False Doctrine, Father Pfluger?
by Thomas A. Droleskey
Father Niklaus Pfluger, the first Assistant of the Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X, Bishop Bernard Fellay, gave a two-hour conference on the Third Sunday of Easter, Sunday, April 29, 2012, in Hattersheim, Hesse, Germany. A summary of this conference has been published on the Rorate Caeli blogspot:
Nothing new – that is how one could describe the first half hour of the conference given by Fr. Niklaus Pfluger at this year’s Spes-Unica-Sunday: the First Assistant of the Superior General of the SSPX recalled once more how the relationship with Rome has developed in recent years.
But then the conference hall in Hattersheim (Germany) got more and more excited as Fr. Pfluger unexpectedly started to unveil the events of the past years up until now. And he also announced that these events prompted Bishop Fellay to place aside the principle that guided negotiations with Rome.
The Pope’s desire of a solution
“No practical solution without doctrinal agreement” – such was the principle upon which the Society had started the talks with the Holy See. But the negotiations of the past years have revealed that the different positions regarding central questions of doctrine cannot be bridged.
Recent weeks have revealed that the Pope is so much interested in a canonical solution for the Society that he is ready to seal a deal, even if the Society does not recognize the disputed texts of Vatican II and the New Mass. Would the Society, however, refuse an agreement even under these circumstances, then new excommunications are a possible outcome.
The freedom to continue working in freedom
Under these circumstances the Superior General, Bishop Bernard Fellay, does not consider it possible to reject the Pope’s proposal. It would be tantamount to a lapse into Sedevacantism if one would still isolate oneself from the Pope’s wish, if this wish does not entail acknowledging false doctrine. It also is a matter of prudence/wisdom not to cut all connections with Rome. One should keep at least one door open, even if at this moment there seems to be no proximity in doctrinal matters.
It is, of course, a pre-condition that an agreement will cover the assurance that the Society will be able to disagree from Rome’s positions in disputed matters and that it will have the freedom to continue her work in her entire apostolate. Part of an autonomous status would also be the right to criticize the Council and Modernism.
The offer to Archbishop Lefebvre and historical parallels
By way of support for Bishop Fellay’s decision Fr. Pfluger recalled the way of action of Archbishop Lefebvre in 1987 and 1988. At that time the Archbishop proposed a far-reaching proposal for an agreement with which he wanted to arrive at a pragmatic interim solution which would have benefited the whole Church. The arrangement that the Archbishop was willing to sign at that time demanded far more concessions from the Society than what Pope Benedict demands at the moment.
Moreover, one has to realize how much false doctrines have spread throughout the Church. Even if a theological conciliation between Rome and the Fraternity would have been achieved, it could not be expected that by a word of command from the Pope all false doctrines would suddenly disappear from the face of the earth. Fr. Pfluger points to parallels in the history of the church: after the condemnation of Arianism, this false doctrine was still spread widely for quite some time, in some regions even for many decades. And even fifty years after the Council of Trent, the Archbishop of Milan asks Rome for advice, for almost all of his clergy have wives and children. What is he to do? – The response from Rome shows how the church reacts with wisdom and common sense in such situations: if he cannot replace the clergy, then he simply has to keep it.
The relentless reinforcing of Tradition
The acknowledgement of the Society would, after all, be an official confirmation of the importance of Tradition, something that would be very important and influential throughout the Church. And it would rectify the injustice of her stigmatization. Is there not a danger of hostile local bishops using the arrangement to fight and impede further working of the Fraternity? – Against this foreseeable argument the First Assistant holds the development of recent years: the movement in the direction of Tradition – and mainly the wish of young priests to say the Old Mass – has become unstoppable, despite intimidation and oppression. In fact, this movement is now so strong that the Fraternity will be able to resist such claims from modernist Bishops. (Rorate Caeli.)
If the "fat lady" has not sung, as some believe will never be the case, perhaps without being able to admit that it's not the 1980s anymore, she is rehearsing for her final performance of the decades-long opera of the saga of the Society of Saint Pius X and the revolutionaries in the counterfeit church of conciliarism. Might there be a chance that things could go awry? Well, the ancient enemies of Christ the King and the ultra-progressives in the conciliar church are trying their very best to do so (see "Joe" Hasn't Changed,
Fellas, Apostates Reprimanding Apostates, On The Terms Of The Enemies Of Christ The King and Trying to Stop the Waltz). Nevertheless, however, Father Pfluger's conference gives every indication that it's just a matter of crossing the "t's" and dotting the "i's."
Permit me a few brief observations before hammering home points made many times before on this site (but are still nevertheless useful, especially for newer readers of this new site).
Jettisoning the Principal Objective of the "Doctrinal Discussions"
First, Father Pfluger admitted that the representatives of the Society of Saint Pius X who were engaged in "doctrinal discussions" with the representatives of the counterfeit church of conciliarism had to jettison their objective of "bridging" "doctrinal differences" in order to a sort of "live and let live" relationship in the conciliar structures as a means of "restoring" Tradition.
This admission is fraught several with several implications.
First, the protestations that have been made in the past three years by Bishop Bernard Fellay and by William "Cardinal" Levada, the prefect of the conciliar church's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the president of "Pontifical" Commission Ecclesia Dei, were nothing other than posturing. Bishop Fellay postured to make it appear to "hard liners" in the Society of Saint Pius X that he was forcing the conciliar revolutionaries to "reconsider" their unqualified acceptance of the precepts of the "Second" Vatican Council. "Cardinal" Levada postured in order to make it appear to "ultra-progressives" in his false church, which is nothing other than a counterfeit ape of the Catholic Church, that he was going to make the "integrists" accept every word of the so-called Catechism of the Catholic Church (see, for example, Piracy, Conciliar Style).
