Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us
May 22, 2012


Fret Not About Denying The Faith, Fret Not, Says Benedict XVI

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Remember, the false "pontiff," Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, frets not about the eternal welfare of non-Catholics, going so far as to praise as "Christians" a few Protestant "theologians" who deny the Sacred Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. (See appendix below.)

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict frets not as he denies the very nature of dogmatic truth--and thus of God Himself--as the means of justifying what is a new religion whose praise for non-Catholic religions and their nonexistent ability to create a "better world" is the antithesis of these papal injunctions to the contrary:

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.)

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


Ratzinger/Benedict doesn't even fret about a bevy of supposed Catholics in public life who support one grave social evil after another while maintaining their "good standing" in the structures of his counterfeit ape of the Catholic Church.

One of these, of course, is the Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, a notorious pro-abort who was a close political ally of one the late George Tiller "The Killer," who operated the only late-term surgical baby-killing center in the State of Kansas prior to his murder on May 31, 2009, and was an important donor to her successful gubernatorial campaigns for the office of Governor of the State of Kansas:

Wichita, Kansas, May 29, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In early April, 2007, late-term abortionist George R. Tiller and his entire abortion clinic staff was honored by Gov. Kathleen Sebelius at a lavish secret party held at Cedar Crest, the Governor’s mansion.  In response to photographs published by Operation Rescue this week, Gov. Sebelius’ office has released what Operation Rescue is calling a “laughable” defense, saying that the Tiller party depicted in the photographs was a prize in a charity auction in which Sebelius had no control over who would attend.

OR obtained the set of 27 photographs from a confidential source that told OR the party was held exclusively in Tiller’s honor. Tiller and his staff were the only guests invited to the gala event that featured, according to the source, a menu of steak and lobster.

“According to our source, who attended the event at Cedar Crest, the party was ‘by special invitation only.’ It was obvious to this person that Tiller was on a very friendly basis with Sebelius and took the time to personally introduce each member of his abortion clinic staff to the governor,” said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. “Our source was very specific that the event’s purpose was to ‘honor’ Tiller and his staff. The pictures, especially the ones that include the political t-shirts produced by Tiller, back up our source’s claims.”

“It is laughable for Sebelius to now say she has no control over who she parties with. The Women’s Political Caucus is a radical leftist feminist organization that is providing the smoke and mirrors to cover for the Tiller party,” said Newman. “We don’t buy it.”

Receipts obtained by Operation Rescue from the Governor’s office show that taxpayers paid for the April 9, 2007, event.

OR alleges that "Tiller is a major contributor to pro-abortion candidates in Kansas,  giving hundreds of thousands of dollars through a complicated series of political action committees and non-profit organizations".

“Sebelius’ office arrogantly believes that they can keep her strong ties to Tiller a secret, but their efforts to keep the truth from the public have only exposed their corruption,” said Newman. “Sebelius would not be governor today if not for Tiller’s financial support. She owes him her career. Every agency in Kansas that could hold Tiller accountable for illegal late-term abortions, from the Board of Healing Arts to the Kansas Supreme Court to the Attorney General, are all laced with Sebelius appointees. It is little wonder that they all have done nothing but stall and obstruct efforts to prosecute him.”

OR suggests this event is an indication of a broader relationship that the Governor shares with the abortion industry.

Just over a month after the Tiller soiree, Gov. Sebelius celebrated her birthday on May 15, 2007, at a party thrown by Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri, while they were still under investigation by the Attorney General’s office and the Johnson County District Attorney. The party featured Planned Parenthood CEP Peter Brownlie leading a conga line in celebration. Planned Parenthood was later cleared by Sebelius’ handpicked Attorney General Paul Morrison but charged by District Attorney Phill Kline with 107 criminal charges related to illegal abortions and manufacturing records. ( Sebelius Issues “Laughable” Defense of Secret Party at Governor's Mansion .)


