Defaming The English Martyrs
by Thomas A. Droleskey
Revolutions are meant by the devil to turn the world upside down.
The Protestant Revolt, for example, so accustomed those who apostatized to its heresies (the rejection of the truths that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ founded a visible, hierarchical society headed on earth by Saint Peter and his true successors, the belief that one is "saved" when making a "profession of faith" in the Holy Name of Jesus and the subsequent rejection of the Sacrament of Confession and of the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Most Blessed Sacrament, the denial of the Mass as the unbloody perpetuation of the Sacrifice of Calvary, the Calvinist heresy that human souls are predestined to Heaven or to Hell by an arbitrary God Who denies free will to His rational creatures) and novelties (new "liturgical rites," the abolition of the altar in favor a table for a "supper," new prayers, the revival of the iconoclasm that was fought by Saint John Damascene, hatred of devotion to the Mother of God and the saints) that those who remained faithful to the Catholic Faith as it had been handed down to them over the centuries without an iota of change were viewed as "crazy" or "schismatic" or "disloyal" or even "unpatriotic."
Here is the account in Father Harold Gardiner's book of how Blessed Edmund Campion was paraded through the streets of London following his return to that city after his capture on July 14, 1581, just forty-seven years after King Henry VIII had himself declared Supreme Head of the Church in England and just twenty-three years after Henry's daughter by Anne Boleyn, Queen Elizabeth I, restored England to Protestantism after the five-year reign of her half-sister Queen Mary, the daughter of Henry's true wife, Queen Catherine of Aragon:
When they started their journey through the city--they were paraded from end to end of it--the crowds laughed, and many hissed and booed the prisoners. They rode with their elbows tied behind them, their hands lashed together in front, and their feet secured underneath their horses' bellies. Father Campion was singled out for further ridicule by having a paper pinned to his hat, which read: "Campion the Seditious Jesuit."
As the parade passed a section of London called Cheapside, they trooped before a cross standing in the market place. It had been battered and defaced in the religious troubles, but it was still a cross. Father Campion raised his eyes to it, bowed his head as far as he could and tried to make the sign of the cross on himself with his fettered hands.
Some of the crowd pressing close to see the famous captive booed and jeered.
"The Papist sign won't save you from the cross that waits you on Tyburn, you traitor."
"He'll bow to the stone of the cross, but he won't bend his stiff neck to the Queen."
"Haw, haw, but soon he won't have a head on top of his neck to bow with at all."
Such were some of the hoots and catcalls, but some of the people looked with respect and sympathy, not to mention shame. Was this England, that an accused man could be treated as though he had already been tried and found guilty? Did he have the ghost of a chance to get a fair trial? What would happen to the country if things like this went on? Could England ever again be thought of as part of Christendom if priests and good Catholics were persecuted and put to death just because they were priests and good Catholics?
These thoughts were in many minds, but they remained locked up there because it would have been dangerous to express them. But Father Campion would express them very soon and in a way that gave, even when he was in his last hours, new heart and courage to those he had come to serve.
Yes, England could still be thought of as part of Christendom, so long as other Campions would follow to carry on his work. And they did follow. From Campion's day to this, priests have continued to preach Christ and His Church and lay people have continued to follow. Persecutions and martyrdoms would continue for more than a hundred years, but peace would finally come to the Church in England, and with peace, growth and vigor. (Father Harold C. Gardiner, S.J., Edmund Campion: Hero of God's Underground, Farrar, Straus and Cudahy, 1957, pp. 132-134.)
Not even a half century had passed from the time of Henry Tudor's break from the Catholic Church. Not even a quarter century had passed from the time that Elizabeth took England out of the Faith for good. Look at the hatred directed at Father Edmund Campion, S.J., for simply adhering to that which every Englishman believed for nearly a thousand years since the time of Saint Augustine of Canterbury--and which many in Britain, including Saint Helena, had embraced as early as the latter part of the Third Century A.D. as a result of the work of Saint Alban, the Proto-Martyr of England. It was during the closing of his trial that was to conclude with his being sentenced to death by being drawn and quartered that Father Campion himself noted the irony contained in his being condemned for believing what every ancestor of those who had condemned him had believed for nearly a thousand years:
"The only thing I have now to say is, that if my religion makes me a traitor, I am worthy to be condemned. Otherwise I am, and have been, as good a subject as ever the Queen had.
"In condemning me you condemn all your own ancestor--all the ancient priests, bishops and kings--all that was once the glory of England, the island of saints, and the most devoted child of the See of Peter.
"For what I have taught . . . that they did not teach? To be condemned with these lights--not of England only, but of the world--by their degenerate descendants, is both gladness and joy.
"God lives; posterity will live; their judgment is not so liable to corruption as that of those who are now going to sentence me to death." (Father Harold C. Gardiner, S.J., Edmund Campion: Hero of God's Underground, Farrar, Straus and Cudahy, 1957, pp. 160-161.)
The exact same phenomenon has occurred as a result of the conciliar revolution. All but a microscopically small number of Catholics attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism have grown to hate most of what is dismissed derisively as the "pre-conciliar church," which was the point of They Like It! six months ago now. Those who have no direct memory of the "pre-conciliar church" have been brainwashed by a highly sophisticated campaign of disinformation that helped to create a "false memory" of the past that even wiped out the true memories of those who lived in that "pre-conciliar church" and loved everything about it until they were "taught" that they could not even trust their own memories. (For a very good description of the Catholic Church and the counterfeit church of conciliarism, please see the appendix below an excerpt from the late Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy's book,
The Destruction of the Christian Tradition, that was provided to me by Mr. Frank Rega, a sedeplenist who is the author of Saint Francis of Assisi and the Conversion of the Muslims.)
