Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us
                 July 25, 2007

Has Not God Revealed Them All?

by Thomas A. Droleskey

There are times when the Modernism that took hold of the mind of seminarian Joseph Ratzinger in the late-1940s reveals itself more clearly than on others. As Modernism is, as described by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907, the synthesis of all heresies, there are, to be sure, "elements" of Catholicism in the writing of its adherents that make it difficult to discern truth from error. Pope Saint Pius X wrote Pascendi to give the bishops of the world (and hence all Catholics) a "key," if you will, by which to recognize Modernist language, which is clouded frequently by obscurity and ambiguity and paradox and contradiction, none of which is in the least to be found in any document of the Catholic Church prior to the dawning of the age of Aquarius, that is, the age of conciliarism. No Church Father or Doctor spoke or wrote in the language obscurity and ambiguity and paradox and contradiction. Those, therefore, seeking to excuse and/or defend Joseph Ratzinger's Modernism must try to project Catholicism into his mind when he speaks in Modernist terms, pointing out the other times or ways in which he seems to be a Catholic.

The exercise in seeking to deny Ratzinger's Modernism must neglect the man's fundamental rejection of Scholastic Philosophy, the official philosophy of the Catholic Church, as the principal reason why his mind is so filled with errors. No one who is living in the real world can deny that Joseph Ratzinger rejects Scholastic Philosophy. Ratzinger believes that the Catholic Faith can be understood better by relying on the "new theologians" who bent his mind when he was in seminary. These "new theologians" are Karl Rahner (with whom Ratzinger would have disagreements in later year), Hans Urs von Balthasar, Henri de Lubac, Yves Congar and Maurice Blondel, among many others. Each of these neo-Modernists project murkiness in the place of the clarity of Catholic truth, sometimes positing propositions that are completely contrary to the Catholic Faith.

Consider this description of Maurice Blondel and Henri de Lubac found in a superb article by Mr. John Vennari, the editor of Catholic Family News, that appeared in the newspaper's August, 1998 issue:

Maurice Blondel [1861-1949], a layman, ultimately formulated the philosophy on which the New Theology is based. In order to "win over modern men" who reject objectivism (the submission of the mind to objective reality) Blondel formulated a "subjectivist" philosophy, more in line with other modern philosophies.

How did he do this?

By stating that religion is not something that goes from the head to the heart (objective reality), but from heart to head (subjective). He said, "nothing can enter man which does not come from out of him and correspondence in some way to a need he has of expansion." Hence anything supernatural (sanctifying grace) that is in man ultimately comes from the nature of man himself.

What's wrong with that? St. Paul says "Faith comes by hearing" - that is, it comes from God presenting reality to man and then man accepting it. Also sanctifying grace (our created participation in the Divine Life of God) is not NATURAL to us. It is a free gift that is above our nature (more on this later). Neither Faith, nor the supernatural life of grace is "inside" man" already. Yet Blondel said "NOTHING can enter man which does not come from out of him." Blondel's teaching, in fact, is an extension of the Modernist notion of "Divine Immanence" condemned by Pope St. Pius X. That's why many refer to Blondel as a "neo-modernist".

Was Blondel in good faith?

The great Dominican, Father Garrigou-Lagrange believed that Blondel was not in good faith. Blondel manifested the trademarks of a modernist: 1)Blondel quoted texts of St. Thomas to make them mean the opposite of what they say; 2) he repeatedly met well-argued criticism from his adversaries with a mere categorical denial; 3)he continually claimed to be misunderstood; 4)he was always "explaining" how his thinking is really orthodox, so that to this day it is disputed what he is actually saying; 5) years later, he admitted to Fr. Henri de Lubac that he purposely diguised his true ideas in order to escape certain cen- sure from Church authorities.

Who was Father Henri de Lubac?

Father de Lubac [1896-1991] was a Jesuit who saw in Blondel's teach ing the basis of a New Theology. Blondel has rejected Thomistic philosophy, and de Lubac would incorporate this into a new system that would reject Thomistic theology.