Here are some records, found on the Operation Rescue website, that indicate the extent to which Sebelius fed at the late baby-killer's money trough, sopping up all of the blood money that she could:


09-25-2001 JEANNE TILLER $ 2,000
09-25-2000 GEORGE TILLER $2,000
9-25-2000 GEORGE TILLER MD $2,000
09-10-1998 GEORGE TILLER $ 200
12-14-1998 JEANNE TILLER $ 250
06-18-1998 PRO CHOICE ACTION LEAGUE $1,000
05-01-1997 GEORGE TILLER $ 500
11-21-1994 GEORGE R TILLER $ 500
11-14-1994 GEORGE R TILLER PA $2,000
09-02-1994 GEORGE R TILLER $2,000
06-10-1994 GEORGE R TILLER $ 500
04-15-1994 GEORGE R TILLER $ 500

In Addition, Tiller has contributed generously to Sebelius’ PAC, the Bluestem Fund:

09-01-2000 GEORGE R. TILLER MD $5,000
09-07-2000 GEORGE R. TILLER MD PA $5,000
03-18-2002 WOMENS HEALTH CARE SERVICES $5,000 ( Sebelius Unfit For HHS Post – Facts About Her Connections To The Abortion Industry.)



Sure, sure, sure.

The conciliar "archbishop" of the Archdiocese of Kansas City in Kansas, Joseph Naumann warned the arrogant Sebelius when she was Governor of Kansas that she should refrain from receiving from receiving what purports to be Holy Communion in the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service, which is in and of itself an abomination that offends God and is harmful to souls, serving as the pathway for all of conciliarism's multiple defections from the Faith. Leaving aside the fact that Kathleen Sebelius has excommunicated herself from the Catholic Faith by her support of baby-killing by both chemical and surgical means, "Archbishop" Naumann's efforts to discipline her are undermined by the fact he that accepts conciliarism's "reconciliation" with the modern world as represented by what Pope Pius VII termed the heresy of religious liberty and by a concept of "healthy secularity" that makes a mockery of the Catholic Church's consistent condemnation of the thesis in support of the separation of Church and State. Naumann's position is further undermined by the fact that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI does not believe that pro-abortion Catholics in public life should be excommunicated.

Ratzinger/Benedict is incapable of speaking in in plain words about the state of the immortal souls of those such as Sebelius who support the extermination of innocent human life in the womb. He is simply constitutionally incapable of speaking about this crime as did Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii, December 30, 1930:



Those who hold the reins of government should not forget that it is the duty of public authority by appropriate laws and sanctions to defend the lives of the innocent, and this all the more so since those whose lives are endangered and assailed cannot defend themselves. Among whom we must mention in the first place infants hidden in the mother's womb. And if the public magistrates not only do not defend them, but by their laws and ordinances betray them to death at the hands of doctors or of others, let them remember that God is the Judge and Avenger of innocent blood which cried from earth to Heaven. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 30, 1930.)

Ratzinger/Benedict is incapable of even thinking in these terms.

So is the President of Georgetown University, Dr. John Di Gioia, who has made headlines for himself this year by defending the "right" of one of his university's law school's students, Sandra Fluke, to testify before a rump Congressional committee about the necessity of having her chemical abortifacients called "birth control pills" funded by the taxpayers of the United States of America. Here is part of a statement he issued at the time to attack radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh for criticizing Fluke by means of an ill-considered word:



There is a legitimate question of public policy before our nation today.  In the effort to address the problem of the nearly fifty million Americans who lack health insurance, our lawmakers enacted legislation that seeks to increase access to health care. In recent weeks, a question regarding the breadth of services that will be covered has focused significant public attention on the issue of contraceptive coverage.  Many, including the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, have offered important perspectives on this issue.

In recent days, a law student of Georgetown, Sandra Fluke, offered her testimony regarding the proposed regulations by the Department of Health and Human Services before a group of members of Congress.  She was respectful, sincere, and spoke with conviction.  She provided a model of civil discourse.  This expression of conscience was in the tradition of the deepest values we share as a people. One need not agree with her substantive position to support her right to respectful free expression.  And yet, some of those who disagreed with her position – including Rush Limbaugh and commentators throughout the blogosphere and in various other media channels – responded with behavior that can only be described as misogynistic, vitriolic, and a misrepresentation of the position of our student. 

In our vibrant and diverse society, there always are important differences that need to be debated, with strong and legitimate beliefs held on all sides of challenging issues. The greatest contribution of the American project is the recognition that together, we can rely on civil discourse to engage the tensions that characterize these difficult issues, and work towards resolutions that balance deeply held and different perspectives.  We have learned through painful experience that we must respect one another and we acknowledge that the best way to confront our differences is through constructive public debate.  At times, the exercise of one person’s freedom may conflict with another’s.  As Americans, we accept that the only answer to our differences is further engagement. 