Second, both sides desire to complete a "deal." Leaders of the Society of Saint Pius X believe that their "full communion," to use conciliarspeak, with the counterfeit church of concilairism will help to further the "conversion" of men who have defected from the Faith on numerous points. The conciliarists know that the reverse is true. Their whole goal has been to effect a "pacification of spirits" and to "broaden the horizons" of those who have been too "rigid" and "narrow" and "obstinate." The "spirits" of the priests/presbyters and laity in the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter, the Institute of Christ the King, Sovereign Priest, the Society of Saint John Mary Vianney and the Institute of the Good Shepherd have been very pacified. Defend the greater honor and glory of the Most Blessed Trinity as the supposed "pope" esteems the symbols of false religions with his own priestly hands? Unheard of in these "Motu" communities.
False Doctrines Won't "Disappear" Because The "Pope" Supports Them
Father Pfluger's contention, described in the summary from the Rorate Caeli blogspot that "it could not be expected that by a word of command from the Pope all false doctrines would suddenly disappear from the face of the earth" if the "doctrinal discussions" had produced "agreements" on disputed points is specious on two counts.
First, the "pope" supports the false doctrines. He helped to promote them before, during and after the "Second" Vatican Council. He has promoted them with all of his octogenarian strength in the past eighty-five months as "Pope" Benedict XVI.
Second, Father Pfluger's contention, as provided in the Rorate Caeli summary the conference he gave on Sunday, April 29, 2012, that it would be as hard now to correct and eradicate false doctrines as it was during the period in the Fourth Century after the condemnation of Arianism. This is false contention because the Church had indeed condemned Arianism. Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI will never condemn his brainchild. He wants the members of the Society of Saint Pius X to simply learn how to live as a member of what Bishop Fellay once called the "conciliar zoo" without rattling their cages or banging on the Plexiglas.
Accepting The Very False Premise of the Conciliar Revolution: The Warfare Against Dogmatic Truth
A translation of Father Pfluger's remarks that appeared on the Angelqueen website, sent me by my good friend Mr. Mark Stabinski, contained a passage that represents nothing other than a complete and total surrender to the foundational premise of the conciliar revolution: Joseph Ratzinger's lifelong warfare against the very nature of dogmatic truth, which is, of course, a direct assault upon the very nature of God Himself:
That was actually our argument, and then this Pope
comes and says: Stop! The council is being interpreted falsely. That
was his famous sermon, an important talk, in December, 22 December,
2005, where he said we need a new interpretation of the council. Up
until now, people have been abusing the council, in the name of the
council, but that isn't what the council wanted. We need a new
interpretation and using the greek term, a new hermeneutic, a new
understanding... it's not bad, 40 years after the council, to understand
the council correctly, and the correct understanding of the council is
the hermeneutic of reform.
So it isn't a contradiction after all, no discontinuity between the
council and tradition. It is a continuity, and this continuity is made
visible through a healthy reform. That is important for the reason that
from now on this is the idea that defines his pontificate. Everything
that he does, and thereby the permission for, or the liberation of the
ancient mass, plays a very decisive role, everything he does, everything
he attempts, is to show that there isn't a break. The council, our main
argument for this resistance, for holding firmly to Tradition, for
rejecting the ideas of the council, the important ideas of the council
-- the Pope wants to say that this argument is no argument at all. It is
just... it is just a matter of harmonious development of tradition,
this Second Vatican Council. (http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=42305.)
Harmonious development? This is an exercise in pure positivism. It is nothing other than that.
To accept the the false claim that there has been no rupture between the immemorial teaching of the Catholic Church on such matters as the new ecclesiology, false ecumenism, inter-religious dialogue and prayer services, the "new" definition between what purports to be the Catholic Church and "the faith of Israel," religious liberty, separation of Church and State and methodologies of interpreting Sacred Scripture that have been condemned repeatedly by true pope after true pope, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI coined a slogan, "the hermeneutic of continuity," as a means of repackaging his philosophically absurd and dogmatically condemned notions concern the nature of dogmatic truth. He has done this to justify the "teaching" of the "Second" Vatican Council and the "magisterium" of the conciliar "popes" even though his own whole approach has been condemned repeatedly by Holy Mother Church.
1971: "In theses 10-12, the
difficult problem of the relationship between language and thought is
debated, which in post-conciliar discussions was the immediate departure
point of the dispute.
The identity of the Christian substance as such, the
Christian 'thing' was not directly ... censured, but it was pointed out
that no formula, no matter how valid and indispensable it may have been
in its time, can fully express the thought mentioned in it and declare
it unequivocally forever, since language is constantly in movement and
the content of its meaning changes. (Fr. Ratzinger: Dogmatic formulas must always change.)
The text [of the document Instruction on the Theologian's Ecclesial
Vocation] also presents the various types of bonds that rise from the
different degrees of magisterial teaching. It affirms - perhaps
for the first time with this clarity - that there are decisions of the
magisterium that cannot be the last word on the matter as such, but are,
in a substantial fixation of the problem, above all an expression of
pastoral prudence, a kind of provisional disposition. The nucleus
remains valid, but the particulars, which the circumstances of the times
influenced, may need further correction.
In this regard, one may think of the declarations of Popes in the last
century [19th century] about religious liberty, as well as the
anti-Modernist decisions at the beginning of this century, above all,
the decisions of the Biblical Commission of the time [on evolutionism].
As a cry of alarm in the face of hasty and superficial adaptations, they
will remain fully justified. A personage such as Johann Baptist Metz
said, for example, that the Church's anti-Modernist decisions render the
great service of preserving her from falling into the liberal-bourgeois
world. But in the details of the determinations they contain, they
became obsolete after having fulfilled their pastoral mission at their
(Joseph Ratzinger, "Instruction on the Theologian's Ecclesial Vocation,"
published with the title "Rinnovato dialogo fra Magistero e Teologia,"
in L'Osservatore Romano, June 27, 1990, p. 6, cited at Card. Ratzinger: The teachings of the Popes against Modernism are obsolete)
It is precisely in this
combination of continuity and discontinuity at different levels that
the very nature of true reform consists. In this process of
innovation in continuity we must learn to understand more practically
than before that the Church's decisions on contingent matters - for
example, certain practical forms of liberalism or a free interpretation
of the Bible - should necessarily be contingent themselves, precisely
because they refer to a specific reality that is changeable in itself. It was necessary to learn to
recognize that in these decisions it is only the principles that
express the permanent aspect, since they remain as an undercurrent,
motivating decisions from within.