Did the New Theology have any sympathizers in high places?

Even though Pope Pius XII had warned against these new teachings, the Vatican Secretary of State, Msgr. Montini, gave encouragement to the New Theology. At the same time, Montini was also conducting back-door dealings with the Stalinists, again, contrary to the will of Pius XII.

What is the heart of de Lubac's New Theology?

Building on Blondel's philosophy, de Lubac taught that the supernat- ural is a necessary perfection of nature, without which nature is frustrated in its essential aspirations. This means that the super natural is NEEDED to complete nature which remains incomplete without it. Hence, the supernatural is not a gratuitous gift but a part of nature owed to nature; in other words, the supernatural is not supernatural but natural, and lies within the bounds of nature.

Why is this wrong?

The Catholic Church teaches that the whole supernatural order of grace is exactly that: gratuitous-a sheer gift of God. Nature may be capable or well-suited to supernature, but it in no way strictly requires grace which is of a different order, infinitely superior, and given by God, as God wills, in a manner essentially independent of the received nature. This New Theology leads to pantheism. In 1981, in his book Gehtsemane, the lone voice of CARDINAL SIRI got right to the heart of de Lubac's confusion. He warned that if de Lubac's theology is taken to its logical conclusion, "it would mean either that Jesus Christ is not God, or that man is Divine - again, modernism!

Was de Lubac in good faith?

Father Garrigou-Lagrange exposed de Lubac's errors in his 1946 arti cle "Where is the New Theology Leading Us?," pointing out that this new theology is just a rehash of modernism. De Lubac simply responded with insults and mockery, accusing Garrigou-Lagrange of having "simplistic views on the absoluteness of truth." When Pope Pius XII condemned de Lubac's theology in Humani Generis, (#'s 29,30,32,34), de Lubac simply stated that this was "highly one-sided...it doesn't concern me."

But wasn't de Lubac a great expert on the Fathers of the Church?

Writing in THE THOMIST (1950) Father David Greenstock warned that the only reason that the leaders of the New Theology overwhelm the reader with the Greek Fathers is in order to GET AROUND St. Thomas Aquinas, whom they actually disdain, no matter how much they pledge their devotion to him.

Anything else about de Lubac?

Henri de Lubac was an avid defender of the evolutionist/pantheist Teilhard de Chardin. Teilhard also propogated great confusion regarding the natural and supernatural orders, claiming that nature EVOLVES into supernature - again, modernism!

Can Teilhard be defended as orthodox?

Not at all. How is it possible to defend a man who makes pantheistic statements such as, "Catholicism deceived me with its narrow definit- ions of the World...THE WORLD around me BECOMES DIVINE..."

Did de Lubac have any regrets?

At the end of his life, he started to wonder if perhaps he hadn't allowed himself to stray into forbidden doctrine. He wrote, "This periodis as full of error as any...maybe I should have concentrated more on essentials...for the last seven or eight years I have been paralyzed by the fear of confronting head on, in concrete fashion, the essential problems in their scolding reality. Out of wisdom or weakness? Was I right or wrong? By then however, he had already done his damage. Today, his cult lives on. (John Vennari, "A Short Catechism on the New Theology," Catholic Family News, August, 1998.)


Henri de Lubac is praised by Joseph Ratzinger in his Principles of Catholic Theology, whose whole purpose is to construct a "synthesis of Faith" between how the new theologians (and the Protestants and the Orthodox) "read" the Church Fathers and the Catholic Faith, bypassing and/or deconstructing classical Thomism in its entirety. People can huff and puff and rant and rave all they want, trying to strain true Catholicism from the works of Joseph Ratzinger. One can only understand Ratzinger by understanding that he rejects Thomism--and thus rejects the entire structure by which the Catholic Faith is to protected from the influences of men who want to "adapt" the Faith to the "needs" of the mythical entity known as "modern man."