In an earlier time, St. Augustine captured the sense of what is required in civil discourse: "Let us, on both sides, lay aside all arrogance.  Let us not, on either side, claim that we have already discovered the truth.  Let us seek it together as something which is known to neither of us.  For then only may we seek it, lovingly and tranquilly, if there be no bold presumption that it is already discovered and possessed."

If we, instead, allow coarseness, anger – even hatred – to stand for civil discourse in America, we violate the sacred trust that has been handed down through the generations beginning with our Founders.  The values that hold us together as a people require nothing less than eternal vigilance.  This is our moment to stand for the values of civility in our engagement with one another. Sincerely, John J. DeGioia, President, Georgetown University. (A Message to the Georgetown Community on Civility and Public Discourse.)

Let me reprise a few questions that I posed to Dr. Di Gioia in article over two months ago now.

1) Is the nationalization of health-care represented by the "Affordable Care Act of 2010" a violation of the Natural Law principle of subsidiarity, to say nothing of the precepts of the Constitution of the United States of America?

2) What is "legitimate" about "debating" that which no one has the right to use, contraception?

3) Leaving aside, of course, their bogus arguments about "religious liberty" and the inconvenient little fact that most of them have never preached against contraception from the pulpit or have cared all that much as "Catholic" hospitals have distributed "morning after pills" and as supposedly "Catholic" educational institutions and their very own priests/presbyters have informed Catholics that they can use contraceptives as a matter of "good conscience," why do you dismiss the objections of some of the conciliar "bishops" to the insurance mandate for contraception as simply being their "perspective," thereby implying that other being have "perspectives" that need to be "heard" in support of such coverage,

4) How is not Miss Fluke's "expression of conscience" before a rump committee, convened solely for the purposes of public agitation and fund-raising, an indication that her conscience is misinformed and that by speaking as she has only confuses souls by the use of emotionally-laded arguments that are meant to deflect from the simple reality that you, as a supposed Catholic, are supposed to recognize and respect: that the use of contraceptives is a violation of Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage?

5) Although one can disagree with the specific adjective used by Rush Limbaugh to describe Miss Fluke, how did she not place herself in a position of public criticism and ridicule by demanding that the taxpayers of the United States of America fund her wanton behavior by the commission of "consequence-free" sins against the binding, immutable precepts of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments?

6) "Constructive debate"? Please explain how matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments are subject to any kind of debate, "constructive" or otherwise?

7) You have quoted Saint Augustine on the search for truth. Is the truth about Miss Fluke's personal behavior and her use of contraceptives not immoral, objectively speaking, leaving all subjective judgment to God, Who alone knows the subjective state and thus the culpability of individuals souls, in se not known? What is there to "search" for on this matter?

8) Are you familiar at all with Saint Augustine's injunction that ""But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error?" Do you believe that Saint Augustine was wrong?

9) Was Pope Gregory XVI wrong when, after quoting Saint Augustine, explained the social consequences of the spread of error in the name of "liberty of conscience"? If so, please explain how any of this is incorrect?


When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly "the bottomless pit" is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws -- in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty. (Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832.)


10) Was it not the case years ago that one who expressed public support for the misuse of the generative powers that God has given man for the continuation of the species would have been dismissed from Georgetown University as an undesirable student who lacked the moral character to be admitted to the bar?

11) How is Miss Fluke to be admired in any way given the fact that she offends God, wounds her own immortal soul and thus wounds the Church Militant and society itself by her behavior?

12) Are not the the following words of Silvio Cardinal Antoniano proof that your belief that there we need a "constructive debate" on this mater nothing other than an exercise in self-serving pandering to feminist groups and to your fellow theological "dissenters" in what you think is the Catholic Church?

The more closely the temporal power of a nation aligns itself with the spiritual, and the more it fosters and promotes the latter, by so much the more it contributes to the conservation of the commonwealth. For it is the aim of the ecclesiastical authority by the use of spiritual means, to form good Christians in accordance with its own particular end and object; and in doing this it helps at the same time to form good citizens, and prepares them to meet their obligations as members of a civil society. This follows of necessity because in the City of God, the Holy Roman Catholic Church, a good citizen and an upright man are absolutely one and the same thing. How grave therefore is the error of those who separate things so closely united, and who think that they can produce good citizens by ways and methods other than those which make for the formation of good Christians. For, let human prudence say what it likes and reason as it pleases, it is impossible to produce true temporal peace and tranquillity by things repugnant or opposed to the peace and happiness of eternity. (quoted in Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929.)