A conciliar presbyter, writing under the pseudonym of "Father X," put it well in the original Latin Mass Magazine around 1994 or so when he wrote an article entitled, "They Have Burned What They Once Adored." Even older priests, some of whom, as it turned out, were steeped in unrepentant sins of perversity, came to hate the Immemorial Mass of Tradition.
Even men of my own generation who were raised in the Mass of Tradition and catechized by the Baltimore Catechism came to to be full-throated supporters of conciliarism who "enjoyed" the novelties of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service that is hideous in the sight of God and quite open supporters, if not active participants in, false ecumenism and inter-religious "prayer" services and inter-religious dialogue, coming to love "parish council" meetings and "liturgical committee meetings" and the use of lectors and girl altar boys and extraordinary ministers of what purports to be the Eucharist. A whole new way of parish life, replete with its own sloganistic language ("ministers of greeting," "music ministers," "stewardship ministers," "mission statements," "support communities" for those steeped in unrepentant sins of perversity and for those who are divorced and remarried without even decrees of nullity from conciliar tribunals, etc.), has emerged that is every bit as revolutionary as that which faced Father Edmund Campion, S.J., upon his return to his beloved England in 1580.
It is with all of this in mind that one must assess Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's intention to establish a "structure," probably somewhat along the lines of a "personal prelature" that was established for Opus Dei in 1982 and that will be created for the Society of Saint Pius X once it reaches the stage of "full" "communion" with the lords of Modernism in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, for "conservative" Anglicans who are upset with their own counterfeit "hierarchy's" decision to "ordain" women as "bishops." The news of Ratzinger/Benedict's intention to create "ordinariates" for Anglican converts to the conciliar structures has been greeted with great enthusiasm by "conservative" and traditionally-minded Catholics who are as of yet attached to the notion that the conciliar church is the Catholic Church. This enthusiasm is misplaced as the "conversion" of the Anglicans is merely an amalgamation of people who are not being forced to abjure their errors and who are being permitted to retain "traditions" that were established as a specific and categorical rejection of the Catholic Faith.
To be blunt, the tentative terms of the new structures will be created by Ratzinger/Benedict to accommodate the "traditions" of a false religion created by a king who revolted against the Catholic Church to satisfy his insatiable passions in violation of the binding precepts of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments is an affront to the memory of the thousands of martyrs who gave up their lives in England rather than to acknowledge the legitimacy of the so-called "Church of England" and/or any of its false sacramental "rites."
Consider the example, described by Blessed Edmund Campion, S.J., in letter to his Jesuit superiors in Rome, of a woman in Elizabethan England who refused even to enter into a formerly Catholic church then in Anglican captivity in order to acquire her freedom from prison:
A lady was lately told that she should be let out of prison if she would just once allow herself to be seen walking through an Anglican church. She refused. She had come into prison with a sound conscience and would depart with it, or die. In Henry's day [King Henry VIII], the whole kingdom, with all its bishops and learned men, abjured its faith at one word of the tyrant. But now, in his daughter's days [the daughter was Queen Elizabeth], boys and women boldly profess their faith before the judges and refuse to make the slightest concession even at the threat of death.
"The adversaries are very mad that by no cruelty can they move a single Catholic from his resolution, no, not even a little girl. A young lady of sixteen was questioned by the sham bishop of London about the Pope, and answered him with courage, and even made fun of him in public, and so was ordered to be carried to the public prison . . . On the way she cried out that she was being carried to that place for her religion." (Letter of Blessed Edmond Campion, S.J., to his Jesuit superiors in Rome, quoted in Father Harold C. Gardiner, S.J., Edmund Campion, Hero of God's Underground, Vision Books: Farrar, Straus and Cudahy, 1957.)
None of this means anything to the authorities of the counterfeit church of conciliarism who believe that the passage of time has provided legitimacy to the structures and "traditions" of a false church that many thousands of Catholics had the courage to reject en toto as they forfeited their land, their wealth and their very lives to bear witness to an unswerving fidelity to the Catholic Faith without one bit of compromise to any of the novelties instituted by the Anglican revolutionaries that are now considered to be "venerated traditions" worthy of being recognized with a formal structure to be preserved within the confines of the counterfeit church of concilairism.
One will see from the October 20, 2009, Note issued by the conciliar Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith all of the constituent elements of the apostasies with which so many Catholics have grown so accustomed over the course of the past four to five decades as the very nature of the Catholic Church and what it means to be in "good standing" with the conciliar officials:
With the preparation of an Apostolic Constitution, the Catholic Church is responding to the many requests that have been submitted to the Holy See from groups of Anglican clergy and faithful in different parts of the world who wish to enter into full visible communion.
In this Apostolic Constitution the Holy Father has introduced a canonical structure that provides for such corporate reunion by establishing Personal Ordinariates, which will allow former Anglicans to enter full communion with the Catholic Church while preserving elements of the distinctive Anglican spiritual and liturgical patrimony. Under the terms of the Apostolic Constitution, pastoral oversight and guidance will be provided for groups of former Anglicans through a Personal Ordinariate, whose Ordinary will usually be appointed from among former Anglican clergy.