Pope Saint Pius X wrote in Pascendi Dominci Gregis about the Modernists' rejection of Scholastic Philosophy:

It remains for Us now to say a few words about the Modernist as reformer. From all that has preceded, it is abundantly clear how great and how eager is the passion of such men for innovation. In all Catholicism there is absolutely nothing on which it does not fasten. They wish philosophy to be reformed, especially in the ecclesiastical seminaries. They wish the scholastic philosophy to be relegated to the history of philosophy and to be classed among absolute systems, and the young men to be taught modern philosophy which alone is true and suited to the times in which we live.


Yes, indeed, there is absolutely nothing in the Catholic Faith that Modernism wants to leave untouched. It is essential for Modernists--and the "neo-Modernists" who influenced the mind of seminarian Joseph Ratzinger--to reject Thomism so as to posit a false distinction between dogmatic truth and the mind's "perception" of it, between dogmatic truth and a "love" for God.

Pope Pius XII noted this very clearly in Humani Generis, August 12, 1950:

These new opinions, whether they originate from a reprehensible desire of novelty or from a laudable motive, are not always advanced in the same degree, with equal clarity nor in the same terms, nor always with unanimous agreement of their authors. Theories that today are put forward rather covertly by some, not without cautions and distinctions, tomorrow are openly and without moderation proclaimed by others more audacious, causing scandal to many, especially among the young clergy and to the detriment of ecclesiastical authority. Though they are usually more cautious in their published works, they express themselves more openly in their writings intended for private circulation and in conferences and lectures. Moreover, these opinions are disseminated not only among members of the clergy and in seminaries and religious institutions, but also among the laity, and especially among those who are engaged in teaching youth.

14. In theology some want to reduce to a minimum the meaning of dogmas; and to free dogma itself from terminology long established in the Church and from philosophical concepts held by Catholic teachers, to bring about a return in the explanation of Catholic doctrine to the way of speaking used in Holy Scripture and by the Fathers of the Church. They cherish the hope that when dogma is stripped of the elements which they hold to be extrinsic to divine revelation, it will compare advantageously with the dogmatic opinions of those who are separated from the unity of the Church and that in this way they will gradually arrive at a mutual assimilation of Catholic dogma with the tenets of the dissidents.

Moreover they assert that when Catholic doctrine has been reduced to this condition, a way will be found to satisfy modern needs, that will permit of dogma being expressed also by the concepts of modern philosophy, whether of immanentism or idealism or existentialism or any other system. Some more audacious affirm that this can and must be done, because they hold that the mysteries of faith are never expressed by truly adequate concepts but only by approximate and ever changeable notions, in which the truth is to some extent expressed, but is necessarily distorted. Wherefore they do not consider it absurd, but altogether necessary, that theology should substitute new concepts in place of the old ones in keeping with the various philosophies which in the course of time it uses as its instruments, so that it should give human expression to divine truths in various ways which are even somewhat opposed, but still equivalent, as they say. They add that the history of dogmas consists in the reporting of the various forms in which revealed truth has been clothed, forms that have succeeded one another in accordance with the different teachings and opinions that have arisen over the course of the centuries.

It is evident from what We have already said, that such tentatives not only lead to what they call dogmatic relativism, but that they actually contain it. The contempt of doctrine commonly taught and of the terms in which it is expressed strongly favor it. Everyone is aware that the terminology employed in the schools and even that used by the Teaching Authority of the Church itself is capable of being perfected and polished; and we know also that the Church itself has not always used the same terms in the same way. It is also manifest that the Church cannot be bound to every system of philosophy that has existed for a short space of time. Nevertheless, the things that have been composed through common effort by Catholic teachers over the course of the centuries to bring about some understanding of dogma are certainly not based on any such weak foundation. These things are based on principles and notions deduced from a true knowledge of created things. In the process of deducing, this knowledge, like a star, gave enlightenment to the human mind through the Church. Hence it is not astonishing that some of these notions have not only been used by the Oecumenical Councils, but even sanctioned by them, so that it is wrong to depart from them.