Undaunted by his efforts to defend Sandra Fluke and undisciplined by the Archdiocese of Washington, District of Columbia, John Di Gioia has once again taken to defending his decision to invite none other than Kathleen Sebelius herself to give an address at an awards ceremony held at the university's public policy institute on Friday, May 18, 2012:

In recent days on the Georgetown University campus and in the larger American Catholic community, concerns have been expressed by some who object to an invitation to Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to participate in a Public Policy Institute awards ceremony during the University’s commencement weekend.

Last fall, public policy students expressed preferences for potential speakers who could participate in the program. Given her role in crafting the landmark legislation that will make health care more accessible to 34 million Americans who are currently uninsured, Secretary Sebelius was identified by students as a leading policy maker in our country who could contribute to this event. Secretary Sebelius has a long and distinguished record of public service, including two terms as governor of Kansas before beginning her service in April, 2009, as Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. She is also the spouse and the mother of Georgetown graduates.

In early January, an invitation was extended to Secretary Sebelius and she accepted. In the weeks that followed, elements of the legislation, specifically terms covering contraception, dominated our public discourse and impacted our Georgetown community very directly.

In different contexts over the past three months, including a March 14 “Statement on Religious Freedom and HHS Mandate,” the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops expressed strong opposition to the position put forward by the Obama Administration. Some have interpreted the invitation of Secretary Sebelius as a challenge to the USCCB. It was not. The invitation to Secretary Sebelius occurred prior to the January 20th announcement by the Obama Administration of the modified healthcare regulations.

The Secretary’s presence on our campus should not be viewed as an endorsement of her views. As a Catholic and Jesuit University, Georgetown disassociates itself from any positions that are in conflict with traditional church teachings.

We are a university, committed to the free exchange of ideas. We are a community that draws inspiration from a religious tradition that provides us with an intellectual, moral, and spiritual foundation. By engaging these values we become the University we are meant to be. (Statement of Dr. John Di Gioia.)


Free exchange of ideas, Dr. Di Gioia? Free exchange of ideas? "Freedom" only goes so far in the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

Would you invite, say, Bishop Richard Williamson of the Society of Saint Pius X to give an address on the nature and extent of the crimes committed by the agents of Adolf Hitler's Third Reich?

Would you invite, say, a Catholic who rejects the legitimacy of Joseph Ratzinger as "Pope" Benedict XVI to speak on the pretender to the papal throne's multiple defections from the Catholic Faith?

Free exchanges of ideas, Dr. Di Gioia? "Freedom" is not exactly limitless in the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

Yes, the Archdiocese of Washington did permit an unsigned editorial to be run in its newspaper, My Catholic Standard, against Di Gioia's decision to invite Sebelius to give an address at the Georgetown University Public Policy Institute in which the woman who authored the Health and Human Services mandate for all employers to provide health insurance coverage for their employers was criticized for having "violated" the very thing that gave rise to the entire structure of errors of the Modern civil state that has been embraced and celebrated by the conciliar church: "religious liberty."  (See Ominous Offenders Offending Ominously, Memo To David Axelrod And Other Social Engineers, John Carroll's Caesar, Victims of Compromise, Taking A Figure Of Antichrist At His Worthless Words, Prisoners Of Their Own Apostasy, Timothy Dolan, Meet Timothy Dolan (And Friends), Just More Conciliar Incongruities, Candidate For Man Of The Year?, From John Carroll To James Gibbons To Timothy Dolan.)

Other than this editorial, which was reviewed by Donald "Cardinal" Wuerl, the conciliar "archbishop" of Washington, District of Columbia, who permits the likes of United States Representative Nancy Patricia D'Alesandro Pelosi (D-California), the House Minority Leader, and Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., the Vice President of the United States of America, and countless other pro-abort, pro-perversity office-holders to receive what purports to be Holy Communion in the conciliar liturgical service that is invalid and thus devoid of sacramental efficacy, what is going to be done to John Di Gioia or to Kathleen Sebelius by conciliar officials, including "Pope" Benedict XVI?


That's what.


Fret about denying the Faith or supporting grave evils in public office? Fret not, saith the false "pontiff."

