If I Were King Of The Forest!

by Thomas A. Droleskey

There are times when the absurdity of the times in which we live calls for absurdity by means of attempting to retain one's sanity without screaming at the top of one's voice at the insane comments that some defenders of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI to convince themselves of the fantasy that the currently governing false "pontiff" is restoring the Church's "ecclesiastical traditions." Before I provide you with a brief, well-modulated "scream" in this article, please click on the link in the title above and/or sing along with me (or Mitch Miller, if you want) to the lyrics sung by the late Bert Lahr as The Cowardly Lion in The Wizard of Oz:

Lion:

If I were King of the Forest, Not queen, not duke, not prince.
My regal robes of the forest, would be satin, not cotton, not chintz.
I'd command each thing, be it fish or fowl.
With a woof and a woof and a royal growl - woof.
As I'd click my heel, all the trees would kneel.
And the mountains bow and the bulls kowtow.
And the sparrow would take wing - If I - If I - were King!
Each rabbit would show respect to me. The chipmunks genuflect to me.
Though my tail would lash, I would show compash
For every underling!
If I - If I - were King!
Just King!
Monarch of all I survey -- Mo--na-a-a--a-arch Of all I survey!

If I were "King of the Forest," my few but very appreciated readers, I'd call for a moratorium on absurdities such as the contention that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is attempting to restore the "ecclesiastical tradition" of the Catholic Church. This absurd assertion was made in a recent article, which was an effort to prove the validity of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service that was designed by its chief architect, Annibale Bugnini, to "strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren that is for the Protestants, that was called to my attention by a reader of this site.

The substance of the particular article will be reviewed, I am sure, by those trained formally in sacramental theology, although His Excellency Bishop Mark A. Pivarunas, the Superior-General of the Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen, has written several very fine explications on the invalidity of the words used in in Novus Ordo's various formularies of what is called the "Eucharistic Prayer" (see Invalidity of the Novus Ordo Missae, Comments on on the Eucharistic Form of Consecration, Response to Open Letter). My focus, however, in this article is on the absurd contention that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is attempting to restore our "ecclesiastical" traditions.

Without in any way, shape or form impugning the good intentions of the author of the article in question or his love for Holy Mother Church, I do nevertheless find it nothing other than astounding that anyone can, at this late date, make the assertion that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is "restoring" the "ecclesiastical traditions" of the Catholic Church.

How is it "restoring" the ecclesiastical traditions of the Catholic Church to praise with one's own hands the symbols of five false religions as an auxiliary "bishop" of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee reads the following blasphemous descriptions of those false religions, each of which is loathsome in the sight of the Most Blessed Trinity?

WASHINGTON—Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist, Jains and Hindu communities will meet with Pope Benedict XVI April 17, at the Pope John Paul II Cultural Center during the April 15-20 papal visit to the United States.

The meeting will include a papal address, greetings from inter-faith leaders and the presentation of symbolic gifts by young members of each community.

Bishop Richard Sklba, chair of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs, noted that the theme Religions Working for Peace will run through the meeting, to which 200 leaders have been invited.

“The cry for peace in our world calls for religious bodies to come together,” Bishop Sklba said. “This meeting denotes the Holy Father’s belief in the need for religious bodies to stress the goal for peace which lies at the heart of all religions. It “exemplifies what must happen all over the world.”

The gifts symbolize the path to peace in the deepest teachings of each group. They include:

A silver menorah with seven lights. It symbolizes the perennial validity of God’s covenant of peace. Silver is frequently used in the Eastern European Jewish tradition. The menorah recalls the seven branched lamp stand used in the temple in Jerusalem.

A small, finely crafted edition of the Qur’an, in green leather and gold leaf edging. The Qur’an is the revered word of God, proclaiming God’s message of peace. Green is the traditional Islamic color.

A metallic cube representing the Jain principles of non-violence and respect for a diversity of viewpoints as a way to peace through self-discipline and dialogue.

