Defining One's Enemies
by Thomas A. Droleskey
Those who do not see in others the image and likeness of the Most Blessed Trinity and/or who believe in the "salvific" power of the myths of nationalism or of some secular, naturalistic ideology or philosophy resort all too frequently to the use of various devices, including sloganeering, to attempt to define and thus to discredit their enemies. These exercise in propagandizing, although they have been refined in our modern age of instant mass communications, are nothing new. Indeed, the Sophists, that party of relativists who contended, in contradistinction to Socrates, that truth was relative, not absolute, used such slogans as the means to advance their relativism in the Fifth Century before Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ:
"It is as though we had returned to the age of Protagoras and the Sophists, the age when the art of persuasion--whose modern equivalent is advertising slogans, publicity, propaganda meetings, the press, the cinema, and radio--took the place of thought and controlled the fate of cities and accomplished coups d'etat. So the ninth book of Plato's Republic looks like a description of contemporary events." (Simone Weil, quoted in Russell Kirk, The Roots of American Order.)
Philosopher Simone Weil (1909-1943) was confused about many things, and died, tragically, without being baptized after she rejected her attraction to Catholicism. She was, however, able see by the light of natural reason in the 1930s the simple fact that "advertising slogans, publicity, propaganda meetings, the press, the cinema, and radio--took the place of thought and controlled the fate of cities."
Sloganeering, which can be defined as an attempt to stop all rational thought on an issue by the utterance of a word or a phrase that is supposed command the immediate assent of all to whom the slogan is addressed, was revived during the Renaissance as various philosophes (pseudo-philosophers) attempted to drive a wedge between the true Faith and popular culture. Sloganeering picked up greater strength during the Protestant Revolt ("salvation by faith alone, "sola Scriptura," "no intermediary needed between God and man," etc.), becoming a true art form by the time of the American and French Revolutions.
Citizens of the United States of America who believe that slogans are only the stuff of the French and Bolshevik Revolutions and Nazism ought to consider the fact that the very term "patriotism" was perverted by those supporting the American Revolution into a test of whether those living in the thirteen original states were "loyal" to the cause of independence from the British Crown. Slogans have been used throughout the course of American history to attempt to silence unwanted political dissent in this land of supposed "civil" liberty. The slogan of "Americanism" was used very openly after the entry of the United States of America into World War I on April 6, 1917, so as to signify that anyone opposed to then President Thomas Woodrow Wilson's well-calculated decision to use the then-called "Great War" or "World War" as a means of "making the world safe for democracy" was not a true "patriot."
Slogan after slogan is used today throughout a popular culture corrupted by the after-effects of the Protestant Revolt and the rise of Judeo-Masonry, replete with a civil state founded upon false, naturalistic, religiously indifferentist, anti-Incarnational and semi-Pelagian principles. "Choice," "diversity," "tolerance." and "diversity" are just some of the buzzwords that are used by various naturalists of the false opposite of the "left" to silence those who are not so "enlightened" as to accept the "infallible" pronouncements of the secular magisterium. These slogans are used in public and conciliar schools. They are used in American courtrooms. They are used in political discourse. And they are used by various naturalists of the false opposite of "right," mostly without their even knowing it.
The Soviets used all manner of slogans during the Cold War to convince left-leaning Americans and Europeans that anyone who opposed their wars of "national liberation" in the Third World or who criticized Marxism was an enemy of "peace" and "peaceful coexistence." The Soviets and their propagandists in the United States of America wanted to "define" opposition to Soviet expansionism as a "threat" to world peace and to portray Western leaders as "Cold Warrior" war mongers who were the true threats to the world. The Soviet propaganda machine was alive and well in the United States of America right through the apparent "collapse" of the Soviet empire in 1989 and 1991. As I explained to my classes in the 1970s and 1980s, "Yes, the Soviets do indeed want 'piece.' They want a 'piece' of Virginia. They want a 'piece' of North Carolina. They want a 'piece' of New York." The students got the point.