On the other hand, not so permanent are the practical forms that
depend on the historical situation and are therefore subject to change. (Christmas greetings to the Members of the Roman Curia and Prelature, December 22, 2005.)
Father Pfluger, did God the Holy Ghost, the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, leave the Catholic Church in darkness about the "discovery" made by your "pope" of an "innovation in continuity" in which we have "learned" that certain decisions made by our true popes and/or under their authority are "contingent themselves because they refer to a specific reality that is changeable in itself"? Did the Catholic Church, to whose infallible teaching authority Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ entrusted His Sacred Deposit of Faith, only "learn" about this "reality" in the 1960s?
If so, then was God the Holy Ghost wrong when He directed the Fathers of the Council of Trent and Pope Saint Pius X to issue the following condemnations of the exact same propositions advanced through the nearly sixty-one years of Joseph Ratzinger's priestly life?
For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward
- not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence,
- but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.
Hence, too, that meaning of the
sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by
holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this
sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.
God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever be in opposition to truth.
The appearance of this kind of specious contradiction is chiefly due to the fact that either: the
dogmas of faith are not understood and explained in accordance with the
mind of the church, or unsound views are mistaken for the conclusions
Therefore we define that every assertion contrary to the truth of enlightened faith is totally false. . . .
3. If anyone says that it is possible that
at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be
assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from
that which the church has understood and understands: let him be
And so in the performance of our supreme pastoral
office, we beseech for the love of Jesus Christ and we command, by the
authority of him who is also our God and saviour, all faithful
Christians, especially those in authority or who have the duty of
teaching, that they contribute their zeal and labour to the warding off
and elimination of these errors from the church and to the spreading of
the light of the pure faith.
But since it is not enough to avoid the
contamination of heresy unless those errors are carefully shunned which
approach it in greater or less degree, we warn all of their duty to
observe the constitutions and decrees in which such wrong opinions,
though not expressly mentioned in this document, have been banned and
forbidden by this holy see. (Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session III,
Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Chapter 4, On Faith and
Reason, April 24, 1870. SESSION 3 : 24 April 1.)
sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the
apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and
always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical'
misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to
another different from the one which the Church held previously. . . .
Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the
modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or
what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with
the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple
fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact,
namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have
continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his
apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the
belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was,
and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the
apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be
tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture
of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by
the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different,
may never be understood in any other way.
I promise that I shall keep all these articles
faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way
deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing.
Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God. (The Oath Against Modernism, September 1, 1910; see also Nothing Stable, Nothing Secure.)
Hence it is quite impossible [the Modernists assert] to maintain that they [dogmatic statements] absolutely contain the truth: for, in so far as they are symbols, they
are the images of truth, and so must be adapted to the religious sense
in its relation to man; and as instruments, they are the vehicles of
truth, and must therefore in their turn be adapted to man in his
relation to the religious sense. But the object of the
religious sense, as something contained in the absolute, possesses an
infinite variety of aspects, of which now one, now another, may present
itself. In like manner he who believes can avail himself of varying
conditions. Consequently, the formulas which we call dogma must
be subject to these vicissitudes, and are, therefore, liable to change.
Thus the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of dogma. Here we have
an immense structure of sophisms which ruin and wreck all religion.
It is thus, Venerable Brethren, that for the
Modernists, whether as authors or propagandists, there is to be nothing
stable, nothing immutable in the Church. Nor, indeed, are they without
forerunners in their doctrines, for it was of these that Our predecessor
Pius IX wrote: 'These enemies of divine revelation extol human progress
to the skies, and with rash and sacrilegious daring would have it
introduced into the Catholic religion as if this religion were not the
work of God but of man, or some kind of philosophical discovery
susceptible of perfection by human efforts.' On the subject of
revelation and dogma in particular, the doctrine of the Modernists
offers nothing new. We find it condemned in the Syllabus of Pius IX,
where it is enunciated in these terms: ''Divine revelation is imperfect,
and therefore subject to continual and indefinite progress,
corresponding with the progress of human reason'; and condemned still
more solemnly in the Vatican Council: ''The doctrine of the
faith which God has revealed has not been proposed to human
intelligences to be perfected by them as if it were a philosophical
system, but as a divine deposit entrusted to the Spouse of Christ to be
faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence also that sense of
the sacred dogmas is to be perpetually retained which our Holy Mother
the Church has once declared, nor is this sense ever to be abandoned on
plea or pretext of a more profound comprehension of the truth.'
Nor is the development of our knowledge, even concerning the faith,
barred by this pronouncement; on the contrary, it is supported and
maintained. For the same Council continues: 'Let intelligence and
science and wisdom, therefore, increase and progress abundantly and
vigorously in individuals, and in the mass, in the believer and in the
whole Church, throughout the ages and the centuries -- but only in its own kind, that is, according to the same dogma, the same sense, the same acceptation.' (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)
How, Father Pfluger, is it possible possible not to "understand" any teaching of the Catholic Church when a simple review of Denziger will reveal that the Church spoke consistently throughout the ages with no shadow of contradiction precisely there is and can never be any shadow of contradictory or ambiguity or lack of clarity in God the Holy Ghost or in the infallible guidance he provides to Holy Mother Church?
As my time is valuable and I am not going to waste it on trying prove the obvious to one persists obstinately in self-induced blindness, I will provide only three more examples of demonstrable ruptures that no amount of Modernist sophistry can seek to "understand" as compatible with the Catholic Faith.
Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has rejected what he calls, most disparagingly, it should be noted, the "ecumenism of the return," even though true pope after true pope has said precisely that those who are outside of her maternal bosom must be converted to the true Faith lest their perish for all eternity:
Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI:
"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)
This is, of course, not the teaching of the Catholic Church:
"It is for this reason that so many who do not
share 'the communion and the truth of the Catholic Church' must make use
of the occasion of the Council, by the means of the Catholic Church,
which received in Her bosom their ancestors, proposes [further]
demonstration of profound unity and of firm vital force; hear the
requirements [demands] of her heart, they must engage themselves
to leave this state that does not guarantee for them the security of
salvation. She does not hesitate to raise to the Lord of mercy most
fervent prayers to tear down of the walls of division, to dissipate the
haze of errors, and lead them back within holy Mother Church, where
their Ancestors found salutary pastures of life; where, in an exclusive
way, is conserved and transmitted whole the doctrine of Jesus Christ and
wherein is dispensed the mysteries of heavenly grace.
