Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us
September 18, 2010

Day Two of the Conciliar Circus in the United Kingdom

Part Two

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Yesterday, September 17, 2010, the Feast of the Impression of the Stigmata on Saint Francis of Assisi and Ember Friday in September, was Day Two of the visiting of the conciliar circus led by its ringmaster, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, to the United Kingdom. This is part two of the article,Day Two of the Conciliar Circus in the United Kingdom, part one, about yesterday's public events on the schedule of the false "pontiff" as he traveled to the area of the capital of the United Kingdom, London, to speak to representatives of "world religions," to civic officials and the diplomatic corps, and to the non-"archbishop" of Canterbury, the Anglican layman named Mr. Rowan Williams, before speaking to a whole collection of Anglican non-clerics thereafter.

Ratzinger/Benedict's address to was termed "clerical and lay representatives of other religions," given in the Waldegrave Drawing Room of Saint Mary's University College in Twickenham in the London Borough of Richmond, was pure conciliar apostasy through and through. Here is the address, following by a few comments on selected passages:

I am very pleased to have this opportunity to meet you, the representatives of the various religious communities in Great Britain. I greet both the ministers of religion present and those of you who are active in politics, business and industry. I am grateful to Dr Azzam and to Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks for the greetings which they have expressed on your behalf. As I salute you, let me also wish the Jewish community in Britain and throughout the world a happy and holy celebration of Yom Kippur.

I would like to begin my remarks by expressing the Catholic Church’s appreciation for the important witness that all of you bear as spiritual men and women living at a time when religious convictions are not always understood or appreciated. The presence of committed believers in various fields of social and economic life speaks eloquently of the fact that the spiritual dimension of our lives is fundamental to our identity as human beings, that man, in other words, does not live by bread alone (cf. Deut 8:3). As followers of different religious traditions working together for the good of the community at large, we attach great importance to this “side by side” dimension of our cooperation, which complements the “face to face” aspect of our continuing dialogue.

On the spiritual level, all of us, in our different ways, are personally engaged in a journey that grants an answer to the most important question of all – the question concerning the ultimate meaning of our human existence. The quest for the sacred is the search for the one thing necessary, which alone satisfies the longings of the human heart. In the fifth century, Saint Augustine described that search in these terms: “Lord, you have created us for yourself and our hearts are restless until they rest in you” (Confessions, Book I, 1). As we embark on this adventure we come to realize more and more that the initiative lies not with us, but with the Lord: it is not so much we who are seeking him, but rather he who is seeking us, indeed it was he who placed that longing for him deep within our hearts.

Your presence and witness in the world points towards the fundamental importance for human life of this spiritual quest in which we are engaged. Within their own spheres of competence, the human and natural sciences provide us with an invaluable understanding of aspects of our existence and they deepen our grasp of the workings of the physical universe, which can then be harnessed in order to bring great benefit to the human family. Yet these disciplines do not and cannot answer the fundamental question, because they operate on another level altogether. They cannot satisfy the deepest longings of the human heart, they cannot fully explain to us our origin and our destiny, why and for what purpose we exist, nor indeed can they provide us with an exhaustive answer to the question, “Why is there something rather than nothing?”

The quest for the sacred does not devalue other fields of human enquiry. On the contrary, it places them in a context which magnifies their importance, as ways of responsibly exercising our stewardship over creation. In the Bible, we read that, after the work of creation was completed, God blessed our first parents and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it” (Gen 1:28). He entrusted us with the task of exploring and harnessing the mysteries of nature in order to serve a higher good. What is that higher good? In the Christian faith, it is expressed as love for God and love for our neighbour. And so we engage with the world wholeheartedly and enthusiastically, but always with a view to serving that higher good, lest we disfigure the beauty of creation by exploiting it for selfish purposes.

So it is that genuine religious belief points us beyond present utility towards the transcendent. It reminds us of the possibility and the imperative of moral conversion, of the duty to live peaceably with our neighbour, of the importance of living a life of integrity. Properly understood, it brings enlightenment, it purifies our hearts and it inspires noble and generous action, to the benefit of the entire human family. It motivates us to cultivate the practice of virtue and to reach out towards one another in love, with the greatest respect for religious traditions different from our own.