(Oh, yes, I was accused by leftist colleagues frequently of being "unscholarly" for criticizing Marxism. They could criticize the true Faith no end. I was being "unscholarly" for mocking Marxism after critiquing its inherent flaws. One of these lefties, a man who despised me greatly--he's got lots of company these days, was in need of a batch of "blue books" to distribute to his students during final examinations. He came into my classroom as I was giving my own final examination to an American National Government course. When the fellow asked for some blue books, however, a student, who met her future husband at a pizza party that I had once hosted, piped up from the back of the classroom and said the following, "We don't have any blue books. We've got pink books just for you!" My colleague was not amused. Although my student spoke out of turn, I must admit that it was hard to contain my desire to burst out laughing. All right, all right. I am a fallen creature, you know.)
Former President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton was a poor sloganeer. His verbosity kept getting in the way of the neatly-coined and easily-repeated phrase. He was, however, very good at "defining" his political enemies. Helped by his on-again/off-again political consultant Dick Morris, Clinton "defined" efforts by the Republican-controlled Congress in 1995 to slash the rate of growth in Federal expenditure as an absolute cut in the amount of money spent by the Federal government. Consider his most misleading statement of November 14, 1995:
Five months ago I proposed my balanced budget plan. It balances the budget in the right way. It cuts hundreds of wasteful and outdated programs, but it upholds our fundamental values -- to provide opportunity, to respect our obligations to our parents and our children, to strengthen families and to strengthen America -- because it preserves Medicare and Medicaid, it invests in education and technology, it protects the environment, and it gives the tax cuts to working families for child rearing and for education. Unfortunately, Republican leaders in Washington have put ideology ahead of common sense and shared values in their pursuit of a budget plan.
We can balance the budget without doing what they seek to do. We can balance the budget without the deep cuts in education, without the deep cuts in the environment, without letting Medicare wither on the vine, without imposing tax increases on the hardest-pressed working families in America. I am fighting for a balanced budget that is good for America and consistent with our values. If they'll give me the tools, I'll balance the budget.
I vetoed the spending bill sent to me by Congress last night because America can never accept under pressure what it would not accept in free and open debate. I strongly believe their budget plan is bad for America. I believe it will undermine opportunity, make it harder for families to do the work that they have to do, weaken our obligations to our parents and our children, and make our country more divided. So I will continue to fight for the right kind of balanced budget.
Remember, the Republicans are following a very explicit strategy announced last April by Speaker Gingrich, to use the threat of a government shutdown to force America to accept their cuts in Medicare and Medicaid, to accept their cuts in education and technology and the environment.
Yesterday they sent me legislation that said -- we will only keep the government going, and we will only let it pay its debts if and only if we accept their cuts in Medicare, their cuts in education, their cuts in the environment, and their repeal of 25 years of bipartisan commitments to protect the environment and public health.
On behalf of the American people, I said no. If America has to close down access to education, to a clean environment, to affordable health care, to keep our government open, then the price is too high.
My message to Congress is simple -- you say you want to balance the budget, so let's say yes to balancing the budget, but let us together say no to these deep and unwise cuts in education, technology, the environment, Medicare and Medicaid. Let's say no to raising taxes on the hardest- pressed working families in America. These things are not necessary to balancing the budget. Yes to balancing the budget, no to the cuts.
I know the loss of government service will cause disruption in the lives of millions of Americans. We will do our very best to minimize this hardship. But there is, after all, a simple solution to the problem. All Congress has to do is to pass a straightforward bill to let government perform its duties and pay its debts. Then we can get back to work and resolve our differences over the budget in an open, honest, and straightforward manner.
Before I conclude, I'd like to say a word to the hundreds of thousands of federal employees who will be affected by this partial shutdown.
I know, as your fellow citizens know, that the people who are affected by this shutdown are public servants. They're the people who process our Social Security applications, help our veterans apply for benefits, care for the national parks that are our natural heritage. They conduct the medical research that saves people's lives. They are important to America, and they deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. I will do everything I can to see that they receive back pay and that their families do not suffer because of this. (Text of Clinton government shutdown address.)