The forthcoming Apostolic Constitution provides a reasonable and even necessary response to a world-wide phenomenon, by offering a single canonical model for the universal Church which is adaptable to various local situations and equitable to former Anglicans in its universal application. It provides for the ordination as Catholic priests of married former Anglican clergy. Historical and ecumenical reasons preclude the ordination of married men as bishops in both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. The Constitution therefore stipulates that the Ordinary can be either a priest or an unmarried bishop. The seminarians in the Ordinariate are to be prepared alongside other Catholic seminarians, though the Ordinariate may establish a house of formation to address the particular needs of formation in the Anglican patrimony. In this way, the Apostolic Constitution seeks to balance on the one hand the concern to preserve the worthy Anglican liturgical and spiritual patrimony and, on the other hand, the concern that these groups and their clergy will be integrated into the Catholic Church.
Cardinal William Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith which has prepared this provision, said: "We have been trying to meet the requests for full communion that have come to us from Anglicans in different parts of the world in recent years in a uniform and equitable way. With this proposal the Church wants to respond to the legitimate aspirations of these Anglican groups for full and visible unity with the Bishop of Rome, successor of St. Peter."
These Personal Ordinariates will be formed, as needed, in consultation with local Conferences of Bishops, and their structure will be similar in some ways to that of the Military Ordinariates which have been established in most countries to provide pastoral care for the members of the armed forces and their dependents throughout the world. "Those Anglicans who have approached the Holy See have made clear their desire for full, visible unity in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. At the same time, they have told us of the importance of their Anglican traditions of spirituality and worship for their faith journey," Cardinal Levada said.
The provision of this new structure is consistent with the commitment to ecumenical dialogue, which continues to be a priority for the Catholic Church, particularly through the efforts of the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity. "The initiative has come from a number of different groups of Anglicans," Cardinal Levada went on to say: "They have declared that they share the common Catholic faith as it is expressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and accept the Petrine ministry as something Christ willed for the Church. For them, the time has come to express this implicit unity in the visible form of full communion."
According to Levada: "It is the hope of the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, that the Anglican clergy and faithful who desire union with the Catholic Church will find in this canonical structure the opportunity to preserve those Anglican traditions precious to them and consistent with the Catholic faith. Insofar as these traditions express in a distinctive way the faith that is held in common, they are a gift to be shared in the wider Church. The unity of the Church does not require a uniformity that ignores cultural diversity, as the history of Christianity shows. Moreover, the many diverse traditions present in the Catholic Church today are all rooted in the principle articulated by St. Paul in his letter to the Ephesians: ‘There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism’ (4:5). Our communion is therefore strengthened by such legitimate diversity, and so we are happy that these men and women bring with them their particular contributions to our common life of faith."
Since the sixteenth century, when King Henry VIII declared the Church in England independent of Papal Authority, the Church of England has created its own doctrinal confessions, liturgical books, and pastoral practices, often incorporating ideas from the Reformation on the European continent. The expansion of the British Empire, together with Anglican missionary work, eventually gave rise to a world-wide Anglican Communion.
Throughout the more than 450 years of its history the question of the reunification of Anglicans and Catholics has never been far from mind. In the mid-nineteenth century the Oxford Movement (in England) saw a rekindling of interest in the Catholic aspects of Anglicanism. In the early twentieth century Cardinal Mercier of Belgium entered into well publicized conversations with Anglicans to explore the possibility of union with the Catholic Church under the banner of an Anglicanism "reunited but not absorbed".
At the Second Vatican Council hope for union was further nourished when the Decree on Ecumenism (n. 13), referring to communions separated from the Catholic Church at the time of the Reformation, stated that: "Among those in which Catholic traditions and institutions in part continue to exist, the Anglican Communion occupies a special place."
Since the Council, Anglican-Roman Catholic relations have created a much improved climate of mutual understanding and cooperation. The Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC) produced a series of doctrinal statements over the years in the hope of creating the basis for full and visible unity. For many in both communions, the ARCIC statements provided a vehicle in which a common expression of faith could be recognized. It is in this framework that this new provision should be seen.
In the years since the Council, some Anglicans have abandoned the tradition of conferring Holy Orders only on men by calling women to the priesthood and the episcopacy. More recently, some segments of the Anglican Communion have departed from the common biblical teaching on human sexuality—already clearly stated in the ARCIC document "Life in Christ"—by the ordination of openly homosexual clergy and the blessing of homosexual partnerships. At the same time, as the Anglican Communion faces these new and difficult challenges, the Catholic Church remains fully committed to continuing ecumenical engagement with the Anglican Communion, particularly through the efforts of the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity.
In the meantime, many individual Anglicans have entered into full communion with the Catholic Church. Sometimes there have been groups of Anglicans who have entered while preserving some "corporate" structure. Examples of this include, the Anglican diocese of Amritsar in India, and some individual parishes in the United States which maintained an Anglican identity when entering the Catholic Church under a "pastoral provision" adopted by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and approved by Pope John Paul II in 1982. In these cases, the Catholic Church has frequently dispensed from the requirement of celibacy to allow those married Anglican clergy who desire to continue ministerial service as Catholic priests to be ordained in the Catholic Church.
In the light of these developments, the Personal Ordinariates established by the Apostolic Constitution can be seen as another step toward the realization of the aspiration for full, visible union in the Church of Christ, one of the principal goals of the ecumenical movement. (Vatican Note on Establishing Personal Ordinariates for Anglicans).