Ever since the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church has placed special emphasis on the importance of dialogue and cooperation with the followers of other religions. In order to be fruitful, this requires reciprocity on the part of all partners in dialogue and the followers of other religions. I am thinking in particular of situations in some parts of the world, where cooperation and dialogue between religions calls for mutual respect, the freedom to practise one’s religion and to engage in acts of public worship, and the freedom to follow one’s conscience without suffering ostracism or persecution, even after conversion from one religion to another. Once such a respect and openness has been established, peoples of all religions will work together effectively for peace and mutual understanding, and so give a convincing witness before the world.

This kind of dialogue needs to take place on a number of different levels, and should not be limited to formal discussions. The dialogue of life involves simply living alongside one another and learning from one another in such a way as to grow in mutual knowledge and respect. The dialogue of action brings us together in concrete forms of collaboration, as we apply our religious insights to the task of promoting integral human development, working for peace, justice and the stewardship of creation. Such a dialogue may include exploring together how to defend human life at every stage and how to ensure the non-exclusion of the religious dimension of individuals and communities in the life of society. Then at the level of formal conversations, there is a need not only for theological exchange, but also sharing our spiritual riches, speaking of our experience of prayer and contemplation, and expressing to one another the joy of our encounter with divine love. In this context I am pleased to note the many positive initiatives undertaken in this country to promote such dialogue at a variety of levels. As the Catholic Bishops of England and Wales noted in their recent document Meeting God in Friend and Stranger, the effort to reach out in friendship to followers of other religions is becoming a familiar part of the mission of the local Church (n. 228), a characteristic feature of the religious landscape in this country.

My dear friends, as I conclude my remarks, let me assure you that the Catholic Church follows the path of engagement and dialogue out of a genuine sense of respect for you and your beliefs. Catholics, both in Britain and throughout the world, will continue to work to build bridges of friendship to other religions, to heal past wrongs and to foster trust between individuals and communities. Let me reiterate my thanks for your welcome and my gratitude for this opportunity to offer you my encouragement for your dialogue with your Christian sisters and brothers. Upon all of you I invoke abundant divine blessings! Thank you very much. (Meeting with Religious Leaders in the Waldegrave Drawing Room of St. Mary’s University College in Twickenham (London Borough of Richmond, 17 September 2010.)


A "happy and holy celebration of Yom Kippur"? Talmudic Judaism is a false religion. It has the power to save no one. It can produce "holiness" in no one. Its "holy days" are sacred only to the devil as they have replaced by the liturgy of the Catholic Church that was established by the Second Person of the Most Blessed Trinity made Man in Our Lady's Virginal and Immaculate Womb by the power of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as the sole means by which men can have access to His Deposit of Faith and the supernatural helps of Sanctifying and Actual Graces that are necessary to please God and to win Heaven. The only holy days are those that are observed by the Catholic Church. There are no other holy days.

Ratzinger/Benedict's speech to this collection of individuals who are, whether or not they realize it, doing the work of the devil by promoting beliefs and practices contrary to those revealed and decreed by the true God of Divine Revelation was redolent with the apostate mindset of conciliarism. Consider the following passage:

I would like to begin my remarks by expressing the Catholic Church’s appreciation for the important witness that all of you bear as spiritual men and women living at a time when religious convictions are not always understood or appreciated. The presence of committed believers in various fields of social and economic life speaks eloquently of the fact that the spiritual dimension of our lives is fundamental to our identity as human beings, that man, in other words, does not live by bread alone (cf. Deut 8:3). As followers of different religious traditions working together for the good of the community at large, we attach great importance to this “side by side” dimension of our cooperation, which complements the “face to face” aspect of our continuing dialogue.

The dialogue of life involves simply living alongside one another and learning from one another in such a way as to grow in mutual knowledge and respect


This is pure Judeo-Masonry. It is impossible for the "religious convictions" of those who adhere to false religions to contribute to the "good of the community at large." How can those who believe in chemical and surgical baby-killing or special "rights" for those steeped in perverse acts against nature and who reject the Sacred Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ "contribute" to "the good of the community at large"? It is impossible.