This was pure demagoguery, something at which Bill Clinton still excels. As Clinton's former press secretary "Dee Dee" Myers, who served in the White House from 1993 to 1994, later admitted, Clinton knew that Republicans were not (most unfortunately, I should note) "slashing" Federal spending. They were merely proposing reducing the rate of increase in Federal spending on certain entitlement programs in comparison to those that had been projected by the Clinton administration's Office of Management and Budget. Clinton was most successful in his efforts to portray Republicans as "mean-spirited" "partisans" who wanted to starve the elderly and poison the environment. The man, who is the quintessential poster boy for shamelessness, was shameless in the lies he told with such passion and conviction. Republicans never really recovered from Clinton's defining of them in late-1995, and he mopped the floor with the inarticulate thirty-third degree Mason named Robert Joseph Dole, Jr., in the presidential election on November 5, 1996.
Former President George Walker Bush attempted used the tragic events of September 11, 2001, as a pretext to launch is "Global War on Terror," which gave the neoconservative "nation-builders" in his administration the opportunity to plan for the invasion of Iraq on March 20, 2003. Those opposed to the "Global War on Terror" and to the invasion of Iraq were portrayed by Bush's allies as being "naive" about the "threat" posed by Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and his alleged stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. Bush demagogically attempted to claim that those opposed to his Iraq policies were "undermining" our troops there, heedless of the fact that those of us who opposed his madness did not want our troops placed in harm's way in a war that did involve any legitimate national security interests of the United States of America.
Trained in the methodology of the late Marxist organizer and agitator, Saul Alinsky, President Barack Hussein Obama, is portraying himself as a "post-partisan" leader, one who "rises above" the partisanship that defined the Bill Clinton and George Walker Bush years. He has defined a "good Republican" as one who is willing to "work" him. Translation: a good, "post-partisan" Republican is one who agrees that spending nearly $800 billion on programs that are nowhere authorized in any provision of the Constitution of the United States of America is an "imperative" for "stimulating" the United States economy, which is simply suffering--along with the economies of other "developed" nations--because of the large debt of sin that is owed to God (see A Country Full of Boiled Frogs). Obama has found three such "good," "post-partisan" Republicans in the United States Senate: Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Susan Collins and Olympia Snow of Maine.
As one who wears the scars of many battles in the halls of academe, my friends, I can tell you that naturalists of the false opposite of the "left" spare no efforts at all to "define" anyone who dissents from the "received truth" of the leftist brand of naturalism as being outside of the "mainstream" of thought. Those who support various evils are considered to be "moderate" or "progressive" in their approach to social problems. Those who oppose contraception and abortion and perversity must be branded as "intolerant, "divisive," "bigoted, "judgmental." Those who oppose the false ideology of evolutionism are dismissed as "religious zealots" who can't recognize the "facts" of science. Those who support a confessionally Catholic state, few in number that we are, are "theocrats" (the confessionally Catholic state is not a theocracy, which is a system where ecclesiastical offices hold and exercise civil power) who pose a grave "threat" to the welfare of students.
This effort to "define" and thus to marginalize one's enemies is common also to ecclesiastical revolutionaries. The lords of the counterfeit church of concilairism themselves have been very successful in defining traditionally-minded Catholics as enemies of the Faith. This effort has been led by "bishops" at the diocesan level in the conciliar structures, aided and abetted by a ready slew of "priests," religious, lay teachers, seminary and university professors and "progressive" lay commentators and columnists. The standard of being "Catholic" for these agents of the doctrinal and liturgical revolutions of conciliarism is a complete and uncritical acceptance of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service and of the major apostasies of the "Second" Vatican Council and the false "pontiffs (the new ecclesiology, false ecumenism, inter-religious "dialogue" and prayer services, religious liberty, separation of Church and State, episcopal collegiality, the 1983 "Code of Canon Law").
Great care has been taken to "create" a false "memory" of the "past" so as to justify the novelties and abominations and apostasies and sacrileges of the past forty years. How many ordinary, well-meaning Catholics have been convinced into believing that the "old Mass" was not "understandable," that they in the laity had no "role" to play in the Church, that it was "wrong" for the Church to assert that she had all of the answers to life, that it was wrong for popes and bishops and priests of the past to assert that doctrine is unchanging and that the Sacred Liturgy must convey the beauty of that unchanging doctrine in a spirit of solemnity and reverence?