Indeed, as noted in Apostates Reprimanding Apostates, the conciliar church's Doctrinal Assessment of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious will never produce any reform of religious life in the older, more established communities of religious women that have gone even beyond the approved apostasies of conciliarism to embrace almost any kind of pantheism imaginable as they celebrate the feminism of Eve with ready abandon. No reform will be produced as that which is erroneous at its foundation, the conciliar church, can never control or turn back tidal waves started by its own having let loose the floodgates to every error imaginable as being tolerated, at least on a level of pastoral praxis, by its local and universal authorities.

As expected, of course, who has undermined the "weight" of the slap on the wrist represented by the Doctrinal Assessment of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious?

You got it.

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI:


In our conversations, many of you have spoken of your concern to build ever stronger relationships of friendship, cooperation and trust with your priests. At the present time, too, I urge you to remain particularly close to the men and women in your local Churches who are committed to following Christ ever more perfectly by generously embracing the evangelical counsels. I wish to reaffirm my deep gratitude for the example of fidelity and self-sacrifice given by many consecrated women in your country, and to join them in praying that this moment of discernment will bear abundant spiritual fruit for the revitalization and strengthening of their communities in fidelity to Christ and the Church, as well as to their founding charisms. The urgent need in our own time for credible and attractive witnesses to the redemptive and transformative power of the Gospel makes it essential to recapture a sense of the sublime dignity and beauty of the consecrated life, to pray for religious vocations and to promote them actively, while strengthening existing channels for communication and cooperation, especially through the work of the Vicar or Delegate for Religious in each Diocese. (To the Bishops of the United States of America, Regions XIV-XV and the Eastern Rite, on their ad Limina visit, May 18, 2012.)


How far have the women religious in the United States of America gone off even the conciliar reservation? See Mrs. Randy Engel's Sisters in rebellion - non serviam, part one, Sisters in rebellion - non serviam, part two, and Sisters in rebellion - non serviam, part three.

Apostates who give esteem to the symbols of false religions and who embrace one condemned proposition after another reforming fellow apostates? Impossible.

Fret not, member communities of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious. Fret not. 

The only groups that do have to fret a bit are those traditionally-minded communities within the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism or who are seeking full, active, and conscious participation in its structures. Communities such as the Society of Saint Pius X are just going to have to toe the conciliar line on such the conciliar line about adherents of the Talmud or face banishment from the merriments of apostasy in the conciliar church. (See Admit Bearer Only After Denying The Catholic Faith.)

Other than such groups, however, almost everyone in the conciliar church has carte blanche to do, say or believe whatever they want, which makes a mockery of Pope Leo XIII's plain reiteration of Catholic teaching as to what constitutes the Divine Constitution of Holy Mother Church:


Agreement and union of minds is the necessary foundation of this perfect concord amongst men, from which concurrence of wills and similarity of action are the natural results. Wherefore, in His divine wisdom, He ordained in His Church Unity of Faith; a virtue which is the first of those bonds which unite man to God, and whence we receive the name of the faithful - "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Eph. iv., 5). That is, as there is one Lord and one baptism, so should all Christians, without exception, have but one faith. And so the Apostle St. Paul not merely begs, but entreats and implores Christians to be all of the same mind, and to avoid difference of opinions: "I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms amongst you, and that you be perfect in the same mind and in the same judgment" (I Cor. i., 10). Such passages certainly need no interpreter; they speak clearly enough for themselves. Besides, all who profess Christianity allow that there can be but one faith. It is of the greatest importance and indeed of absolute necessity, as to which many are deceived, that the nature and character of this unity should be recognized. And, as We have already stated, this is not to be ascertained by conjecture, but by the certain knowledge of what was done; that is by seeking for and ascertaining what kind of unity in faith has been commanded by Jesus Christ. . . .

The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a certain portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. "There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition" (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos).

The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodore :, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. "No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic" (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88).

The need of this divinely instituted means for the preservation of unity, about which we speak is urged by St. Paul in his epistle to the Ephesians. In this he first admonishes them to preserve with every care concord of minds: "Solicitous to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Eph. iv., 3, et seq.). And as souls cannot be perfectly united in charity unless minds agree in faith, he wishes all to hold the same faith: "One Lord, one faith," and this so perfectly one as to prevent all danger of error: "that henceforth we be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive" (Eph. iv., 14): and this he teaches is to be observed, not for a time only - "but until we all meet in the unity of faith...unto the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ" (13). But, in what has Christ placed the primary principle, and the means of preserving this unity? In that - "He gave some Apostles - and other some pastors and doctors, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ" (11-12). (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896.)