Let us turn once again to a simple yet clear and eloquent explication of this fact given us by Pope Saint Pius X in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910, whose centenary of observance last month went completely without comment from the Vatican in conciliar captivity:

Here we have, founded by Catholics, an inter-denominational association that is to work for the reform of civilization, an undertaking which is above all religious in character; for there is no true civilization without a moral civilization, and no true moral civilization without the true religion: it is a proven truth, a historical fact. The new Sillonists cannot pretend that they are merely working on “the ground of practical realities” where differences of belief do not matter. Their leader is so conscious of the influence which the convictions of the mind have upon the result of the action, that he invites them, whatever religion they may belong to, “to provide on the ground of practical realities, the proof of the excellence of their personal convictions.” And with good reason: indeed, all practical results reflect the nature of one’s religious convictions, just as the limbs of a man down to his finger-tips, owe their very shape to the principle of life that dwells in his body.

This being said, what must be thought of the promiscuity in which young Catholics will be caught up with heterodox and unbelieving folk in a work of this nature? Is it not a thousand-fold more dangerous for them than a neutral association? What are we to think of this appeal to all the heterodox, and to all the unbelievers, to prove the excellence of their convictions in the social sphere in a sort of apologetic contest? Has not this contest lasted for nineteen centuries in conditions less dangerous for the faith of Catholics? And was it not all to the credit of the Catholic Church? What are we to think of this respect for all errors, and of this strange invitation made by a Catholic to all the dissidents to strengthen their convictions through study so that they may have more and more abundant sources of fresh forces? What are we to think of an association in which all religions and even Free-Thought may express themselves openly and in complete freedom? For the Sillonists who, in public lectures and elsewhere, proudly proclaim their personal faith, certainly do not intend to silence others nor do they intend to prevent a Protestant from asserting his Protestantism, and the skeptic from affirming his skepticism. Finally, what are we to think of a Catholic who, on entering his study group, leaves his Catholicism outside the door so as not to alarm his comrades who, “dreaming of disinterested social action, are not inclined to make it serve the triumph of interests, coteries and even convictions whatever they may be”? Such is the profession of faith of the New Democratic Committee for Social Action which has taken over the main objective of the previous organization and which, they say, “breaking the double meaning which surround the Greater Sillon both in reactionary and anti-clerical circles”, is now open to all men “who respect moral and religious forces and who are convinced that no genuine social emancipation is possible without the leaven of generous idealism.” (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)


Sure, I have quoted this section from Pope Saint Pius X's Notre Charge Apostolique quite a lot. I do so because people forget. They need reminders. One reader, responding to the publication of Calling Cesar Romero, Calling Cesar Romero, part one, said that the repetition helped to reinforce the truth of our current situation. That's why I keep hammering away no matter how very few people read these articles.

Even though there are times, especially before Catholic audiences, when Ratzinger/Benedict seems and sounds like a perfectly orthodox adherent of the Catholic Faith, it is important to remember that Modernism is a mixture of truth and error. Pope Saint Pius X himself reminded us that Modernists tend to confuse orthodox believers by their employment of Catholic-sounding language on some occasions and Modernist thought on others. (See the appendix below for a reminder of this.) Do not be confused. The mixture of some truth with just a little bit of error that has been condemned by the Catholic Church is displeasing and hateful in the sight of God. Do not be confused.

Ratzinger/Benedict's esteem for false religions, demonstrated in the following passage from yesterday's talk to the leaders of religions that deny the Sacred Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, is at odds with revealed truth and right reason, including his assertion that "we are personally engaged in a journey that grants an answer to the most important question of all--the question concerning the ultimate meaning of our human existence." Huh? Excuse me? There is no need to "search" for the truth. Truth has become Incarnate for us. He has been Crucified for us. He has Risen from the dead for us. He will come again in glory to judge us at the General Judgment of the Living and the Dead on the Last Day. His Name is Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, a Holy Name that was not once mentioned by Ratzinger/Benedict to those he believes can give a "witness" to the role of "religion" in fighting irreligion. This is but utter and complete madness, my friends. Madness.