The sacred syllable Om on a brass incense burner. Om is the primordial sound of creation itself, by which God’s liberating peace is made known. Bronze or brass are widely used for Hindu liturgical ornaments. Incense sticks are used in ritual worship among Hindu believers.

A bronze bell cast in Korea. In various Buddhist cultures, the sound of the bell demarcates the times of meditation, which leads to inner peace and enlightenment. (USCCB - (Office of Media Relations) - Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist, Jain, Hindu Leaders To Meet With Pope Benedict XVI; see video of this blasphemous offense to God by clicking See for yourself, April 17, 2008 - 6:15 p.m. - Interreligious Gathering.)

How is it an exercise in the "restoration of the ecclesiastical traditions of the Catholic Church to accept a menorah as a symbol of the "perennial validity of God's covenant of peace"?

How is it an exercise in the "restoration of the ecclesiastical traditions of the Catholic Church" to accept a copy of the Koran, which blasphemes Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by denying His Sacred Divinity and is heretical in that it does that God is a Trinity of Persons, which was represented by the American conciliar "bishops" as "the revered word of God, proclaiming God’s message of peace"?

Would Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, God in the very Flesh, say what Ratzinger/Benedict said in May of 2008 when he, the false "pontiff," received yet another copy of the Koran, this time in the Apostolic Palace in the Vatican, called this work of blasphemy a "dear and precious book." Would Our Lord speak in such a way about a book that denies His Sacred Divinity? Restoring the ecclesiastical traditions of the Catholic Church?

How is it an exercise in the "restoration of the ecclesiastical traditions of the Catholic Church" to accept the "metallic cube" representing the principles of Jain?

How is it an exercise in the "restoration of the ecclesiastical traditions of the Catholic Church" to accept a brass incense burner (talk about a grain of incense!) with the word "Om" on it in order to "esteem" the Hindu religion?

How is it an exercise in the "restoration of the ecclesiastical traditions of the Catholic Church" to accept a bell used in the false worship of Buddhism?

How is it an exercise in the "restoration of the ecclesiastical traditions of the Catholic Church" for a putative Roman Pontiff to call a mosque, a place of diabolical worship, or a mountain revered by the devil-worshipers known as Buddhists as "sacred"?

How is it an exercise in the "restoration of the ecclesiastical traditions of the Catholic Church" for an alleged Successor of Saint Peter to enter into a synagogue and to treat the false, blasphemous religion of Talmudic Judaism as a valid means of sanctification and salvation for its adherents? Was Bishop George Hay wrong when he he wrote that the Catholic Church's attitude about the places of false worship, including the synagogue, will always be the same? Was Pope Pius XI wrong to insist on the same doctrine?

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.)

This being so, it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ. Shall We suffer, what would indeed be iniquitous, the truth, and a truth divinely revealed, to be made a subject for compromise? For here there is question of defending revealed truth. Jesus Christ sent His Apostles into the whole world in order that they might permeate all nations with the Gospel faith, and, lest they should err, He willed beforehand that they should be taught by the Holy Ghost: has then this doctrine of the Apostles completely vanished away, or sometimes been obscured, in the Church, whose ruler and defense is God Himself? If our Redeemer plainly said that His Gospel was to continue not only during the times of the Apostles, but also till future ages, is it possible that the object of faith should in the process of time become so obscure and uncertain, that it would be necessary to-day to tolerate opinions which are even incompatible one with another? If this were true, we should have to confess that the coming of the Holy Ghost on the Apostles, and the perpetual indwelling of the same Spirit in the Church, and the very preaching of Jesus Christ, have several centuries ago, lost all their efficacy and use, to affirm which would be blasphemy. But the Only-begotten Son of God, when He commanded His representatives to teach all nations, obliged all men to give credence to whatever was made known to them by "witnesses preordained by God," and also confirmed His command with this sanction: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned." These two commands of Christ, which must be fulfilled, the one, namely, to teach, and the other to believe, cannot even be understood, unless the Church proposes a complete and easily understood teaching, and is immune when it thus teaches from all danger of erring. In this matter, those also turn aside from the right path, who think that the deposit of truth such laborious trouble, and with such lengthy study and discussion, that a man's life would hardly suffice to find and take possession of it; as if the most merciful God had spoken through the prophets and His Only-begotten Son merely in order that a few, and those stricken in years, should learn what He had revealed through them, and not that He might inculcate a doctrine of faith and morals, by which man should be guided through the whole course of his moral life. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)