Indeed, a conciliar "bishop" for whom I worked twenty years ago as his communications director, the late James S. Sullivan, said to me in 1999 when I (an indulterer at the time, of course, who thought that the establishment of the seminary of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter in Denton, Nebraska, was a positive sign) was attempting to convince him of the necessity of restoring the Immemorial Mass of Tradition, "That Mass was never meant to come back!" Although I was still drafting material for "Bishop" Sullivan up to that point, I could no longer do so after that conversation. Here was a man who spent much time in prayer before what he believed was the Blessed Sacrament, a man who was devoted to the Mother of God and her Fatima Message. He was, however, thoroughly convinced of the doctrinal and liturgical revolutions wrought by conciliarism and had a hatred for "that" Mass.
This hostility for the Immemorial Mass of Tradition is on display currently as "progressive" "bishops" in the conciliar structures fail to recognize that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, a progenitor and chief apologist of all things conciliar, is attempting to institutionalize the conciliar revolution by neutralizing any opposition thereto from traditionally-minded Catholics. These "progressives" speak in terms of a complete break from the past (see
Continuity Plus Discontinuity Will Always Equal Insanity) without realizing that Ratzinger is trying to save the revolution by claiming that no break occurred at all since we have yet to "arrive" at a "full" understanding of the "Second" Vatican Council.
The philosophically absurd and dogmatically-condemned thesis advanced by Ratzinger's "hermeneutic of continuity and discontinuity" is an effort to claim that the "Second" Vatican Council was, despite some innovations here and there, "faithful" to the Tradition of the Catholic Church. Ratzinger is using the full weight of his false "pontificate" to convince traditionally-minded Catholics of this proposition, using the methodological tools provided by the condemned precepts of the New Theology to make Saint Paul and Saint Augustine and other Fathers of the Church "witnesses" in behalf of a "hermeneutic of continuity and discontinuity." Ratzinger/Benedict believes that he can convince enough traditionally-minded Catholics of this philosophically absurd and theologically condemned thesis to silence them permanently about objections to the Novus Ordo and such matters as religious liberty and separation of Church and State.
Ratzinger/Benedict believes that the only ones who refuse to accept the "hermeneutic of continuity and discontinuity" are the "progressives" who have spoken for years of the conciliar revolution as a rejection of the Catholic past and those faithful Catholics who recognize that it is impossible to reconcile apostasy with the Faith, which is why he seeks to marginalize the latter before being able to reassure his fellow revolutionaries that the revolution is safe from internal opposition for the foreseeable future. Even if, as some reports seem to indicate, only Bishop Bernard Fellay and those who follow him are to be "reconciled" fully as members of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, that will be sufficient for Ratzinger/Benedict to convince the "progressives" that there will be "peace in our times" as the various planks of the One World Church are cemented into place. Ratzinger/Benedict has used the entirety of his career to redefine the Catholic Faith, to find that "synthesis of faith" that will appeal to the mythical entity known as "modern man."
To be sure, Ratzinger/Benedict, rejecting the clarity and consistency of Scholasticism, says contradictory things, sometimes in the context of the same article. As noted on this site ten months ago, New Oxford Review, whose editors reject sedevacantism, had a very frank and honest assessment of the contradictions inherent in the writings of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI:
In Cardinal Ratzinger’s Values in a Time of Upheaval, he muddies up his phrase [the dictatorship of relativism]; indeed, he reverses his position. He says, “The modem concept of democracy seems indissolubly linked to that of relativism.” Well, well! But then he backtracks: “This means that a basic element of truth, namely, ethical truth, is indispensable to democracy.” But then he backtracks again: “We do not want the State to impose one particular idea of the good on us. ... Truth is controversial, and the attempt to impose on all persons what one part of the citizenry holds to be true looks like enslavement of people’s consciences.” And he says this on the same page!