"It is therefore by force of the right of Our
supreme Apostolic ministry, entrusted to us by the same Christ the Lord,
which, having to carry out with [supreme] participation all the duties
of the good Shepherd and to follow and embrace with paternal love all
the men of the world, we send this Letter of Ours to all the Christians
from whom We are separated, with which we exhort them warmly and
beseech them with insistence to hasten to return to the one fold of
Christ; we desire in fact from the depths of the heart their salvation
in Christ Jesus, and we fear having to render an account one day to Him,
Our Judge, if, through some possibility, we have not pointed out and
prepared the way for them to attain eternal salvation. In all Our
prayers and supplications, with thankfulness, day and night we never
omit to ask for them, with humble insistence, from the eternal Shepherd
of souls the abundance of goods and heavenly graces. And since,
if also, we fulfill in the earth the office of vicar, with all our
heart we await with open arms the return of the wayward sons to the
Catholic Church, in order to receive them with infinite fondness into
the house of the Heavenly Father and to enrich them with its
inexhaustible treasures. By our greatest wish for the return to
the truth and the communion with the Catholic Church, upon which depends
not only the salvation of all of them, but above all also of the whole
Christian society: the entire world in fact cannot enjoy true peace if
it is not of one fold and one shepherd." (Pope Pius IX, Iam Vos Omnes, September 13, 1868.)
"So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear
why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in
the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be
promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of
those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily
left it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to
all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it. . . . Let,
therefore, the separated children draw nigh to the Apostolic See, set
up in the City which Peter and Paul, the Princes of the Apostles,
consecrated by their blood; to that See, We repeat, which is 'the root
and womb whence the Church of God springs,' not with the intention and
the hope that 'the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of
the truth' will cast aside the integrity of the faith and tolerate their
errors, but, on the contrary, that they themselves submit to its
teaching and government. Would that it were Our happy lot to do
that which so many of Our predecessors could not, to embrace with
fatherly affection those children, whose unhappy separation from Us We
now bewail. Would that God our Savior, "Who will have all men to be
saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth," would hear us when We
humbly beg that He would deign to recall all who stray to the unity of
the Church! In this most important undertaking We ask and wish that
others should ask the prayers of Blessed Mary the Virgin, Mother of
divine grace, victorious over all heresies and Help of Christians, that
She may implore for Us the speedy coming of the much hoped-for day, when
all men shall hear the voice of Her divine Son, and shall be 'careful
to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.'" (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)
No rupture, Father Pfluger? No rupture? It does not get much clearer.
No enough, Father Pfluger? How about testimony from the Mother of God herself?
"Do you think that I do not know that
you are the heretic? Realize that your end is at hand. If you do not
return to the True Faith, you will be cast into Hell! But if you change
your beliefs, I shall protect you before God. Tell people to pray that
they may gain the good graces which, God in His mercy has offered to
them." (See: If You Do Not Return to the True Faith, You Will Be Cast Into Hell!)
The Catholic Church has always condemned "fellowship" in matters concerning religion with adherents of false religions:
beloved disciple St. John renews the same command in the strongest
terms, and adds another reason, which regards all without exception, and
especially those who are best instructed in their duty: "Look to
yourselves", says he, "that ye lose not the things that ye have wrought,
but that you may receive a full reward. Whosoever revolteth, and
continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that
continueth in the doctrine the same hath both the Father and the Son. If
any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into
your house, nor say to him, God speed you: for he that saith to him, God
speed you, communicateth with his wicked works". (2 John, ver. 8)
Here, then, it is
manifest, that all fellowship with those who have not the doctrine of
Jesus Christ, which is "a communication in their evil works"
— that is, in their false tenets, or worship, or in any act of religion
— is strictly forbidden, under pain of losing the "things we have
wrought, the reward of our labors, the salvation of our souls". And if
this holy apostle declares that the very saying God speed to such people
is a communication with their wicked works, what would he have said of
going to their places of worship, of hearing their sermons, joining in
their prayers, or the like?
From this passage the
learned translators of the Rheims New Testament, in their note, justly
observe, "That, in matters of religion, in praying, hearing their
sermons, presence at their service, partaking of their sacraments, and
all other communicating with them in spiritual things, it is a great and
damnable sin to deal with them." And if this be the case with all in
general, how much more with those who are well instructed and better
versed in their religion than others? For their doing any of these
things must be a much greater crime than in ignorant people, because
they know their duty better.
(Bishop George Hay, The Laws of God Forbidding All Communication in Religion With Those of a False Religion.)
The spirit of Christ, which dictated the Holy
Scriptures, and the spirit which animates and guides the Church of
Christ, and teaches her all truth, is the same; and therefore in all
ages her conduct on this point has been uniformly the same as what the
Holy Scripture teaches. She has constantly forbidden her children to
hold any communication, in religious matters, with those who are
separated from her communion; and this she has sometimes done under the
most severe penalties. In the apostolical canons, which are of very
ancient standing, and for the most part handed down from the apostolical
age, it is thus decreed: "If any bishop, or priest, or deacon, shall
join in prayers with heretics, let him be suspended from Communion". (Can. 44)
Also, "If any clergyman or laic shall go
into the synagogue of the Jews, or the meetings of heretics, to join in
prayer with them, let him be deposed, and deprived of communion". (Can. 63) (Bishop George Hay, (The Laws of God Forbidding All Communication in Religion With Those of a False Religion.)
Were the apostolical canons wrong, Father Pfluger? How is what the conciliar "pontiffs" have done by entering Protestant assembly halls (which they think are churches) and mosques and synagogues not a rupture with the consistent doctrine and canon law of the Catholic Church? How?
Let's move on, Father Pfluger, move on to your "pope's" constant endorsement of and praise for "separation of Church and State."