 

These brief passages are absolute, unconditional condemnations of the beliefs and practices of the conciliar "popes," including Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. The passage from Pope Pius XI's Mortalium Animos is also a condemnation of the belief held by many, although not all, traditionally-minded Catholics yet attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, that it is necessary to come to a "correct" understanding of the documents of the "Second" Vatican Council, that these documents have been "misunderstood" in the name of "spirit of Vatican II." Wrong! Pope Pius XI made it abundantly clear that the Catholic Church "proposes a complete and easily understood teaching." Can there be any clearer statement that the confusion caused by the "Second" Vatican Council and its aftermath is not a work of the Catholic Church but of the Master of Lies and the very Prince of Darkness himself?

The conciliar "bishop" of Sioux City, Iowa, Walter Nickless, has just issued a "pastoral letter," which comes complete with references to "Pope John Paul the Great," a man who blasphemed God on numerous occasions and actually lost the Faith in his youth (see "Connecting" with Betrayal, "Thumbs Up" From a Communist for an Apostate, Appeasers Never Learn, Legionaries of Cash and Cover-Up, and Baal, Yes, Holy Trinity, No) and who suborned one perverted "bishop" after another, that seeks to find the "correct" interpretation of the "Second" Vatican Council. I am afraid, "Bishop" Nickless, that yo have to reckon with these words of Pope Pius XI, quoted twice just above, in order to realize that the teaching of the Catholic Church is easily understood:

These two commands of Christ, which must be fulfilled, the one, namely, to teach, and the other to believe, cannot even be understood, unless the Church proposes a complete and easily understood teaching, and is immune when it thus teaches from all danger of erring. In this matter, those also turn aside from the right path, who think that the deposit of truth such laborious trouble, and with such lengthy study and discussion, that a man's life would hardly suffice to find and take possession of it; as if the most merciful God had spoken through the prophets and His Only-begotten Son merely in order that a few, and those stricken in years, should learn what He had revealed through them, and not that He might inculcate a doctrine of faith and morals, by which man should be guided through the whole course of his moral life. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)

That conciliarists are still arguing about the "true" meaning of the "Second" Vatican Council is, as noted just before, a manifest indication that that robber baron council was not the work of the Catholic Church, she who can never give us anything obscure, unclear or in the least ambiguous. As for the laughable, absurd contention made by "Bishop" Nickless that there is "no difference" between the "pre-Vatican II" and "post-Vatican II" periods, please see the compendium that I have provided in Ratzinger's War Against Catholicism and Not So "Upright" After All.

Also, where in the Catholic Church's Code of Canon Law, issued in 1917 by Pope Benedict XV, is there permission for non-Catholics to receive Holy Communion? No "difference" between the "pre-Vatican II" and the "post Vatican II periods," "Bishop" Nickless? Just read the Code of Canon Law of your counterfeit church of conciliarism.

No "difference" between the "pre-Vatican II" and the "post Vatican II periods," "Bishop" Nickless? Read these words of Pope Saint Pius X, spoken to the founder of International Zionism, Theodore Herzl, on January 25, 1904:

HERZL: Yesterday I was with the Pope [Pius X]. . . . I arrived ten minutes ahead of time, and without having to wait I was conducted through a number of small reception rooms to the Pope. He received me standing and held out his hand, which I did not kiss. Lippay had told me I had to do it, but I didn’t. I believe this spoiled my chances with him, for everyone who visits him kneels and at least kisses his hand. This hand kiss had worried me a great deal and I was glad when it was out of the way.