Yes, we know: Some of our readers feel that the Pope is above all criticism; he cannot make a mistake, even in his previous writings. But what he has written here is contradictory and inscrutable.
Ratzinger says, “The relativists ...[are] flirting with totalitarianism even though they seek to establish the primacy of freedom ...” Huh?
So, what is he saying? “The State is not itself the source of truth and morality.... Accordingly, the State must receive from outside itself the essential measure of knowledge and truth with regard to that which is good. ... The Church remains outside’ the State. ... The Church must exert itself with all its vigor so that in it there may shine forth moral truth ...”
Then he says, “Conscience is the highest norm [italics in original] and ... and one must follow it even against authority. When authority - in this case the Church’s Magisterium - speaks on matters of morality, it supplies the material that helps the conscience form its own judgment, but ultimately it is only conscience that has the last word.” A Contradictory Definition of Relativism (See also: Cardinal Ratzinger's Subjectivism.)
That is, it is a vain exercise to seek to find clarity of though in the mind of a man who rejects Scholasticism, the official philosophy of the Catholic Church, and who does not realize how many times he contradicts himself and presents the Faith, which is something sure and clear, in the form of one paradox after another.
Pope Saint Pius X noted the contradictory--or "double-minded"--nature of the Modernist in Pascendi Dominic Gregis, September 8, 1907:
This will appear more clearly to anybody who studies the conduct of Modernists, which is in perfect harmony with their teachings. In their writings and addresses they seem not unfrequently to advocate doctrines which are contrary one to the other, so that one would be disposed to regard their attitude as double and doubtful. But this is done deliberately and advisedly, and the reason of it is to be found in their opinion as to the mutual separation of science and faith. Thus in their books one finds some things which might well be approved by a Catholic, but on turning over the page one is confronted by other things which might well have been dictated by a rationalist. When they write history they make no mention of the divinity of Christ, but when they are in the pulpit they profess it clearly; again, when they are dealing with history they take no account of the Fathers and the Councils, but when they catechize the people, they cite them respectfully. In the same way they draw their distinctions between exegesis which is theological and pastoral and exegesis which is scientific and historical. So, too, when they treat of philosophy, history, and criticism, acting on the principle that science in no way depends upon faith, they feel no especial horror in treading in the footsteps of Luther and are wont to display a manifold contempt for Catholic doctrines, for the Holy Fathers, for the Ecumenical Councils, for the ecclesiastical magisterium; and should they be taken to task for this, they complain that they are being deprived of their liberty. Lastly, maintaining the theory that faith must be subject to science, they continuously and openly rebuke the Church on the ground that she resolutely refuses to submit and accommodate her dogmas to the opinions of philosophy; while they, on their side, having for this purpose blotted out the old theology, endeavor to introduce a new theology which shall support the aberrations of philosophers.
Anyone who cannot admit that this describes Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is not examining his writings honestly. The currently reigning head of the counterfeit church of conciliarism has at varying times criticized Gaudium et Spes, the "pastoral constitution on the Church and the world" issued by the "Second" Vatican Council on December 7, 1965, as having a semi-Pelagian flavor to it (which it does) while also praising it approvingly as a "countersyllabus" of errors, meaning that Pope Pius IX was wrong to have issued The Syllabus of Errors on December 8, 1864. (Only fatigue prevents me at this point from dredging up quotes from out-of-print books that discuss Ratzinger's praise of Gaudium et Spes as a "countersyllabus" of errors.) Thus it is that Ratzinger/Benedict approves of Gaudium et Spes's efforts to correct and nullify The Syllabus of Errors, which is nothing other than an effort to redefine the Catholic Faith while disparaging the work of God the Holy Ghost in the pontificate of Pope Pius IX:
Let us be content to say here that the text [of Gaudium et Spes] serves as a countersyllabus and, as such, represents on the part of the Church, an attempt at an official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789. Only from this perspective can we understand, on the one hand, the ghetto-mentality, of which we have spoken above; only from this perspective can we understand, on the other hand, the meaning of the remarkable meeting of the Church and the world. Basically, the word "world" means the spirit of the modern era, in contrast to which the Church's group-consciousness saw itself as a separate subject that now, after a war that had been in turn both hot and cold, was intent on dialogue and cooperation. (Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, p. 382.)