Contrast Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's praise of "separation of Church and State" in Portugal in 2010 with Pope Saint Pius X's condemnation of it in 1911:
Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI: From a wise vision of life and of the world, the just ordering of
society follows. Situated within history, the Church is open to
cooperating with anyone who does not marginalize or reduce to the
private sphere the essential consideration of the human meaning of life.
The point at issue is not an ethical confrontation between a secular
and a religious system, so much as a question about the meaning that we
give to our freedom. What matters is the value attributed to the
problem of meaning and its implication in public life. By separating
Church and State, the Republican revolution which took place 100 years
ago in Portugal, opened up a new area of freedom for the Church, to
which the two concordats of 1940 and 2004 would give shape, in cultural
settings and ecclesial perspectives profoundly marked by rapid change. For the most part, the sufferings caused by these transformations have been faced with courage. Living
amid a plurality of value systems and ethical outlooks requires a
journey to the core of one’s being and to the nucleus of Christianity so
as to reinforce the quality of one’s witness to the point of sanctity,
and to find mission paths that lead even to the radical choice of
martyrdom. (Official Reception at Lisbon Portela International Airport, Tuesday, May 11, 2010.)
Pope Saint Pius X: 2. Whilst the new rulers of Portugal were affording
such numerous and awful examples of the abuse of power, you know with
what patience and moderation this Apostolic See has acted towards them.
We thought that We ought most carefully to avoid any action that could
even have the appearance of hostility to the Republic. For We clung to
the hope that its rulers would one day take saner counsels and would at
length repair, by some new agreement, the injuries inflicted on the
Church. In this, however, We have been altogether disappointed,
for they have now crowned their evil work by the promulgation of a
vicious and pernicious Decree for the Separation of Church and State. But now the duty imposed upon Us by our Apostolic charge will not allow
Us to remain passive and silent when so serious a wound has been
inflicted upon the rights and dignity of the Catholic religion.
Therefore do We now address you, Venerable Brethren, in this letter and
denounce to all Christendom the heinousness of this deed.
3. At the outset, the absurd and monstrous
character of the decree of which We speak is plain from the fact that it
proclaims and enacts that the Republic shall have no religion, as if
men individually and any association or nation did not depend upon Him
who is the Maker and Preserver of all things; and then from the fact
that it liberates Portugal from the observance of the Catholic religion,
that religion, We say, which has ever been that nation's greatest
safeguard and glory, and has been professed almost unanimously by its
people. So let us take it that it has been their pleasure to sever that
close alliance between Church and State, confirmed though it was by the
solemn faith of treaties. Once this divorce was effected, it
would at least have been logical to pay no further attention to the
Church, and to leave her the enjoyment of the common liberty and rights
which belong to every citizen and every respectable community of
peoples. Quite otherwise, however, have things fallen out. This
decree bears indeed the name of Separation, but it enacts in reality the
reduction of the Church to utter want by the spoliation of her
property, and to servitude to the State by oppression in all that
touches her sacred power and spirit. . . .
Accordingly, under the admonition of the duty of Our Apostolic
office that, in the face of such audacity on the part of the enemies of
God, We should most vigilantly protect the dignity and honor of religion
and preserve the sacred rights of the Catholic Church, We by our
Apostolic authority denounce, condemn, and reject the Law for the
Separation of Church and State in the Portuguese Republic. This law
despises God and repudiates the Catholic faith; it annuls the treaties
solemnly made between Portugal and the Apostolic See, and violates the
law of nature and of her property; it oppresses the liberty of the
Church, and assails her divine Constitution; it injures and insults the
majesty of the Roman Pontificate, the order of Bishops, the Portuguese
clergy and people, and so the Catholics of the world. And
whilst We strenuously complain that such a law should have been made,
sanctioned, and published, We utter a solemn protest against those who
have had a part in it as authors or helpers, and, at the same time, We
proclaim and denounce as null and void, and to be so regarded, all that
the law has enacted against the inviolable rights of the Church. (Pope
Saint Pius X, Iamdudum, May 24, 1911.)
That the Holy See made an
accommodation to the reality caused by the Portuguese decree of
separation of Church and State and had its property and many of its
privileges restored in the Concordat of 1940 in no way justifies the revolution against the Social Reign of Christ
the King in Portugal wrought by the Masonic and socialistic forces there
one hundred years ago. Holy Mother Church has long sought to
accommodate herself to the concrete realities of any given situation in
which her children find themselves so that she can continue her work of
teaching and preaching and sanctification without the hindrance of the
civil state. To reach a concordat that recognizes the reality of a
forced separation of Church and State is not the same thing as endorsing
that false thesis or to praise the free flow of false ideas and
organizations that have occurred in its wake.
No rupture, Father Pfluger? No rupture?
Pope Saint Pius X had written the following in Vehementer Nos just five years before Iamdudum:
That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis
absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the
principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult, it is in
the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of
man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their
existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a
private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him. Besides,
this thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits
the action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during this
life only, which is but the proximate object of political societies; and
it occupies itself in no fashion (on the plea that this is foreign to
it) with their ultimate object which is man's eternal happiness after
this short life shall have run its course. But as the present order of
things is temporary and subordinated to the conquest of man's supreme
and absolute welfare, it follows that the civil power must not only
place no obstacle in the way of this conquest, but must aid us in
effecting it. . . .Hence the Roman
Pontiffs have never ceased, as circumstances required, to refute and
condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State. (Pope Saint Pius X, Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906.)
How can something absolutely false in 1906 and that had been condemned repeatedly by pope after pope become true, good, virtuous and even necessary sixty years thereafter, Father Cavalcoli? How? That the conciliar "popes" have ceased condemning the doctrine of separation of Church and State and have, quite instead, embraced and defended and promoted it is yet another proof that have not the Mind of the Divine Redeemer, Christ the King, but are possessed of Modernist heart and soul that is intent on "reconciling" with the anti-Incarnational, religiously indifferentist, naturalist and semi-Pelagian principles of Modernity that are from the devil himself.