A sober assessment of this "Note" from the counterfeit church of conciliarism's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith must be grounded only in Catholic truth, not in wishful thinking or emotionalism or cheerleading for the nonexistent"traditionalism" of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. It is possible to assess this "Note" in very succinct terms:
1) The "Anglican Communion" is a false church and has no right to exist. It is, like all other false religions, from the devil himself. Its rites have been composed by the devil. Too strong? Consider this passage from the Exorcism of Nicola Aubrey in which the devil himself testifies he helped to compose the prayers of Calvinist "ministers:"
As the strange circumstances of Nicola's possession became known everywhere, several Calvinist preachers came with their followers, to "expose this popish cheat," as they said. On their entrance, the devil saluted them mockingly, called them by name, and told them that they had come in obedience to him. One of the preachers took his Protestant prayer book, and began to read it with a very solemn face. The devil laughed at him, and putting on a most comical look, he said: "Ho! Ho! My good friend; do you intend to expel me with your prayers and hymns? Do you think that they will cause me any pain? Don't you know that they are mine? I helped to compose them!"
"I will expel thee in the name of God," said the preacher, solemnly.
"You!" said the devil mockingly. "You will not expel me either in the name of God, or in the name of the devil. Did you ever hear of one devil driving out another?"
"I am not a devil," said the preacher, angrily, "I am a servant of Christ."
"A servant of Christ, indeed!" said Satan, with a sneer. "What! I tell you, you are worse than I am. I believe, and you do not want to believe. Do you suppose that you can expel me from the body of this miserable wretch? Ha! Go first and expel all the devils that are in your own heart!"
The preacher took his leave, somewhat discomfited. On going away, he said, turning up the whites of his eyes, "O Lord, I pray thee, assist this poor creature!"
"And I pray Lucifer," cried the evil spirit, "that he may never leave you, but may always keep you firmly in his power, as he does now. Go about your business, now. You are all mine, and I am your master." (Exorcism of Nicola Aubrey)
1.1) Unlike the Orthodox, who have sacramental rites that developed under the inspiration of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, when the Eastern churches were united to the Catholic Church, the "traditions" of Anglicanism are man-made and were meant to be a publicly manifest rejection of Catholicism, which is why so many scores of thousands of Catholics were willing to suffer the most cruel tortures and inhumane executions to bear their own visible, tangible rejection of those man-made "traditions."
1.2) The passage of time does not confer legitimacy on that which has its very origins from the devil in a rejection of the Catholic Faith and the authority of the Catholic Church. Has the passage of time conferred legitimacy on the "Anglican Book of Common Prayer"? If not, then why should it receive "protection" in the counterfeit church of concilairism that presents itself to the world as the Catholic Church?
1.3) Pope Saint Pius V declared the books of Anglican liturgy to be heretical:
Prohibiting with a strong hand the use of the true religion, which after its earlier overthrow by Henry VIII (a deserter therefrom) Mary, the lawful queen of famous memory, had with the help of this See restored, she has followed and embraced the errors of the heretics. She has removed the royal Council, composed of the nobility of England, and has filled it with obscure men, being heretics; oppressed the followers of the Catholic faith; instituted false preachers and ministers of impiety; abolished the sacrifice of the mass, prayers, fasts, choice of meats, celibacy, and Catholic ceremonies; and has ordered that books of manifestly heretical content be propounded to the whole realm and that impious rites and institutions after the rule of Calvin, entertained and observed by herself, be also observed by her subjects. She has dared to eject bishops, rectors of churches and other Catholic priests from their churches and benefices, to bestow these and other things ecclesiastical upon heretics, and to determine spiritual causes; has forbidden the prelates, clergy and people to acknowledge the Church of Rome or obey its precepts and canonical sanctions; has forced most of them to come to terms with her wicked laws, to abjure the authority and obedience of the pope of Rome, and to accept her, on oath, as their only lady in matters temporal and spiritual; has imposed penalties and punishments on those who would not agree to this and has exacted then of those who persevered in the unity of the faith and the aforesaid obedience; has thrown the Catholic prelates and parsons into prison where many, worn out by long languishing and sorrow, have miserably ended their lives. All these matter and manifest and notorious among all the nations; they are so well proven by the weighty witness of many men that there remains no place for excuse, defense or evasion. (Regnans in Excelsis, the decree issued by Pope Saint Pius V on March 5, 1570, excommunicating Queen Elizabeth I.)
How has the passage of time corrected the heretical content of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer (which is a replacement for the four parts of the liturgy used in the Catholic Church: the Breviary, the Missal, the Pontifical, and the Ritual)? Obviously, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI believes that "beauty" can exist in a liturgy without regard to truth, heedless of the fact that nothing can be beautiful if it is not true and that the liturgy is meant to protect the Faith, which is beautiful because it is true.
1.4) The Anglican liturgy (referred to as the Anglican "use" "Mass" in the conciliar structures, a "rite" whose theological deficiencies were assessed quite critically in an article in The Latin Mass: A Journal of Catholic Culture about five or six years ago) was a precursor and progenitor of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service itself.
