that the Pontiff understands that decision to be authoritative and wills that it be so.

Now when the Pope, in his "Acta," sets forth as a part of Catholic doctrine or as a genuine teaching of the Catholic Church some thesis which has hitherto been opposed, even legitimately, in the schools of sacred theology, he is manifestly making a doctrinal decision.  This certainly holds true even when, in making his statement, the Pope does not explicitly assert that he is issuing a doctrinal judgment and, of course, even when he does not refer to the existence of a controversy or debate on the subject among theologians up until the time of his own pronouncement.  All that is necessary is that this teaching, hitherto opposed in the theological schools, be now set forth as the teaching of the Sovereign Pontiff, or as "doctrina catholica."

Private theologians have no right whatsoever to establish what they believe to be the conditions under which the teaching presented in the "Acta" of the Roman Pontiff may be accepted as authoritative.  This is, on the contrary, the duty and the prerogative of the Roman Pontiff himself.  The present Holy Father has exercised that right and has done his duty in stating clearly that any doctrinal decision which the Bishop of Rome has taken the trouble to make and insert into his "Acta" is to be received as genuinely authoritative.

In line with the teaching of the Humani generis, then, it seems unquestionably clear that any doctrinal decision expressed by the Sovereign Pontiff in the course of an allocution delivered to a private group is to be accepted as authoritative when and if that allocution is published by the Sovereign Pontiff as a part of his own "Acta."  Now we must consider this final question: What obligation is incumbent upon a Catholic by reason of an authoritative doctrinal decision made by the Sovereign Pontiff and communicated to the universal Church in this manner?

The text of the Humani generis itself supplies us with a minimum answer.  This is found in the sentence we have already quoted: "And if, in their 'Acta,' the Supreme Pontiffs take care to render a decision on a point that has hitherto been controverted, it is obvious to all that this point, according to the mind and will of these same Pontiffs, can no longer be regarded as a question theologians may freely debate among themselves."

Theologians legitimately discuss and dispute among themselves doctrinal questions which the authoritative magisterium of the Catholic Church has not as yet resolved.  Once that magisterium has expressed a decision and communicated that decision to the Church universal, the first and the most obvious result of its declaration must be the cessation of debate on the point it has decided.  A man definitely is not acting and could not act as a theologian, as a teacher of Catholic truth, by disputing against a decision made by the competent doctrinal authority of the Mystical Body of Christ on earth.

In line with the teaching of the Humani generis, then, it seems unquestionably clear that any doctrinal decision expressed by the Sovereign Pontiff in the course of an allocution delivered to a private group is to be accepted as authoritative when and if that allocution is published by the Sovereign Pontiff as a part of his own "Acta."  Now we must consider this final question: What obligation is incumbent upon a Catholic by reason of an authoritative doctrinal decision made by the Sovereign Pontiff and communicated to the universal Church in this manner? (The doctrinal Authority of Papal allocutions.)


The crashing sound you hear in the background is the whole facade of the false ecclesiology of the "resist but recognize" movement that has been propagated in the past forty years as the "answer" to "resisting" the decrees of the "Second" Vatican Council and the "encyclical" letters and statements and allocutions of the conciliar "popes" crumbling right to the ground.

The rejections, for example, of the clear and consistent Catholic condemnation of religious liberty and separation of Church and State while endorsing the sort of false ecumenism condemned by Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928, and while propagating the "new ecclesiology" of the "new theology" that is a public and manifest rejection of the very nature of the Church as summarized by Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943, are no mere acts of "modification" of past papal statements as they are applied in the world today. They are a wholesale rejection of Catholic truth, which is why they have been shrouded in a cloud of ambiguity and paradox as to deceive many of the elect.

































© Copyright 2011, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.