Anyone who defects from the Catholic Faith ought to be considered as a non-Catholic with whom we can never be in communion no matter how many times he protests that this is not the case.

As we await the miracle of the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary that will usher in a period of peace and restore Holy Mother Church, we must cleave to the Catholic Church, not to the counterfeit church of conciliarism, as we attempt to plant the seeds for the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary as we seek to live more and more penitentially, making reparation to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary for our own many sins and for those of the whole word., praying as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits. No matter the problems in the Catholic catacombs, and they are problems aplenty, one can never

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.


Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!


Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior and Balthasar, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints



"Cardinal" Ratzinger On How Those Who Deny the Divinity of Our Lord Nevertheless Remain Believers in a Christian Way



Up to the very end of his conference, Card. Ratzinger resolutely continues on this road of agnosticism and now logically comes to the most disastrous of conclusions. He writes:


In conclusion, as we contemplate our present-day religious situation, of which I have tried to throw some light on some of its elements, we may well marvel at the fact that, after all, people still continue believing in a Christian manner, not only according to Hick's, Knitter's as well as others' substitute ways or forms, but also according to that full and joyous Faith found in the New Testament of the Church of all time.

So, there it is: For Card. Ratzinger, "Hick, Knitter, and others" who deny the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, His Church, His sacraments, and, in short, all of Christianity, continue "despite everything" "believing in a Christian manner," even though they do so using "substitute forms of belief"! Here, the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Faith leaves us wondering indeed, just what it is he means by "believing in a Christian manner."

Moreover, once the "preambula fidei" have been eliminated, that "full and joyous Faith of the Church of all time" which seems [for Card. Ratzinger] to be no different from modern-day apostasies other than by its style and total character, is utterly lacking in any rational credibility in comparison with and in relation to what he refers to as "substitute ways or forms" of faith. "How is it," Card. Ratzinger wonders, "in fact, that the Faith [the one of all time] still has a chance of success?" Answer:

I would say that it is because it finds a correspondence in man's nature…..There is, in man, an insatiable desire for the infinite. None of the answers we have sought is sufficient [but must we take his own word for it, or must we go through the exercise of experiencing all religions?]. God alone [but Whom, according to Card. Ratzinger, human reason cannot prove to be truly God], Who made Himself finite in order to shatter the bonds of our own finitude and bring us to the dimension of His infinity [...and not to redeem us from the slavery of sin?] is able to meet all the needs of our human existence.


According to this, it is therefore not objective motives based on history and reason, and thus the truth of Christianity, but only a subjective appreciation which brings us to "see" that it [Christianity] is able to satisfy the profound needs of human nature and which would explain the "success" [modernists would say the "vitality"] of the "faith" ["of all time" or in its "substitute forms," it is of but little importance]. Such, however, is not at all Catholic doctrine: this is simply modernist apologetics (cf. Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi), based on their affirmed impossibility of grasping metaphysical knowledge (or agnosticism or skepticism), which Card. Ratzinger seemed to want to shun in the first part of his address.

Now we are in a position to better understand why Card. Ratzinger has such a wide-open concept of "theology" and of "faith" that he includes everything: theology as well as heresies, faith and apostasy. On that road of denial of the human reason's ability of attaining metaphysical knowledge, a road which he continues to follow, he lacks the "means of discerning the difference between faith and non-faith" (R. Amerio, op. cit., p.340) and, consequently, theology from pseudo-theology, truth from heresy:

All theologies are nullified, because all are regarded as equivalent; the heart or kernel of religion is located in feelings or experiences, as the Modernists held at the beginning of this century (Amerio, op. cit., p.542).


We cannot see how this position of Card. Ratzinger can escape that solemn condemnation proclaimed at Vatican I: "If anyone says...that men must be brought to the Faith solely by their own personal interior experience...let him be anathema" (DB 1812). (Cardinal Ratzinger. This article, by the way, appeared in a publication of the Society of Saint Pius X, Si, Si, No, No in January of 1998.)







© Copyright 2012, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.