1.5) Despite being willing to receive Anglicans who are dissatisfied with certain doctrines and practices sanctioned by the faux "hierarchy" of the Anglican sect--and despite stating the necessity of ordaining Anglican laymen posing as members of the clergy to the conciliar presbyterate de novo, the officials of the counterfeit church of conciliarism treat the "clergy" of the Anglican sect as legitimate "Christian ministers." Various "archbishops" of Canterbury have given joint "blessings" with conciliar "popes." If Anglican "priests" seeking "full communion with what they believe to the Catholic Church must be ordained de novo, signifying that they have never been ordained to the priesthood. then what is the rationale for treating the "archbishops" of Canterbury and other members of the Anglican "hierarchy" as legitimately ordained ministers of God?
2) There is no such thing as "partial communion" with the Catholic Church. One is either a member of the Catholic Church or he is not. Pope Leo XIII, writing with the Orthodox in mind in the following passage from Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae, June 20, 1894, made this very clear. So did Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943:
Weigh carefully in your minds and before God the nature of Our request. It is not for any human motive, but impelled by Divine Charity and a desire for the salvation of all, that We advise the reconciliation and union with the Church of Rome; and We mean a perfect and complete union, such as could not subsist in any way if nothing else was brought about but a certain kind of agreement in the Tenets of Belief and an intercourse of Fraternal love. The True Union between Christians is that which Jesus Christ, the Author of the Church, instituted and desired, and which consists in a Unity of Faith and Unity of Government. (Pope Leo XIII, Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae, June 29, 1894.)
Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. "For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free." As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered - so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit. (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943.)
3) Adherents of any false religion must be converted unconditionally to the Catholic Church as they publicly abjure their errors and make a profession in everything contained in the Deposit of Faith without any reservation or qualification whatsoever.
3.1) Will the putative Anglican "converts" to the counterfeit church of conciliarism be required to:
a) Accept the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility exactly as defined by the authority of the Catholic Church?
b) Accept the Doctrine of Our Lady's Immaculate Conception exactly as defined by the authority of the Catholic Church?
c) Accept the Doctrine of Our Lady's Bodily Assumption into Heaven exactly as defined by the authority of the Catholic Church?
d) Accept the Doctrine of Transubstantiation exactly as defined by the authority of the Catholic Church?
e) Accept the Doctrine of Purgatory exactly as defined by the authority of the Catholic Church?
f) Publicly abjure the Lambeth Committee's 1931 endorsement of a certain type of contraceptive (and, of course, all subsequent forms of contraceptives) for use by married couples in circumstances of "grave necessity."
g) Publicly abjure the Anglican sect's support for divorce and remarriage while one's true spouse is still alive?
h) Publicly abjure the errors contained in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer?
i) Publicly abjure the King James Bible?
j) Accept the Canon of Sacred Scripture established solemnly by the authority of the Catholic Church?
3.2) Pope Leo XIII made it clear in Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896, that one must adhere to everything contained in the Deposit of Faith that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church for Its eternal safekeeping and infallible explication without any exception whatsoever. There is no room in the Catholic Church for those who have "reservations" about this or that article of the Catholic Faith:
The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a certain portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. "There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition" (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos).
The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodore :, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. "No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic" (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88). (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896.)
3.3) Some might argue that the matters mentioned in 3.1 above are not "essential" or "fundamental" to the Faith, that it is more important to accommodate the Anglicans seeking "full communion with Rome" than it is to insist, at least at this point, on absolute adherence to tenets that are not considered to be at the "heart" of the Faith. Pope Pius XI put this false belief to rest in Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928:
Besides this, in connection with things which must be believed, it is nowise licit to use that distinction which some have seen fit to introduce between those articles of faith which are fundamental and those which are not fundamental, as they say, as if the former are to be accepted by all, while the latter may be left to the free assent of the faithful: for the supernatural virtue of faith has a formal cause, namely the authority of God revealing, and this is patient of no such distinction. For this reason it is that all who are truly Christ's believe, for example, the Conception of the Mother of God without stain of original sin with the same faith as they believe the mystery of the August Trinity, and the Incarnation of our Lord just as they do the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, according to the sense in which it was defined by the Ecumenical Council of the Vatican. Are these truths not equally certain, or not equally to be believed, because the Church has solemnly sanctioned and defined them, some in one age and some in another, even in those times immediately before our own? Has not God revealed them all? 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. But in the use of this extraordinary teaching authority no newly invented matter is brought in, nor is anything new added to the number of those truths which are at least implicitly contained in the deposit of Revelation, divinely handed down to the Church: only those which are made clear which perhaps may still seem obscure to some, or that which some have previously called into question is declared to be of faith.
4) The Anglicans who will be received into the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism will thus join the likes of "Archbishop" Robert Zollitsch, who has denied the truth that Our Lord died in atonement for our sins and has gone 201 days without any kind of public rebuke from Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, and all of the various "movements" ("Catholic" Charismatic Renewal, Opus Dei, Focolare, Cursillo, the Sant'Egidio Community, the Shalom Catholic Community, the Chemin Neuf Community, the International Community of Faith and Light, Regnum Christi, Communion and Liberation, the Emmanuel Community, the Seguimi Lay Group of Human-Christian Promotion, and, among many, many others, the Neocatechumenal Way--with the Society of Saint Pius X not far behind in becoming full-throated partners in the One World Ecumenical Church of conciliarism) and all of the "diversity" associated with the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service.