Hence to neglect, or to reject, or to devalue so many and such great resources which have been conceived, expressed and perfected so often by the age-old work of men endowed with no common talent and holiness, working under the vigilant supervision of the holy magisterium and with the light and leadership of the Holy Ghost in order to state the truths of the faith ever more accurately, to do this so that these things may be replaced by conjectural notions and by some formless and unstable tenets of a new philosophy, tenets which, like the flowers of the field, are in existence today and die tomorrow; this is supreme imprudence and something that would make dogma itself a reed shaken by the wind. The contempt for terms and notions habitually used by scholastic theologians leads of itself to the weakening of what they call speculative theology, a discipline which these men consider devoid of true certitude because it is based on theological reasoning.

Unfortunately these advocates of novelty easily pass from despising scholastic theology to the neglect of and even contempt for the Teaching Authority of the Church itself, which gives such authoritative approval to scholastic theology. This Teaching Authority is represented by them as a hindrance to progress and an obstacle in the way of science. Some non Catholics consider it as an unjust restraint preventing some more  qualified theologians from reforming their subject. And although this sacred Office of Teacher in matters of faith and morals must be the proximate and universal criterion of truth for all theologians, since to it has been entrusted by Christ Our Lord the whole deposit of faith -- Sacred Scripture and divine Tradition -- to be preserved, guarded and interpreted, still the duty that is incumbent on the faithful to flee also those errors which more or less approach heresy, and accordingly "to keep also the constitutions and decrees by which such evil opinions are proscribed and forbidden by the Holy See,"[2] is sometimes as little known as if it did not exist. What is expounded in the Encyclical Letters of the Roman Pontiffs concerning the nature and constitution of the Church, is deliberately and habitually neglected by some with the idea of giving force to a certain vague notion which they profess to have found in the ancient Fathers, especially the Greeks. The Popes, they assert, do not wish to pass judgment on what is a matter of dispute among theologians, so recourse must be had to the early sources, and the recent constitutions and decrees of the Teaching Church must be explained from the writings of the ancients.


Consider, please, this one sentence from Pope Pius XII's Humani Generis and compare it to Joseph Ratzinger's comments in the July 2, 1990, issue of L'Osservatore Romano:

Some more audacious affirm that this can and must be done, because they hold that the mysteries of faith are never expressed by truly adequate concepts but only by approximate and ever changeable notions, in which the truth is to some extent expressed, but is necessarily distorted. (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, August 12, 1950.)

The text [of the Second Vatican Council] also presents the various forms 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 a 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. Its nucleus remains valid, but the particulars, which the circumstances of the times have influenced, may need further ramifications.

“In this regard, one may think of the declarations of Popes in the last 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. 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 immersion in the liberal-bourgeois world. But in the details of the determinations they contain, they become obsolete after having fulfilled their pastoral mission at the proper moment.” (Joseph Ratzinger, L'Osservatore Romano, July 2, 1990)


One must be willfully blind not to see that Pope Pius XII was condemning in 1950 the very thing enunciated by Joseph Ratzinger in 1990. Joseph Ratzinger is a Modernist to the core of his being no matter how many times he sounds like a Catholic and may indeed hold some "elements" of the Catholic Faith as they have been handed down to us over the centuries.

Consider a report in the Zenit dispatch of Tuesday, July 24, 2007:

According to Father Lombardi, the Bishop of Rome said that "the substance of Christianity should not be considered a package of dogmas." And the best way to witness to God is to proclaim him in everyday life, "with love, faith and hope," the priest added.

The Holy Father explained that the Catholic faith requires having "our feet on the ground and our eyes fixed toward heaven," Father Lombardi said. Pastoral work, the priest continued, "helps to see the beauty of all God's gifts."