As Pope Leo XIII put it in Custodi Di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892:
Everyone should avoid familiarity or friendship with anyone suspected of
belonging to masonry or to affiliated groups. Know them by their fruits
and avoid them. Every familiarity should be avoided, not only
with those impious libertines who openly promote the character of the
sect, but also with those who hide under the mask of universal
tolerance, respect for all religions, and the craving to reconcile the
maxims of the Gospel with those of the revolution. These men seek to
reconcile Christ and Belial, the Church of God and the state without God. (Pope Leo XIII, Custodi di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892.)
Give me one example, Father Pfluger, of any pope in the history of the Catholic Church prior to the "election" of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII on October 28, 1958, who ever attempted to give any "joint blessings" with the Anglican "archbishop" of Canterbury or who dared to walk into a Talmudic synagogue or a Mohammedan mosque or a Lutheran assembly hall (which the Lutherans think is a church) to show these places of false worship signs of respect and veneration?
No rupture? You are intellectually dishonest or blind or both.
Just one more example, Father Pfluger. Just one.
Finally, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and many of his "cardinals" and "bishops" have treated Talmudism as a perfectly valid means of sanctification and salvation for those who adhere to it.
For this to be correct, Father Pfluger, then God the Holy Ghost must have "erred" when he directed the Fathers of the Council of Florence issue the following solemn dogmatic proclamations under the authority of Pope Eugene IV:
It [the Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes, and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of
the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites,
sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify
something in the future, although they were suited to the divine worship
at that time, after our Lord's coming had been signified by them,
ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; and that whoever,
even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and
submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in
Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally. Yet
it does not deny that after the passion of Christ up to the
promulgation of the Gospel they could have been observed until they were
believed to be in no way necessary for salvation; but after the
promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they cannot be observed
without the loss of eternal salvation. All, therefore, who
after that time observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other
requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and
not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday
they recover from these errors. Therefore, it commands all who glory in
the name of Christian, at whatever time, before or after baptism, to
cease entirely from circumcision, since, whether or not one places hope
in it, it cannot be observed at all without the loss of eternal
salvation. Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which
can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another
remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are
snatched from the domination of the Devil and adopted among the sons of
God, it advises that holy baptism ought not to be deferred for forty or
eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people,
but it should be conferred as soon as it can be done conveniently, but
so ,that, when danger of death is imminent, they be baptized in the form
of the Church, early without delay, even by a layman or woman, if a
priest should be lacking, just as is contained more fully in the decree
of the Armenians. . . .
It firmly believes, professes, and
proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only
pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become
participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire
which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], unless
before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that
the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those
remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for
salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and
exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one,
whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the
name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and
unity of the Catholic Church. (Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino, Council of Florence, February 4, 1442.)
28.That He completed His work on the gibbet of the
Cross is the unanimous teaching of the holy Fathers who assert that the
Church was born from the side of our Savior on the Cross like a new Eve,
mother of all the living. 
"And it is now," says the great St. Ambrose, speaking of the pierced
side of Christ, "that it is built, it is now that it is formed, it is
now that is .... molded, it is now that it is created . . . Now it is
that arises a spiritual house, a holy priesthood."  One who reverently examines this venerable teaching will easily discover the reasons on which it is based.
29.And first of all, by the death of our
Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been
abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries,
enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole
world in the blood of Jesus Christ. For, while our Divine
Savior was preaching in a restricted area -- He was not sent but to the
sheep that were lost of the house of Israel  -the Law and the Gospel were together in force;  but on the gibbet of his death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees,  fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross,  establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race. 
"To such an extent, then," says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the
Cross of our Lord, "was there effected a transfer from the Law to the
Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from many sacrifices to one
Victim, that, as our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the
innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently
from top to bottom." 
30. On the Cross then the Old Law died, soon to be buried and to be a bearer of death,  in order to give way to the New Testament of which Christ had chosen the Apostles as qualified ministers; 
and although He had been constituted the Head of the whole human family
in the womb of the Blessed Virgin, it is by the power of the Cross that
our Savior exercises fully the office itself of Head in His Church.
"For it was through His triumph on the Cross," according to the teaching
of the Angelic and Common Doctor, "that He won power and dominion over
the gentiles"; 
by that same victory He increased the immense treasure of graces,
which, as He reigns in glory in heaven, He lavishes continually on His
mortal members it was by His blood shed on the Cross that God's anger
was averted and that all the heavenly gifts, especially the spiritual
graces of the New and Eternal Testament, could then flow from the
fountains of our Savior for the salvation of men, of the faithful above
all; it was on the tree of the Cross, finally, that He entered into
possession of His Church, that is, of all the members of His Mystical
Body; for they would not have been united to this Mystical Body. (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943.)
No "rupture," Father Pfluger?
I'll give you a break, Father Pfluger. I will leave for the appendix below a review of how Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI called your "New Mass" a "rupture" with the Mass of Tradition in the preface to the French edition of the late Monsignor Klaus Gamber's The Reform of the Roman Liturgy and in his own autobiography, Milestones, published in 1999, before he wrote in Summorum Pontificum, July 7, 2007, that there had been no such rupture. I'll just give you a break on that one in the man body of this article's text as I don't think that you are intellectually honest enough to call apostasy and absurdity and contradiction by their proper names.
Father Pfluger also referred to sedevacantism as a "false doctrine" while contending that there were false doctrines being spread in what he considers to be the Catholic Church even though those falsehoods have the "papal" imprimatur of "Pope" Benedict XVI. False or confusing doctrines and liturgies that give rise to sacrileges and are profanations by their very nature can never come from the spotless Mystical Bride of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, which is precisely why the canonical doctrine, which is true in and of its nature, that teaches us the See of Peter is vacant in the case of heresy applies in these times.