5) Some, such as Russ Douthat of The New York Times, have contended that Ratzinger/Benedict is seeking to gain allies to confront the spread of Mohammedanism and irreligion in Europe. Pope Pius XI, writing in the afore-cited Mortalium Animos, condemned any and all "alliances" requiring the downplaying of doctrinal differences and that indeed lead to the invalid distinctions between allegedly "fundamental" and "non-fundamental" doctrines:
They add that the Church in itself, or of its nature, is divided into sections; that is to say, that it is made up of several churches or distinct communities, which still remain separate, and although having certain articles of doctrine in common, nevertheless disagree concerning the remainder; that these all enjoy the same rights; and that the Church was one and unique from, at the most, the apostolic age until the first Ecumenical Councils. Controversies therefore, they say, and longstanding differences of opinion which keep asunder till the present day the members of the Christian family, must be entirely put aside, and from the remaining doctrines a common form of faith drawn up and proposed for belief, and in the profession of which all may not only know but feel that they are brothers. The manifold churches or communities, if united in some kind of universal federation, would then be in a position to oppose strongly and with success the progress of irreligion. This, Venerable Brethren, is what is commonly said. There are some, indeed, who recognize and affirm that Protestantism, as they call it, has rejected, with a great lack of consideration, certain articles of faith and some external ceremonies, which are, in fact, pleasing and useful, and which the Roman Church still retains. They soon, however, go on to say that that Church also has erred, and corrupted the original religion by adding and proposing for belief certain doctrines which are not only alien to the Gospel, but even repugnant to it. Among the chief of these they number that which concerns the primacy of jurisdiction, which was granted to Peter and to his successors in the See of Rome. Among them there indeed are some, though few, who grant to the Roman Pontiff a primacy of honor or even a certain jurisdiction or power, but this, however, they consider not to arise from the divine law but from the consent of the faithful. Others again, even go so far as to wish the Pontiff Himself to preside over their motley, so to say, assemblies. But, all the same, although many non-Catholics may be found who loudly preach fraternal communion in Christ Jesus, yet you will find none at all to whom it ever occurs to submit to and obey the Vicar of Jesus Christ either in His capacity as a teacher or as a governor. Meanwhile they affirm that they would willingly treat with the Church of Rome, but on equal terms, that is as equals with an equal: but even if they could so act. it does not seem open to doubt that any pact into which they might enter would not compel them to turn from those opinions which are still the reason why they err and stray from the one fold of Christ.
6) The acceptance of the Anglican practice of a married "clergy" in what most people consider, albeit erroneously, to be the Catholic Church will be the death knell to presbyteral celibacy in the counterfeit church of concilairism. "Optional celibacy' will be adopted at some point in the next few decades for the presbyters associated with the faux "Roman Rite" of the counterfeit church of conciliarism. There will be no way to segregate or compartmentalize the practice of a married "clergy" in countries where celibacy has been, at least juridically, the norm, which is why the American bishops in the Nineteenth Century insisted that Uniat Rite priests in the United States of America maintain celibacy, noting a few exceptions here and there to the general prohibition against married priests in the Uniat Rite churches in this country. Some men seeking to be conciliar presbyters may "convert" to the Anglican ordinariates in order to get married.
7) The official statement of the faux Anglican "archbishop" of Canterbury, Rowan Williams and the equally faux--and very pevert-friendly-- conciliar "archbishop" of Westminster, Vincent Nichols, O.S.B., issued in response to the Note released by the conciliar Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on October 20, 2009, spoke of an "overlap of faith" between the "worldwide Anglican Communion" and the conciliar church:
The Apostolic Constitution is further recognition of the substantial overlap in faith, doctrine and spirituality between the Catholic Church and the Anglican tradition. Without the dialogues of the past forty years, this recognition would not have been possible, nor would hopes for full visible unity have been nurtured. In this sense, this Apostolic Constitution is one consequence of ecumenical dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion. (Joint Statement of Faux Archbishops)
There is no such thing as "overlap in faith." There is adherence to the totality of the Catholic Faith and there is apostasy. There is no middle ground.
8) The officials of the counterfeit church of concilairism still consider the "worldwide Anglican Communion" to be a legitimate dispenser of the mysteries of salvation that has a "role" to play in the sanctification and salvation of souls. Such a belief is as false as conciliarism itself.
Alas, we have grown so accustomed to apostasy that most Catholics attached to the conciliar structures are as hostile to authentic Catholic truth when it is presented to them as those who had gone over to Anglicanism were to Catholics who worshiped and believed as Catholics had always worshiped and believed in England prior to King Henry VIII. It's the same thing all over again.
The pending "reception" of Anglicans into the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism is indeed a triumph of the conciliar concept of "ecumenism." Unfortunately, however, the conciliar concept of "ecumenism" is one of amalgamation and accommodation, not one of an unconditional conversion or return of those outside of the true Church to her maternal bosom. Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has told us so in his very own words:
"We all know there are numerous models of unity and you know that the Catholic Church also has as her goal the full visible unity of the disciples of Christ, as defined by the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council in its various Documents (cf. Lumen Gentium, nn. 8, 13; Unitatis Redintegratio, nn. 2, 4, etc.). This unity, we are convinced, indeed subsists in the Catholic Church, without the possibility of ever being lost (cf. Unitatis Redintegratio, n. 4); the Church in fact has not totally disappeared from the world.
On the other hand, this unity does not mean what could be called ecumenism of the return: that is, to deny and to reject one's own faith history. Absolutely not!