Does this mean that the Council should be revoked? Certainly not. It means only that the real reception of the Council has not yet even begun. What devastated the Church in the decade after the Council was not the Council but the refusal to accept it. This becomes clear precisely in the history of the influence of Gaudium et spes. What was identified with the Council was, for the most part, the expression of an attitude that did not coincide with the statements to be found in the text itself, although it is recognizable as a tendency in its development and in some of its individual formulations. The task is not, therefore, to suppress the Council but to discover the real Council and to deepen its true intention in the light of the present experience. That means that there can be no return to the Syllabus, which may have marked the first stage in the confrontation with liberalism and a newly conceived Marxism but cannot be the last stage. In the long run, neither embrace nor ghetto can solve for Christians the problem of the modern world. The fact is, as Hans Urs von Balthasar pointed out as early as 1952, that the "demolition of the bastions" is a long-overdue task. (Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, p. 391.)
Pope Leo XIII taught us in Custodi di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892, that can be no "reconciliation" between the principles of the Revolution and the Faith:
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 Pius VIII, writing in his one only encyclical letter, Traditi Humilitate Nostrae, May 24, 1829, during his very brief pontificate warned us about those such as Hans Urs von Balthasar who sought to "raze" the foundations of the Church:
Although God may console Us with you, We are nonetheless sad. This is due to the numberless errors and the teachings of perverse doctrines which, no longer secretly and clandestinely but openly and vigorously, attack the Catholic faith. You know how evil men have raised the standard of revolt against religion through philosophy (of which they proclaim themselves doctors) and through empty fallacies devised according to natural reason. In the first place, the Roman See is assailed and the bonds of unity are, every day, being severed. The authority of the Church is weakened and the protectors of things sacred are snatched away and held in contempt. The holy precepts are despised, the celebration of divine offices is ridiculed, and the worship of God is cursed by the sinner. All things which concern religion are relegated to the fables of old women and the superstitions of priests. Truly lions have roared in Israel. With tears We say: "Truly they have conspired against the Lord and against His Christ." Truly the impious have said: "Raze it, raze it down to its foundations."
Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's efforts to redefine the Catholic Faith meet with the approval of the ancient enemies of the Faith, the deniers of the one and only Holocaust, who believe that the only "good" Catholic is one who assents to Nostra Aetate, issued by the "Second" Vatican Council on October 28, 1965, and who believes with the conciliar "pontiffs" that a Jewish reading of the Bible is a "possible one," believing also that there is no necessity whatsoever to seek with urgency their conversion to the Catholic Church. After all, the "Shoah" has changed all of that, right? The mission that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ gave to the Apostles to convert every man and nation in the whole world has been altered as a result of the "Shoah." Those who do not realize this are "anti-Semites" who must be denounced as "bad," "dissenting" Catholics by Talmudic organizations, whose leaders arrogate unto themselves who is considered to be an "acceptable" Catholic, thus defining Catholicism as a religion that is "tolerant" of their denial of the Sacred Divinity of the One Who offered Himself up as a Holocaust for our sins to His Co-Eternal and Co-Equal Father in Spirit and in Truth on the wood of the Holy Cross.
Rabbi David Rosen, International Director of Interreligious Affairs for the American Jewish Committee and the
Honorary President of the International Jewish Vegetarian and Ecology Society, told Cable News Network (CNN) the following recently:
"I certainly would have wished that we would not have had this in the first place," said Rabbi David Rosen, international director of interreligious affairs for the American Jewish Committee.
"It has done both damage and a service. It has left a perception that not all is well within Rome as far as Catholic-Jewish relations," he said. "But in substance you have seen an amazing rallying of Catholic bishops, Catholic congressmen, all essentially rallying to Vatican II. The boil has been lanced and the poison cannot pass through." ( Jews Outraged over Holocaust denier.)