Here you have the Modernist mind summarized in a nutshell: the nonexistent "conflict" between dogma and the love of God. How can one separate dogmatic truths, which have been revealed by God definitively exclusively through His Catholic Church, from His love, which wills our good, the ultimate expression of which is the salvation of our immortal souls. We cannot love God or save our souls unless we hold to each of the truths that God has revealed through His Catholic Church. Saint John the Beloved, the brother of the Saint we celebrate today (along with the great Saint Christopher, suppressed by the Modernists, thank you), Saint James the Greater, put it this way:

Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God. And every one that loveth him who begot, loveth him also who is born of him. In this we know that we love the children of God: when we love God, and keep his commandments. For this is the charity of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not heavy. (1 John 5: 1-3)


Pope Pius XI, writing in Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928, reminded the bishops of the world that God has revealed each of his dogmas to be accepted in their entirety. Each is given for our sanctification and our salvation. We must hold to each perfectly. We must not dissent from them in any form, no less posit that it is possible to "love" God at all without loving what He had taught us through His Catholic Church:

These pan-Christians who turn their minds to uniting the churches seem, indeed, to pursue the noblest of ideas in promoting charity among all Christians: nevertheless how does it happen that this charity tends to injure faith? Everyone knows that John himself, the Apostle of love, who seems to reveal in his Gospel the secrets of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and who never ceased to impress on the memories of his followers the new commandment "Love one another," altogether forbade any intercourse with those who professed a mutilated and corrupt version of Christ's teaching: "If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him: God speed you." For which reason, since charity is based on a complete and sincere faith, the disciples of Christ must be united principally by the bond of one faith. Who then can conceive a Christian Federation, the members of which retain each his own opinions and private judgment, even in matters which concern the object of faith, even though they be repugnant to the opinions of the rest? And in what manner, We ask, can men who follow contrary opinions, belong to one and the same Federation of the faithful? For example, those who affirm, and those who deny that sacred Tradition is a true fount of divine Revelation; those who hold that an ecclesiastical hierarchy, made up of bishops, priests and ministers, has been divinely constituted, and those who assert that it has been brought in little by little in accordance with the conditions of the time; those who adore Christ really present in the Most Holy Eucharist through that marvelous conversion of the bread and wine, which is called transubstantiation, and those who affirm that Christ is present only by faith or by the signification and virtue of the Sacrament; those who in the Eucharist recognize the nature both of a sacrament and of a sacrifice, and those who say that it is nothing more than the memorial or commemoration of the Lord's Supper; those who believe it to be good and useful to invoke by prayer the Saints reigning with Christ, especially Mary the Mother of God, and to venerate their images, and those who urge that such a veneration is not to be made use of, for it is contrary to the honor due to Jesus Christ, "the one mediator of God and men." How so great a variety of opinions can make the way clear to effect the unity of the Church We know not; that unity can only arise from one teaching authority, one law of belief and one faith of Christians. But We do know that from this it is an easy step to the neglect of religion or indifferentism and to modernism, as they call it. Those, who are unhappily infected with these errors, hold that dogmatic truth is not absolute but relative, that is, it agrees with the varying necessities of time and place and with the varying tendencies of the mind, since it is not contained in immutable revelation, but is capable of being accommodated to human life. Besides this, in connection with things which must be believed, it is nowise licit to use that distinction which some have seen fit to introduce between those articles of faith which are fundamental and those which are not fundamental, as they say, as if the former are to be accepted by all, while the latter may be left to the free assent of the faithful: for the supernatural virtue of faith has a formal cause, namely the authority of God revealing, and this is patient of no such distinction. For this reason it is that all who are truly Christ's believe, for example, the Conception of the Mother of God without stain of original sin with the same faith as they believe the mystery of the August Trinity, and the Incarnation of our Lord just as they do the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, according to the sense in which it was defined by the Ecumenical Council of the Vatican. Are these truths not equally certain, or not equally to be believed, because the Church has solemnly sanctioned and defined them, some in one age and some in another, even in those times immediately before our own? Has not God revealed them all? For the teaching authority of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men, and which is daily exercised through the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops who are in communion with him, has also the office of defining, when it sees fit, any truth with solemn rites and decrees, whenever this is necessary either to oppose the errors or the attacks of heretics, or more clearly and in greater detail to stamp the minds of the faithful with the articles of sacred doctrine which have been explained. But in the use of this extraordinary teaching authority no newly invented matter is brought in, nor is anything new added to the number of those truths which are at least implicitly contained in the deposit of Revelation, divinely handed down to the Church: only those which are made clear which perhaps may still seem obscure to some, or that which some have previously called into question is declared to be of faith.