It does not mean uniformity in all expressions of theology and spirituality, in liturgical forms and in discipline. Unity in multiplicity, and multiplicity in unity: in my Homily for the Solemnity of Sts Peter and Paul on 29 June last, I insisted that full unity and true catholicity in the original sense of the word go together. As a necessary condition for the achievement of this coexistence, the commitment to unity must be constantly purified and renewed; it must constantly grow and mature. (Ecumenical meeting at the Archbishopric of Cologne English)
Numerous models of unity? No, there is just one "model of unity": unconditional conversion to the Catholic Church of everyone who is outside of her maternal bosom as they adhere to everything contained to the Deposit of Faith without any reservation or qualification at all. It is that simple.
One of the theological experts, who I am not at liberty to name presently as I have not received explicit permission to incorporate his remarks with attribution in this text (said permission has been requested), made a cogent observation that Ratzinger/Benedict is undertaking this initiative with "conservative" Anglicans at this juncture to demonstrate his own personal regard for "dignity" in the liturgy, which is one of the reasons that he has been open to permitting the spread of the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition by means of Summorum Pontificum and by means of the absurd exercise of "negotiations" that have now commenced between his representatives and those of the Society of Saint Pius X. Ratzinger/Benedict, however, remains a committed revolutionary who believes that the liturgy should, as mentioned before, convey a "dignity" and "sobriety" that is independent of the truth, something that is, in essence, irrational. Ratzinger/Benedict does not see the Sacred Liturgy as both an expression of the truths of the Holy Faith and as a bulwark to preserve those truths.
An article in Si, Si, No, No, a journal of the Society of Saint Pius X, made this exact point ten years ago now:
The cultural interests pursued at the seminary of Freising were joined to the study of a theology infected by existentialism, beginning with the writings of Romano Guardini. Among the authors preferred by Ratzinger was the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber. Ratzinger loved St. Augustine, but never St. Thomas Aquinas: "By contrast, I had difficulties in penetrating the thought of Thomas Aquinas, whose crystal-clear logic seemed to be too closed in on itself, too impersonal and ready-made" (op. cit., p.44). This aversion was mainly due to the professor of philosophy at the seminary, who "presented us with a rigid, neo-scholastic Thomism that was simply too far afield from my own questions" (ibid.). According to Cardinal Ratzinger, whose current opinions appear unchanged from those he held as a seminarian, the thought of Aquinas was "too closed in on itself, too impersonal and ready-made," and was unable to respond to the personal questions of the faithful. This opinion is enunciated by a prince of the Church whose function it is to safeguard the purity of the doctrine of the Faith! Why, then, should anyone be surprised at the current disastrous crisis of Catholicism, or seek to attribute it to the world, when those who should be the defenders of the Faith, and hence of genuine Catholic thought, are like sewers drinking in the filth, or like gardeners who cut down a tree they are supposed to be nurturing? What can it mean to stigmatize St. Thomas as having a "too impersonal and ready-made" logic? Is logic "personal"? These assertions reveal, in the person who makes them, a typically Protestant, pietist attitude, like that found in those who seek the rule of faith in personal interior sentiment.
In the two years Ratzinger spent at the diocesan seminary of Freising, he studied literature, music, modern philosophy, and he felt drawn towards the new existentialist and modernist theologies. He did not like St. Thomas Aquinas. The formation described does not correspond to the exclusively Catholic formation that is necessary to one called to be a priest, even taking into account the extenuating circumstances of the time, that is, anti-Christian Nazism, the war and defeat, and the secularization of studies within seminaries. It seems that His Eminence, with all due respect, gave too much place to profane culture, with its "openness" to everything, and its critical attitude...Joseph Ratzinger loved the professors who asked many questions, but disliked those who defended dogma with the crystal-clear logic of St. Thomas. This attitude would seem to us to match his manner of understanding Catholic liturgy. He tells us that from childhood he was always attracted to the liturgical movement and was sympathetic towards it. One can see that for him, the liturgy was a matter of feeling, a lived experience, an aesthetically pleasing "Erlebnis," but fundamentally irrational (op. cit. passim.). (The Memories of a Destructive Mind: Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger's Milestones.)
Anglicans have a nice, dignified "liturgy." It is irrelevant to Ratzinger/Benedict that that liturgy expresses a "faith" that is heretical and against which thousands upon thousands of Catholics willingly shed their blood. His "Anglican initiative" defames these brave and stalwart English Martyrs.
In the midst of the incredible apostasies taking place before our very eyes, we must, as always, have recourse to Our Lady, especially in this month of October, as we pray as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit and as we keep her company in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and in our time in fervent prayer before her Divine Son's Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament. She will help us to cleave only to true bishops and to true priests who make absolutely no concessions to the abominable apostasies and blasphemies and sacrileges of conciliarism or to the nonexistent legitimacy of its "popes" and "bishops" who offend God so boldly, so openly and so brazenly--and with the full support and admiring approval of most of the world's baptized Catholics.
While each person must come to recognize this for himself (it took me long enough to do so; I defended the indefensible for far too long!), we must nevertheless embrace the truth once we do come to recognize and accept it without caring for one moment what anyone else may think about us as we make reparation for our sins and those of the whole world as the consecrated slaves of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through His Most Blessed Mother's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart.
We can never grow accustomed to defaming our martyrs. We can never grow accustomed to offenses given to God by the conciliar "popes" and their conciliar "bishops." We must cleave to the Catholic Church, not to the counterfeit church of conciliarism as we attempt to plant the seeds for the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
What are we waiting for?
Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?
Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.
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.
Saints Simon and Jude, pray for us.
See also: A Litany of Saints
Would the Great Saints of Old
Recognize the Catholic Church of Today?