Ratzinger/Benedict's address to the leaders of "other religions," which is Vaticanspeak for false religions that deny the Sacred Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, included this classic piece of conciliar apostasy:

The dialogue of life involves simply living alongside one another and learning from one another in such a way as to grow in mutual knowledge and respect. (Meeting with Religious Leaders in the Waldegrave Drawing Room of St. Mary’s University College in Twickenham (London Borough of Richmond, 17 September 2010.)


"Learning from one another in such a way as to grow in mutual knowledge and respect"? Once again, I say huh and excuse me.

The Catholic Church has nothing to "learn" from any false religion. She is complete in and of herself. There is nothing lacking in her Divine Constitution that requires her to "learn" about any false religion as she is guided infallibly by the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost.

Mutual knowledge and respect? Hmmm. Let's turn once again to Pope Leo XIII's Custodi Di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892:

Everyone should avoid familiarity or friendship with anyone suspected of belonging to masonry or to affiliated groups. Know them by their fruits and avoid them. Every familiarity should be avoided, not only with those impious libertines who openly promote the character of the sect, but also with those who hide under the mask of universal tolerance, respect for all religions, and the craving to reconcile the maxims of the Gospel with those of the revolution. These men seek to reconcile Christ and Belial, the Church of God and the state without God. (Pope Leo XIII, Custodi di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892.)


Speaking of the state without God, Ratzinger/Benedict's address to the members of the diplomatic corps and political and academic leaders, given on Friday, September 17, 2010, in the very place, Westminster Hall in the City of Westminster, where Saint Thomas More was tried for his life in 1535, was an attempt to make the case for the role "religion," including a generic mention of "Christianity," as the means to "inform" the use of reason without "supplying" the "norms" for ethical public policies as they "could not be known by non-believers." The following passage from this particular address is a mother lode of Modernism that goes to the heart of concilairism's refusal to accept that the problems of Modernity have been brought about, proximately speaking, by the rejection and overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King wrought by the Protestant Revolt and the rise of the welter of naturalistic forces that can be termed as Judeo-Masonry:

The central question at issue, then, is this: where is the ethical foundation for political choices to be found? The Catholic tradition maintains that the objective norms governing right action are accessible to reason, prescinding from the content of revelation. According to this understanding, the role of religion in political debate is not so much to supply these norms, as if they could not be known by non-believers – still less to propose concrete political solutions, which would lie altogether outside the competence of religion – but rather to help purify and shed light upon the application of reason to the discovery of objective moral principles. This “corrective” role of religion vis-à-vis reason is not always welcomed, though, partly because distorted forms of religion, such as sectarianism and fundamentalism, can be seen to create serious social problems themselves. And in their turn, these distortions of religion arise when insufficient attention is given to the purifying and structuring role of reason within religion. It is a two-way process. Without the corrective supplied by religion, though, reason too can fall prey to distortions, as when it is manipulated by ideology, or applied in a partial way that fails to take full account of the dignity of the human person. Such misuse of reason, after all, was what gave rise to the slave trade in the first place and to many other social evils, not least the totalitarian ideologies of the twentieth century. This is why I would suggest that the world of reason and the world of faith – the world of secular rationality and the world of religious belief – need one another and should not be afraid to enter into a profound and ongoing dialogue, for the good of our civilization. (Meeting with the representatives of British Society, including the Diplomatic Corps, politicians, academics and business leaders at Westminster Hall, City of Westminster, 17 September 2010.)


Remember, Modernism is an admixture of truth and error, which is what make the errors contained in Modernism appear to be reasonable, if not true on its face, which is why Pope Saint Pius X went to such great lengths in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907, to dissect it.