No, Modernists do not believe that God has revealed all "dogmas," which develop according to the "religious sense" of the believer over the centuries. Ratzinger has said on more than one occasion in the past that there are some dogmatic formulations of past councils that he "does not like." Well, it is not up to him to "like" dogmatic formulations. It is up to him to accept each as coming from the hand of God and to submit himself, mind and will, to them accordingly. This false distinction between "dogma" and the "love of God" is at the heart of Modernism and its offshoot, the "New Theology."

Thus it is, ladies and gentlemen, that a Catholic is defined not by the "minimal" number of the tenets of the Faith to which he subscribes or by the number of times he sounds "more" Catholic in comparison with the "few" times he appears to be ambiguous or unclear, if not in outright errors. A Catholic is defined by whether he holds to the entirety of the truths of the Faith without any dissent or qualification whatsoever. Period. Once again, Pope Leo XIII made this abundantly clear in Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896, putting the lie to the contention made by some in recent years that it is enough to hold a minimal number of truths in order to be considered a Catholic in good standing, a proposition that is made up entirely out of whole cloth and has not a shred of Patristic evidence to support it whatsoever.

To Pope Leo XIII once again:

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).


The "package of dogmas" that Joseph Ratzinger disparages time and time and again come from Our Lord Himself and are an inseparable part of His ineffable love for us, His rational creatures for whom He chose voluntarily to become Man for our sakes by the power of the Holy Ghost in the Virginal and Immaculate Womb of His Most Blessed Mother so as to redeem us on the wood of the Holy Cross. One cannot get to Heaven unless he holds to each truth of the Catholic Faith, which is why we pray the Act of Faith each morning after making our Morning Offering:

O my God, I firmly believe that Thou art one God, in three Divine Persons, Father, Son and Holy Ghost: I believe that Thy Divine Son became Man, and died for our sins, and that He will come to judge the living and the dead.  I believe these and all the truths which the Holy Catholic Church teaches, because Thou hast revealed them, Who can neither deceive nor be deceived.  Amen.


The reflexive defenders of Joseph Ratzinger will try, as always, to say that their putative "pope" was not disparaging dogma, that he was saying that we must be "charitable" to all others, that we win over others not so much by teaching them "dogmas" but by being "kind" to them. Let them believe what they want. Joseph Ratzinger has demonstrated how believes that dogma can "change" by being "understood" "more perfectly" in light of the needs of "modern man" and how it can be explained more perfectly by the insights of the "new theologians" who reject the official philosophy of the Catholic Church.

Joseph Ratzinger would never speak in these decisive words of Father Frederick Faber because his, Ratzinger's concept of loving God is false, based on Modernism and the New Theology:

If we hated sin as we ought to hate it, purely, keenly, manfully, we should do more penance, we should inflict more self-punishment, we should sorrow for our sins more abidingly. Then, again, the crowning disloyalty to God is heresy. It is the sin of sins, the very loathsomest of things which God looks down upon in this malignant world. Yet how little do we understand of its excessive hatefulness! It is the polluting of God’s truth, which is the worst of all impurities.

Yet how light we make of it! We look at it, and are calm. We touch it and do not shudder. We mix with it, and have no fear. We see it touch holy things, and we have no sense of sacrilege. We breathe its odor, and show no signs of detestation or disgust. Some of us affect its friendship; and some even extenuate its guilt. We do not love God enough to be angry for His glory. We do not love men enough to be charitably truthful for their souls.