Yes, the ancient enemies of the Catholic Faith believe that "rallying to Vatican II," which enshrined the Judeo-Masonic ethos of "brotherhood" in the place of the Catholic Church's mission to seek with urgency the conversion of men and nations to the true Faith, is the "inoculation" that Catholics need to prevent any "recidivism" of the "old teaching" that have been "discarded" or "updated" by the ethos of conciliarism. The only "safe" Catholic is one who accepts the "Second" Vatican Council and the Novus Ordo en toto. The only "safe" Catholic is one who rejects the dogmatic truths that were reiterated by Pope Saint Pius X to Theodore Herzl, the founder of international Zionism, in the Apostolic Palace on the Feast of the Conversion of Saint Paul, January 25, 1904:
POPE: We are unable to favor this movement [of Zionism]. We cannot prevent the Jews from going to Jerusalem—but we could never sanction it. The ground of Jerusalem, if it were not always sacred, has been sanctified by the life of Jesus Christ. As the head of the Church I cannot answer you otherwise. The Jews have not recognized our Lord, therefore we cannot recognize the Jewish people.
HERZL: [The conflict between Rome and Jerusalem, represented by the one and the other of us, was once again under way. At the outset I tried to be conciliatory. I said my little piece. . . . It didn’t greatly impress him. Jerusalem was not to be placed in Jewish hands.] And its present status, Holy Father?
POPE: I know, it is disagreeable to see the Turks in possession of our Holy Places. We simply have to put up with it. But to sanction the Jewish wish to occupy these sites, that we cannot do.
HERZL: [I said that we based our movement solely on the sufferings of the Jews, and wished to put aside all religious issues].
POPE: Yes, but we, but I as the head of the Catholic Church, cannot do this. One of two things will likely happen. Either the Jews will retain their ancient faith and continue to await the Messiah whom we believe has already appeared—in which case they are denying the divinity of Jesus and we cannot assist them. Or else they will go there with no religion whatever, and then we can have nothing at all to do with them. The Jewish faith was the foundation of our own, but it has been superceded by the teachings of Christ, and we cannot admit that it still enjoys any validity. The Jews who should have been the first to acknowledge Jesus Christ have not done so to this day.
HERZL: [It was on the tip of my tongue to remark, “It happens in every family: no one believes in his own relative.” But, instead, I said:] Terror and persecution were not precisely the best means for converting the Jews. [His reply had an element of grandeur in its simplicity:]
POPE: Our Lord came without power. He came in peace. He persecuted no one. He was abandoned even by his apostles. It was only later that he attained stature. It took three centuries for the Church to evolve. The Jews therefore had plenty of time in which to accept his divinity without duress or pressure. But they chose not to do so, and they have not done it yet.
This "defining" of what it is to be a Catholic is only a temporary victory for the devil. The final victory belongs to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. The true Faith has taken a beating in recent decades as the Church Militant on earth has undergone her Mystical Passion, Death and Burial. She will rise again, however, more glorious and strong as ever before.
In the meantime, of course, we must cleave exclusively to true bishops and true priests who make no concessions whatsoever to conciliarism or to the nonexistent legitimacy of its false shepherds who have, much like the scions of Modernity in civil governments and in the halls of academe, defined their enemies in pejorative terms. Oh, yes, we will be hated and calumniated and scorned and subjected to all manner of humiliation as we entrust our souls to these true shepherds who are not "una cum" Benedict XVI. Deo gratias!
Although we are not one, solitary whit better than those Catholics who have yet to recognize the apostasies of the moment and that those who defect from the Faith cannot hold ecclesiastical office in the Catholic Church legitimately, we must nevertheless be grateful to Our Lord and Our Lady for leading us to true shepherds to guide us home to them in Heaven. Every Rosary we pray as His consecrated slaves through her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart will help us to make reparation for our sins, which are indeed very responsible for the problems in the Church Militant on earth and in the world, and for those of the whole world as we attempt to plant a few seeds for the day when all men, including those who are at present deniers of the one and only Holocaust and including as well their enablers in the conciliar church, will exclaim:
Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!