From the book The Destruction of the Christian Tradition, by Rama P. Coomaraswamy,
who converted from Brahmanic Hinduism to Roman Catholicism.
The entire book is available online at this link, from which the below excerpt was taken:
Two Churches Compared
(section from the "Conclusion" of the book)
It should be abundantly clear that the 'New' and 'post-Conciliar' Church is both strikingly new and strikingly different from the Church as it has existed through the ages. The old Church was and is unabashedly 'triumphant,' felt it had the fullness of the truth and proclaimed it with a 'militarism' that seemed at times both offensive and arrogant. The new Church, having achieved an Aggiornamento with the modern world, is more 'open,' 'gentle,' 'lovable,' and 'accommodating;' it is one that is 'free of mediaeval rigorism' and 'makes no demands.' The traditional Church saw its function as one of teaching Mankind the truths entrusted to by Christ as 'a precious pearl' by Christ; the new Church is trying 'to define itself' and proclaims it is seeking the truth along with the rest of mankind. The old Church called those who disagreed with her teachings on even a single point 'heretics' while the new Church sees them, even if they deny the very existence of God, as 'separated brethren' having equal 'access to the Community of salvation,' and hence seeks to 'dialogue' with them 'on an equal footing.'
In a similar manner, the old Church saw itself as 'static' and unchanging while the new Church considers itself 'progressive,' 'evolutionary' and 'dynamic.' Hence where the old Church claimed to exist in saecula saeculorum -throughout the ages, the new one repeatedly emphasizes her 'contemporaneous' character and proclaims in the words of her 'popes' that she represents a 'new Advent,' a 'new Epiphany' and a 'new Pentecost'. In a similar manner, where the old Church saw herself (as distinct from her members) as a perfect society - the spotless 'Bride of Christ,' the new one declares she has 'the mark of Cain' stamped upon her forehead, and that she has been deficient in her doctrinal teachings.
Where the old Church saw man as created in the image of God, but deformed and stained with original sin, the new Church sees him as having progressed from some primitive condition, as ever advancing towards some higher state of existence, as more mature, more informed and hence as more intelligent than his predecessors. Where the old Church saw man's dignity as dependent upon his conforming himself to his divine prototype, the new Church declared man was dignified by his very nature. The consequences of this shift are enormous. Where the former view sees man's intellect as clouded by his 'fall,' and hence in need of a Revelation in order to know the truth, the new one declares that man is himself, because of his innate dignity, the source of truth, and that he is, in religious matters, 'to be his own judge.' (This is what 'Religious Liberty' is all about.) But if man is no longer envisioned as fallen in nature and possessed of a 'clouded' intellect, he has no need for Redemption and for a Revelation to know the truth. The 'fall' has been replaced by an 'Ascendency,' and man instead of God becomes the source of truth.
The old Church saw its function as facilitating every individual soul's entry into heaven. She encouraged the faithful to strive for personal perfection: 'be ye perfect even as your Father in heaven is perfect.' The new Church while not denying such (that is not her way, for as John XXIII said, 'the Church should not be against anything.') stresses her obligation and desire to be of 'service and fellowship' to the world, of helping mankind to 'to be more human,' and of fostering those elements in the world which are leading towards 'wholesome socialization,' a 'universal culture,' and a 'new humanism.' Her 'internal mission' is one of 'uniting' mankind so that all men of good will can work together towards some utopian future in this world. For her salvation inevitably becomes a 'communitarian' rather than an individual affair. This has its reflection on the social and political plane. Where the old Church was unequivocally against Marxism in all its forms, the new Church clearly favors Socialism and Communism. Where the old Church desired a theocracy in which the spiritual authority, vested in the Papacy, cooperated with the State in the governance of the world, the new one favors some kind of world government under the United Nations or some parallel secular organization. The 'future above' has been replaced by the 'ahead below.' Supernaturalism is replaced by Naturalism, the Kingship of Christ by that of the Kingship of Man.
Similar shifts in attitude occurred in liturgical areas. Where the old Church wished by means of her rites to make the sacred present to man, the new one desires to declare that man himself is intrinsically 'sacred.' This is why in the new 'mass' the priest turns away from God and towards the congregation. This is why the old liturgy 'accommodated' itself to God, while the new one, according to Paul VI 'accommodates' itself to modern man. This is why the old Church so carefully preserved the manner of prayer established for her by Christ and the Apostles, while the new one prefers a liturgy written by a Freemason with the help of non-Catholic 'observers.' In the old Church nothing was more sacred than the Words of Consecration used in the Mass and bestowed on her in detail (in specie) by Christ Himself. In the new Church these words were changed - the very words of Christ were altered, thus rendering the 'Confection' of the Sacred Species dubious if not invalid. All the changes make man rather than God the 'ontological' center of the action. Altars turned into tables, Sacristies into naves, priests into presidents and the true immolative Sacrifice into a Protestant 'memorial.' Similar changes for similar reasons have been made in all the other sacraments. And in order to minimize the possibility of a return to sanity, the new Church has so drastically changed the rite of Episcopal Ordination as to render the Apostolic Succession itself most dubious. Where the old Church was surrounded with the beauty and the mystery of the sacred, the new has has surrounded herself with the ugliness and banality of modern man.
The Destruction of the Christian Tradition, Updated and Revised, by Rama P. Coomaraswamy, 2006, World Wisdom Inc., www.worldwisdom.com. This selection from the book was taken from the web link cited above.