Having lost the touch, the taste, the sight, and all the senses of heavenly-mindedness, we can dwell amidst this odious plague, in imperturbable tranquility, reconciled to its foulness, not without some boastful professions of liberal admiration, perhaps even with a solicitous show of tolerant sympathies.

Why are we so far below the old saints, and even the modern apostles of these latter times, in the abundance of our conversations? Because we have not the antique sternness? We want the old Church-spirit, the old ecclesiastical genius. Our charity is untruthful, because it is not severe; and it is unpersuasive, because it is untruthful.

We lack devotion to truth as truth, as God’s truth. Our zeal for souls is puny, because we have no zeal for God’s honor. We act as if God were complimented by conversions, instead of trembling souls rescued by a stretch of mercy.

We tell men half the truth, the half that best suits our own pusillanimity and their conceit; and then we wonder that so few are converted, and that of those few so many apostatize.

We are so weak as to be surprised that our half-truth has not succeeded so well as God’s whole truth.

Where there is no hatred of heresy, there is no holiness.

A man, who might be an apostle, becomes a fester in the Church for the want of this righteous indignation. (The Precious Blood, 1860)


Modernism and each of its offshoots leads to an expression religious sentiment that is anything but Catholic. We must recognize this as being so and never flinch from helping others to recognize the fact that those who would seek in any way to disparage dogmatic truth by placing it in opposition to a "true understanding of the "love of God" is an enemy of the Catholic Faith and a menace to the souls for whom Our Lord shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross.

May Our Lady help us always to offer our daily penances to the Most Sacred Heart of her Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, through her own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart in this time of apostasy and betrayal. May our tender devotion to her Most Holy Rosary help us to love her Divine Son more fully and to be willing to prefer all things, including physical death itself, to abandoning His Sacred Truths for the baubles of human respect and "canonical" recognition by His enemies in the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

May our zeal for souls match that of Saint James the Greater, a son of Zebedee.

May we bear Christ the King to the world as did the great wonder worker we commemorate today along with Saint James, our dear Saint Christopher, as we wander about in the catacombs of the Faith.


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 Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint James the Greater, pray for us.

Saint Christopher, pray for us.

Saint James the Greater, pray for us.

Simon Stock, pray for us.

Saint John of the Cross, pray for us.

Saint Teresa of Avila, pray for us.

Saint Therese Lisieux, pray for us.

Saint Bonaventure, pray for us.

Saint Athanasius, pray for us.

Saint Irenaeus, pray for us.

Saints Monica, pray for us.

Saint Jude, pray for us.

Saint John the Beloved, pray for us.

Saint Francis Solano, pray for us.

Saint John Bosco, pray for us.

Saint Dominic Savio, pray for us.

Saint  Scholastica, pray for us.

Saint Benedict, pray for us.

Saint Joan of Arc, pray for us.

Saint Antony of the Desert, pray for us.

Saint Francis of Assisi, pray for us.

Saint Thomas Aquinas, pray for us.

Saint Bonaventure, pray for us.

Saint Augustine, pray for us.

Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, pray for us.

Saint Francis Xavier, pray for us.

Saint Peter Damian, pray for us.

Saint Frances Xavier Cabrini, pray for us.

Saint Lucy, pray for us.

Saint Monica, pray for us.

Saint Agatha, pray for us.

Saint Anthony of Padua, pray for us.

Saint Basil the Great, pray for us.

Saint Philomena, pray for us.

Saint Cecilia, pray for us.

Saint John Mary Vianney, pray for us.

Saint Vincent de Paul, pray for us.

Saint Vincent Ferrer, pray for us.

Saint Athanasius, pray for us.

Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque, pray for us.

Saint Isaac Jogues, pray for us.

Saint Rene Goupil, pray for us.

Saint John Lalonde, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel Lalemont, pray for us.

Saint Noel Chabanel, pray for us.

Saint Charles Garnier, pray for us.

Saint Anthony Daniel, pray for us.