Conciliarism is either the same thing as Catholicism or it is not. It is that simple. And the use of reason informed by the Holy Faith instructs us that contradictories cannot be true. Concilairism is not Catholicism, and it is well past time for the Society of Saint Pius X to recognize that their approach is nothing other than a recrudescence of the old spirit of Jansenism that was condemned by Pope Pius VI in Auctorem Fidei, August 28, 1794, and satirized so brilliant by Bishop Emile Bougaud on the Nineteenth Century and condemned as well by Pope Pius IX in The Syllabus of Errors, December 8, 1864:
6. The doctrine of the synod by which it professes that "it
is convinced that a bishop has received from Christ all necessary
rights for the good government of his diocese," just as if for the good
government of each diocese higher ordinances dealing either with faith
and morals, or with general discipline, are not necessary, the right of
which belongs to the supreme Pontiffs and the General Councils for the
universal Church,—schismatic, at least erroneous.
7. Likewise, in this, that it encourages a bishop "to pursue zealously
a more perfect constitution of ecclesiastical discipline," and this
"against all contrary customs, exemptions, reservations which are
opposed to the good order of the diocese, for the greater glory of God
and for the greater edification of the faithful"; in that it supposes that
a bishop has the right by his own judgment and will to decree and
decide contrary to customs, exemptions, reservations, whether they
prevail in the universal Church or even in each province, without the
consent or the intervention of a higher hierarchic power, by which these
customs, etc., have been introduced or approved and have the force of
law,—leading to schism and subversion of hierarchic rule, erroneous.
8. Likewise, in that it says it is convinced that "the rights of a
bishop received from Jesus Christ for the government of the Church
cannot be altered nor hindered, and, when it has happened that the
exercise of these rights has been interrupted for any reason whatsoever,
a bishop can always and should return to his original rights, as often
as the greater good of his church demands it"; in the fact that
it intimates that the exercise of episcopal rights can be hindered and
coerced by no higher power, whenever a bishop shall judge that it does
not further the greater good of his church,—leading to schism, and to
subversion of hierarchic government, erroneous. (Pope Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei, August 28, 1794.)
The violent attacks of Protestantism against the
Papacy, its calumnies and so manifest, the odious caricatures it
scattered abroad, had undoubtedly inspired France with horror;
nevertheless the sad impressions remained. In such accusations all,
perhaps, was not false. Mistrust was excited., and instead of drawing
closer to the insulted and outraged Papacy, France stood on her guard
against it. In vain did Fenelon, who felt the danger, write in his
treatise on the "Power of the Pope," and, to remind France of her
sublime mission and true role in the world, compose his "History of
Charlemagne." In vain did Bossuet majestically rise in the midst of that
agitated assembly of 1682, convened to dictate laws to the Holy See,
and there, in most touching accents, give vent to professions of
fidelity and devotedness toward the Chair of St. Peter. We already
notice in his discourse mention no longer made of the "Sovereign
Pontiff." The "Holy See," the "Chair of St. Peter," the "Roman Church,"
were alone alluded to. First and alas! too manifest signs of coldness in
the eyes of him who knew the nature and character of France! Others
might obey through duty, might allow themselves to be governed by
principle--France, never! She must be ruled by an individual, she must
love him that governs her, else she can never obey.
These weaknesses should at least have been hidden
in the shadow of the sanctuary, to await the time in which some sincere
and honest solution of the misunderstanding could be given. But no!
parliaments took hold of it, national vanity was identified with it. A
strange spectacle was now seen. A people the most Catholic in the world;
kings who called themselves the Eldest Sons of the Church and who were
really such at heart; grave and profoundly Christian magistrates,
bishops, and priests, though in the depths of their heart attached to
Catholic unity,--all barricading themselves against the head of the
Church; all digging trenches and building ramparts, that his
words might not reach the Faithful before being handled and examined,
and the laics convinced that they contained nothing false, hostile or
dangerous. (Right Reverend Emile Bougaud, The Life of Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque. Published in 1890 by Benziger Brothers. Re-printed by TAN Books and Publishers, 1990, pp. 24-29.)
22. The obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are
strictly bound is confined to those things only which are proposed to
universal belief as dogmas of faith by the infallible judgment of the
Church. -- Letter to the Archbishop of Munich, "Tuas libenter," Dec. 21, 1863. (Proposition condemned by Pope Pius IX, The Syllabus of Errors,
December 8, 1864; see also two appendices below, reprised from five
days ago to drive home the point that no one can sift through the words
of a true pope to "determine" their orthodoxy as popes cannot err on
matters of Faith and Morals.)
The Catholic Church can never make any terms with error:
As for the rest, We greatly deplore the fact that,
where the ravings of human reason extend, there is somebody who studies
new things and strives to know more than is necessary, against the
advice of the apostle. There you will find someone who is
overconfident in seeking the truth outside the Catholic Church, in which
it can be found without even a light tarnish of error.
Therefore, the Church is called, and is indeed, a pillar and foundation
of truth. You correctly understand, venerable brothers, that We speak
here also of that erroneous philosophical system which was recently
brought in and is clearly to be condemned. This system, which
comes from the contemptible and unrestrained desire for innovation, does
not seek truth where it stands in the received and holy apostolic
inheritance. Rather, other empty doctrines, futile and uncertain
doctrines not approved by the Church, are adopted. Only the most
conceited men wrongly think that these teachings can sustain and support
that truth. (Pope Gregory XVI, Singulari Nos, May 25, 1834.)
In the Catholic Church Christianity is Incarnate.
It identifies Itself with that perfect, spiritual, and, in its own
order, sovereign society, which is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ and
which has for Its visible head the Roman Pontiff, successor of the
Prince of the Apostles. It is the continuation of the mission of the
Savior, the daughter and the heiress of His Redemption. It has preached
the Gospel, and has defended it at the price of Its blood, and strong in
the Divine assistance and of that immortality which has been promised
it, It makes no terms with error but remains faithful to the
commands which it has received, to carry the doctrine of Jesus Christ
to the uttermost limits of the world and to the end of time, and to
protect it in its inviolable integrity. (Pope Leo XIII, A Review of His Pontificate, March 19, 1902.)
For the teaching authority of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in
order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that
they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men,
and which is daily exercised through the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops
who are in communion with him, has also the office of defining, when it
sees fit, any truth with solemn rites and decrees, whenever this is
necessary either to oppose the errors or the attacks of heretics, or
more clearly and in greater detail to stamp the minds of the faithful
with the articles of sacred doctrine which have been explained. (Pope
Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)
Say good night, Father Pfluger. The man you think is the "pope" is but an apostate and his church is but a counterfeit ape of the Catholic Church. There's your false doctrine, Father Pfluger, not sedevacantism.