While it is true that it is entirely beyond the realm of the authority of the Catholic Church to propose specific policy proposals to the civil authorities, although one would never know this to be so from the way in which the conciliar "bishops" of the United States of America have issued quite specific policy proposals in the form of "pastoral letter" concerning foreign policy, the economy, housing, immigration and other matters that have been written as though they came straight out of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee, it is precisely within the authority of the Catholic Church in her exercise of the Social Reign of Christ the King to directly interpose herself with the civil authorities as an absolute last resort, undertaken only upon exhausting her Indirect Power of teaching and preaching and exhortation, when the good of souls demands her motherly intervention. This is her Divinely-appointed right and duty. The civil authorities must yield to Holy Mother Church in all that pertains to the good of souls as they, the civil authorities, pursue the common temporal good in light of man's Last End, the possession of the glory of the Beatific Vision of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost for all eternity in Heaven.

Ratzinger/Benedict has been absolutely consistent in his rejection of the Social Reign of Christ the King throughout the course of his priestly life. He has praised the falsehood of "separation of Church and State," meaning, of course, that Pope Saint Pius X's complete contradiction of the errors contained in the just cited passage from Ratzinger/Benedict's September 17, 2010, address must itself be false:

That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him. Besides, this thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits the action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during this life only, which is but the proximate object of political societies; and it occupies itself in no fashion (on the plea that this is foreign to it) with their ultimate object which is man's eternal happiness after this short life shall have run its course. But as the present order of things is temporary and subordinated to the conquest of man's supreme and absolute welfare, it follows that the civil power must not only place no obstacle in the way of this conquest, but must aid us in effecting it. The same thesis also upsets the order providentially established by God in the world, which demands a harmonious agreement between the two societies. Both of them, the civil and the religious society, although each exercises in its own sphere its authority over them. It follows necessarily that there are many things belonging to them in common in which both societies must have relations with one another. Remove the agreement between Church and State, and the result will be that from these common matters will spring the seeds of disputes which will become acute on both sides; it will become more difficult to see where the truth lies, and great confusion is certain to arise. Finally, this thesis inflicts great injury on society itself, for it cannot either prosper or last long when due place is not left for religion, which is the supreme rule and the sovereign mistress in all questions touching the rights and the duties of men. 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.)


That the conciliar "popes" have endorsed the doctrine of the separation of Church and State that is at the proximate root of our social problems today should prove that they are not true Successors of Saint Peter at all but imposters who boldly declare to be true that which has been declared false by our true popes repeatedly over the centuries.

Furthermore, the use of right reason needs the guidance of Holy Mother Church, something that Pope Leo XIII emphasized in Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900:

This generative and conservative power of the virtues that make for salvation is therefore lost, whenever morality is dissociated from divine faith. A system of morality based exclusively on human reason robs man of his highest dignity and lowers him from the supernatural to the merely natural life. Not but that man is able by the right use of reason to know and to obey certain principles of the natural law. But though he should know them all and keep them inviolate through life-and even this is impossible without the aid of the grace of our Redeemer-still it is vain for anyone without faith to promise himself eternal salvation. "If anyone abide not in Me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall wither, and they shall gather him up and cast him into the fire, and he burneth" John xv., 6). "He that believeth not shall be condemned" (Mark xvi., 16). We have but too much evidence of the value and result of a morality divorced from divine faith. How is it that, in spite of all the zeal for the welfare of the masses, nations are in such straits and even distress, and that the evil is daily on the increase? We are told that society is quite able to help itself; that it can flourish without the assistance of Christianity, and attain its end by its own unaided efforts. Public administrators prefer a purely secular system of government. All traces of the religion of our forefathers are daily disappearing from political life and administration. What blindness! Once the idea of the authority of God as the Judge of right and wrong is forgotten, law must necessarily lose its primary authority and justice must perish: and these are the two most powerful and most necessary bonds of society. Similarly, once the hope and expectation of eternal happiness is taken away, temporal goods will be greedily sought after. Every man will strive to secure the largest share for himself. Hence arise envy, jealousy, hatred. The consequences are conspiracy, anarchy, nihilism. There is neither peace abroad nor security at home. Public life is stained with crime. (Pope Leo XIII, Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900.)


No Catholicism? No good social order. It's that simple.