Saint John DeBrebeuf, pray for us.

Saint Alphonsus de Liguori, pray for us.

Saint Dominic, pray for us.

Saint Hyacinth, pray for us.

Saint Basil, pray for us.

Saint Vincent Ferrer, pray for us.

Saint Sebastian, pray for us.

Saint Tarcisius, pray for us.

Saint Bridget of Sweden, pray for us.

Saint Gerard Majella, pray for us.

Saint Bernadette Soubirous, pray for us.

Saint Genevieve, pray for us.

Saint Vincent de Paul, pray for us.

Pope Saint Pius X, pray for us

Pope Saint Pius V, pray for us.

Saint Rita of Cascia, pray for us.

Saint Louis de Montfort, pray for us.

Venerable Anne Catherine Emmerich, pray for us.

Venerable Pauline Jaricot, pray for us.

Father Miguel Augustin Pro, pray for us.

Francisco Marto, pray for us.

Jacinta Marto, pray for us.

Juan Diego, pray for us.

Sister Teresa Benedicta, pray for us.


The Longer Version of the Saint Michael the Archangel Prayer, composed by Pope Leo XIII, 1888

O glorious Archangel Saint Michael, Prince of the heavenly host, be our defense in the terrible warfare which we carry on against principalities and powers, against the rulers of this world of darkness, spirits of evil.  Come to the aid of man, whom God created immortal, made in His own image and likeness, and redeemed at a great price from the tyranny of the devil.  Fight this day the battle of our Lord, together with  the holy angels, as already thou hast fought the leader of the proud angels, Lucifer, and his apostate host, who were powerless to resist thee, nor was there place for them any longer in heaven.  That cruel, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil or Satan who seduces the whole world, was cast into the abyss with his angels.  Behold this primeval enemy and slayer of men has taken courage.  Transformed into an angel of light, he wanders about with all the multitude of wicked spirits, invading the earth in order to blot out the Name of God and of His Christ, to seize upon, slay, and cast into eternal perdition, souls destined for the crown of eternal glory.  That wicked dragon pours out. as a most impure flood, the venom of his malice on men of depraved mind and corrupt heart, the spirit of lying, of impiety, of blasphemy, and the pestilent breath of impurity, and of every vice and iniquity.  These most crafty enemies have filled and inebriated with gall and bitterness the Church, the spouse of the Immaculate Lamb, and have laid impious hands on Her most sacred possessions. In the Holy Place itself, where has been set up the See of the most holy Peter and the Chair of Truth for the light of the world, they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety with the iniquitous design that when the Pastor has been struck the sheep may be scattered.  Arise then, O invincible Prince, bring help against the attacks of the lost spirits to the people of God, and give them the victory.  They venerate thee as their protector and patron; in thee holy Church glories as her defense against the malicious powers of hell; to thee has God entrusted the souls of men to be established in heavenly beatitude.  Oh, pray to the God of peace that He may put Satan under our feet, so far conquered that he may no longer be able to hold men in captivity and harm the Church.  Offer our prayers in the sight of the Most High, so that they may quickly conciliate the mercies of the Lord; and beating down the dragon, the ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, do thou again make him captive in the abyss, that he may no longer seduce the nations.  Amen.

Verse: Behold the Cross of the Lord; be scattered ye hostile powers.

Response: The Lion of the Tribe of Juda has conquered the root of David.

Verse: Let Thy mercies be upon us, O Lord.

Response: As we have hoped in Thee.

Verse: O Lord hear my prayer.

Response: And let my cry come unto Thee.

Verse: Let us pray.  O God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, we call upon Thy holy Name, and as suppliants, we implore Thy clemency, that by the intercession of Mary, ever Virgin, immaculate and our Mother, and of the glorious Archangel Saint Michael, Thou wouldst deign to help us against Satan and all other unclean spirits, who wander about the world for the injury of the human race and the ruin of our souls. 

Response:  Amen.  



© Copyright 2007, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.