Father Pfluger, the Society of Saint Pius X errs when picking and choosing what to accept and/or follow from the "Second" Vatican Council and the "magisterium" of the conciliar "popes." As noted above, he also errs by accepting the falsehood that that the only possible explanations for an "apparent" rupture between the past and the present is that we have yet to "understand" the "true meaning" of that council and how it has been interpreted and applied by the man he believes have been the Vicar of Christ in the past forty-six years since its close on December 8, 1965. There has been a rupture. The men responsible for it are apostates. They are not members of the Catholic Church.
It was a conciliar official, now deceased, who recognized that the See of Peter would be vacant in the case of heresy even though he, the late Mario Pompedda "Cardinal" Francesco, did not believe that the situation obtained at the time that he spoke (in February of 2005 as Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II was dying of Stage III Parkinson's Disease). Yes, sedevacantism is the other possibility, Father Pfluger:
It is true that the canonical doctrine states that the see would be vacant in the case of heresy.
... But in regard to all else, I think what is applicable is what
judgment regulates human acts. And the act of will, namely a resignation
or capacity to govern or not govern, is a human act. (Cardinal Says Pope Could Govern Even If Unable to Speak, Zenit, February 8, 2005; see also see also Gregorius's The Chair is Still Empty.)
Unlike what many
traditionally-minded Catholics have heard from the theologians of the
Society of Saint Pius X, however, Pompedda was intellectually honest
enough to admit that sedevacantism is indeed a part of the canonical
doctrine of the Catholic Church. Only a handful of Catholics, priests
and laity alike, accepted this doctrine and recognized that it applied
in our circumstances in the immediate aftermath of the "Second" Vatican Council. I
was not one of them.
We separate ourselves from the
conciliarists because they offend God by defecting from the Faith,
starting with their rejection of the nature of dogmatic truth and their
making complex what it is: the knowledge of Him that He has deposited in
Holy Mother Church. We must understand, however, that offenses against
the moral order are no less of a concern to God than offenses against
doctrine. Offenses against the moral order, many of which have been
committed by the conciliar "bishops" and their chancery factotums and
their insurance companies are not "little things," unless, as I have
noted in other commentaries in recent weeks, that the loss of the Faith
in a single soul is a "little thing" and that the clergy responsible for
indemnifying the loss of just one soul do not show themselves to be
enemies of the Cross of the Divine Redeemer as a result.
Although there are those who tell us that we should
"stay and fight" in once Catholic parishes that now in the hands of
apostates (or their enablers who refuse to speak out against them), we
must recognize that offenses against the doctrines of the Faith and
offenses against the moral order are never the foundations upon which
God will choose to restore His Holy Church. Truth in the moral order is
as black and white as truth in the doctrinal realm. Conciliarism
consists of its very nature in a rejection of various parts of the
Catholic Faith, and it is this rejection that leads in turn to the same
sort of despair and hopelessness in the souls of so many men now as
existed at the time before the First Coming of Our Lord at His
Incarnation and, nine months later, His Nativity.
We do not need to conduct a "search" for the "true meaning" of the doctrines contained the Sacred Deposit of Faith. We accept what has been handed down to us as docile children of Holy Mother Church.
We must remember at all
times because the crosses of the present moment, no matter their source,
are fashioned to us from the very hand of God Himself to be the means
of our participating in Our Lord's Easter victory over the power of sin
and eternal death. It matters not what anyone thinks of us for refusing
to accept the conciliarists as representatives of the Catholic Church or
for refusing to associate with those who believe act in a de facto
manner as the authority of the Church while looking the other way at
grave abuses of the moral order and indemnifying wrong-doers time and
time again. All that matters is that we carry our cross as the
consecrated slaves of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through
the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, looking for no other
consolation than that which is given to the souls of the elect upon the
Particular Judgment and that is ratified for all to see at General
Judgment of the Living and the Dead:
Well done, good and faithful servant, because thou
hast been faithful over a few things, I will place thee over many
things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. (Matthew 25: 21.)
We never have to "understand" apostasy. We just have to recognize it and then flee from it.
Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!
Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?
Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.
Saint Joseph, pray for us.
Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.
Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.
Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.
Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.
Saints Caspar, Melchior and Balthasar, pray for us.
Saint Stanislaus, pray for us.
See also: A Litany of Saints
Rupture in the Liturgy as Found in the Words of Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger
What happened after the Council was something
else entirely: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came
fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it--as in a manufacturing process--with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product. Gamber, with the vigilance of a true prophet and the courage of a true witness, opposed this falsification,
and thanks to his incredibly rich knowledge, indefatigably taught us
about the living fullness of a true liturgy. As a man who knew and loved
history, he showed us the multiple forms and paths of liturgical
development; as a man who looked at history form the inside, he saw in
this development and its fruit the intangible reflection of the eternal
liturgy, that which is not the object of our action but which can
continue marvelously to mature and blossom if we unite ourselves
intimately with its mystery. (Joseph "Cardinal: Ratzinger, Preface to
the French language edition of Monsignor Klaus Gamber's The Reform of the Roman Liturgy.)
The prohibition of the missal that was now
decreed, a missal that had known continuous growth over the centuries,
starting with the sacramentaries of the ancient Church, introduced a
breach into the history of the liturgy whose consequences could only be
tragic. It was reasonable and right of the Council to order a
revision of the missal such as had often taken place before and which
this time had to be more thorough than before, above all because of the introduction of the vernacular.
But more than this now happened: the old
building was demolished, and another was built, to be sure largely using
materials from the previous one and even using the old building plans.
There is no doubt that this new missal in many respects brought with it
a real improvement and enrichment; but setting it as a new construction
over against what had grown historically, forbidding the results of
this historical growth. thereby makes the liturgy appear to be no longer
living development but the produce of erudite work and juridical
authority; this has caused an enormous harm. For then the
impression had to emerge that liturgy is something "made", not something
given in advance but something lying without our own power of decision. (Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger, Milestones.)