What should Ratzinger/Benedict have told the diplomats and leaders of British society two days ago? Convert. This was good enough for Saint Vincent Ferrer when he spoke to Jews and Mohammedans and fallen away Catholics. Indeed, it was good enough for Saint Peter on the first Pentecost Sunday as he sought the conversion of his fellow Jews. Why isn't it good enough for Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI?

What is our goal? To restore the Catholic City. Who says so? Once again, my good and sleepy-eyed readers, the answer is Pope Saint Pius X:

This, nevertheless, is what they want to do with human society; they dream of changing its natural and traditional foundations; they dream of a Future City built on different principles, and they dare to proclaim these more fruitful and more beneficial than the principles upon which the present Christian City rests.

No, Venerable Brethren, We must repeat with the utmost energy in these times of social and intellectual anarchy when everyone takes it upon himself to teach as a teacher and lawmaker - the City cannot be built otherwise than as God has built it; society cannot be setup unless the Church lays the foundations and supervises the work; no, civilization is not something yet to be found, nor is the New City to be built on hazy notions; it has been in existence and still is: it is Christian civilization, it is the Catholic City. It has only to be set up and restored continually against the unremitting attacks of insane dreamers, rebels and miscreants. omnia instaurare in Christo. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)


Pope Saint Pius X, Modernism's Eternal Foe and Our Eternal Friend, stands yet today as a powerful Witness Against Benedict XVI and the misrepresentation of truth found in the latter's address of two days ago to the members of diplomatic corps and to leaders of British society.

Ratzinger/Benedict's two other presentations delivered on the Feast of the Impression of the Stigmata on Saint Francis of Assisi and Ember Friday, September 17, 2010, were given when meeting with the non-"archbishop" of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, at Lambeth Palace in the London Borough of Richmond, England, and before an ecumenical gathering immediately thereafter. Once again, of course, Ratzinger/Benedict came through with boilerplate conciliarism. 

Ratzinger/Benedict's diplomatic address to "Archbishop" Rowan Williams made reference yet again to the necessity of Anglican heretics and the conciliar heretics together to find ways of collaboration with those of "other" religions while at the same time stressing that "Christians must never hesitate to proclaim our faith in the uniqueness of the salvation won for us by Christ" (Fraternal Visit to the Archbishop of Canterbury at Lambeth Palace (London Borough of Richmond, 17 September 2010.)  This is interesting as Protestants do not believe in Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as He has revealed Himself to us through His true Church. Although some Protestants may be validly baptized Christians, Protestantism is a corruption of Christianity and cannot bear witness to anything other than a lie. How can liars bear witness to the "the uniqueness of the salvation won for us by Christ" when they disagree about the meaning of His Holy Doctrine?

Enough said about that address and the illogic contained therein.

Ratzinger/Benedict paid homage once again in his address at Westminster Abbey on Friday evening, September 17, 2010, to the 1910 "World Missionary Conference," held in Edinburgh, Scotland, that is considered to be the birthplace of modern ecumenism, an ecumenism that was condemned by Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928. He also stated the following in his brief address:

The Church’s unity, in a word, can never be other than a unity in the apostolic faith, in the faith entrusted to each new member of the Body of Christ during the rite of Baptism. It is this faith which unites us to the Lord, makes us sharers in his Holy Spirit, and thus, even now, sharers in the life of the Blessed Trinity, the model of the Church’s koinonia here below. (Ecumenical Celebration at Westminster Abbey (City of Westminster, 17 September 2010.)


"It is this faith which unites to the Lord  . . . shares in the life of the Blessed Trinity"? Who says that men and women who deny Papal Primacy, Papal Infallibility, Purgatory (all right, all right, "Anglo-Catholics' may believe in Purgatory while the official "doctrine" of the Anglican sect rejects it) and the Marian dogmas as proclaimed by the authority of the Catholic Church are united with anyone other than the devil himself? Who says that men and women who support contraception and abortion and divorce and perversity are united with anyone other than the devil himself. United to the Lord?

Sure, Ratzinger/Benedict took a swipe at almost all present when he warned them against an "intellectual conformism or facile accommodation to the spirit of the age," which was an oblique criticism of the "ordination" of women "priestesses" and "bishops" and possibly of Anglican "clergy" who are open practitioners of moral perversity (as opposed to the members of the conciliar "clergy" who are closet practitioners of perversity, you understand).Why not invite them to convert and to quit their errors? Why the charade? Why the games? How can such people be united to the Lord?

Yes, I know. Some will assert that Ratzinger/Benedict is inviting the Anglicans to convert to conciliarism by personally "beatifying" the late John Henry Cardinal Newman, who converted to Catholicism from Anglicanism, in Birmingham, England, today, Sunday, September 19, 2010. There may be some merit to this view. Granted. Ratzinger/Benedict does, however, continue to believe that "dialogue," not an exhortation to inspire conversions, is necessary, that conversion is something chosen by those called to undertake it, not something that a putative Roman Pontiff needs to speak about explicitly. He clearly "respects" Anglicanism as he treats this sect's false clergy in a de facto manner as though they are ministers of God. How else could he permit a mere layman, Rowan Williams, to give a "joint blessing" with him two days ago?

Ratzinger/Benedict believes that Anglicanism represents a legitimate "Christian tradition" that has been "hijacked" by those seeking to surrender to the pressures of the world. Uh, would someone please Get The Man A Mirror. Wasn't it he who wrote in Principles of Catholic Theology that Gaudium et Spes, December 7, 1965, represented what he believes is the Catholic Church's "official reconciliation" with the principles of the "new era inaugurated in 1787? Conciliarism is all about an "intellectual conformism or facile accommodation to the spirit of the age" as its the false liturgy, the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service, that was designed to be the chief vehicle to make this conformism and accommodation part of the lives of ordinary Catholics.

Ratzinger/Benedict has nowhere given any hint that he understands that the spiritual contraception of the Catholic Faith practiced by Anglicanism resulted almost exactly four centuries after King Henry VIII's break with Rome in the Lambeth Committee's endorsement of the "morality" of the use of contraceptives by married couples when they are faced with "extraordinary circumstances," which has in turn led to the precise "intellectual conformism and facile accommodation to the spirit of the age" that he criticized two days ago now. Ratzinger/Benedict believes that, despite the differences that exist between Anglicanism and Catholicism, Anglicanism represents a legitimate "Christian tradition" that is worthy of respect." It is not as it is from the devil. It is not of God.

Well, it's after Midnight. Day Three of the conciliar circus in the Untied Kingdom has come and gone already. My duties as a full time cook and housekeeper has put me behind the curve rather than on the cutting edge of events. My twenty-three readers will just have to wait for commentaries yesterday's addresses, each of which was given before Catholic audiences without making any reference at all to Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary, although he did ask for the intercession of Our Lady and Saint Joseph for the residents of a home for the aged. No reference to the Most Holy Rosary. No promotion of devotion to the Mother of God. You will just have to be patient and wait for the next article until the morrow.

Until then, of course, do pray your Rosaries, keeping in mind the intentions of  Bishop McKenna's 2010 Rosary Crusade. Please pray also for my dear wife who is suffering to such an extent that even she, although very, very grateful for the cross that God has chosen from all eternity for her to bear, amazed by the extent of the pain. She is bearing this cross as the consecrated slave of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary as she prays for the spiritual and temporal needs of our own family and as she prays fervently for the conversion of her own relatives who do not know the truths of the Holy Faith and who think her daft for her absolutely uncompromising embrace of them. Yes, please, please pray for my wife who is such a valorous witness of the Catholic Faith. Thank you.

As noted in yesterday's commentary, may we, unlike the false "pope," Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, have such zeal for the salvation of souls as we practice True Devotion to Mary according to the teaching of Saint Louis de Montfort, making sure that we we pray as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits as we offer up to God through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary our prayers and sufferings and penances with joy and gratitude in reparation for our sins and those of the whole world.

Isn't it truly time to pray a Rosary now?


Viva Cristo Rey! 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 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.

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.

Saint Januarius and Companions, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints

© Copyright 2010, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.