He seated himself in an armchair, a throne for minor affairs, and invited me to sit by his side. He smiled in kindly anticipation. I began:

HERZL: I thank Your Holiness for the favor of granting me this audience. [I begged him to excuse my miserable Italian, but he said:

POPE: No, Signor Commander, you speak very well.

HERZL: [He is an honest, rough-hewn village priest, to whom Christianity has remained a living thing even in the Vatican. I briefly laid my request before him. But annoyed perhaps by my refusal to kiss his hand, he answered in a stern categorical manner.

POPE: We are unable to favor this movement [of Zionism]. We cannot prevent the Jews from going to Jerusalem—but we could never sanction it. The ground of Jerusalem, if it were not always sacred, has been sanctified by the life of Jesus Christ. As the head of the Church I cannot answer you otherwise. The Jews have not recognized our Lord, therefore we cannot recognize the Jewish people.

HERZL: [The conflict between Rome and Jerusalem, represented by the one and the other of us, was once again under way. At the outset I tried to be conciliatory. I said my little piece. . . . It didn’t greatly impress him. Jerusalem was not to be placed in Jewish hands.] And its present status, Holy Father?

POPE: I know, it is disagreeable to see the Turks in possession of our Holy Places. We simply have to put up with it. But to sanction the Jewish wish to occupy these sites, that we cannot do.

HERZL: [I said that we based our movement solely on the sufferings of the Jews, and wished to put aside all religious issues].

POPE: Yes, but we, but I as the head of the Catholic Church, cannot do this. One of two things will likely happen. Either the Jews will retain their ancient faith and continue to await the Messiah whom we believe has already appeared—in which case they are denying the divinity of Jesus and we cannot assist them. Or else they will go there with no religion whatever, and then we can have nothing at all to do with them. The Jewish faith was the foundation of our own, but it has been superceded by the teachings of Christ, and we cannot admit that it still enjoys any validity. The Jews who should have been the first to acknowledge Jesus Christ have not done so to this day.

HERZL: [It was on the tip of my tongue to remark, “It happens in every family: no one believes in his own relative.” But, instead, I said:] Terror and persecution were not precisely the best means for converting the Jews. [His reply had an element of grandeur in its simplicity:]

POPE: Our Lord came without power. He came in peace. He persecuted no one. He was abandoned even by his apostles. It was only later that he attained stature. It took three centuries for the Church to evolve. The Jews therefore had plenty of time in which to accept his divinity without duress or pressure. But they chose not to do so, and they have not done it yet.

HERZL: But, Holy Father, the Jews are in a terrible plight. I do not know if Your Holiness is aware of the full extent of their tragedy. We need a land for these harried people.

POPE: Must it be Jerusalem?

HERZL: We are not asking for Jerusalem, but for Palestine—for only the secular land.

POPE: We cannot be in favor of it.

[Editor Lowenthal interjects here] Here unrelenting replacement theology is plainly upheld as the norm of the Roman Catholic Church. Further, this confession, along with the whole tone of the Pope in his meeting with Herzl, indicates the perpetuation of a doctrinal emphasis that has resulted in centuries of degrading behavior toward the Jews. However, this response has the “grandeur” of total avoidance of that which Herzl had intimated, namely that the abusive reputation of Roman Catholicism toward the Jews was unlikely to foster conversion. Further, if, “It took three centuries for the Church to evolve,” it was that very same period of time that it took for the Church to consolidate and launch its thrust of anti-Semitism through the following centuries.

HERZL: Does Your Holiness know the situation of the Jews?

POPE: Yes, from my days in Mantua, where there are Jews. I have always been in friendly relations with Jews. Only the other evening two Jews were here to see me. There are other bonds than those of religion: social intercourse, for example, and philanthropy. Such bonds we do not refuse to maintain with the Jews. Indeed we also pray for them, that their spirit see the light. This very day the Church is celebrating the feast of an unbeliever who became converted in a miraculous manner—on the road to Damascus. And so if you come to Palestine and settle your people there, we will be ready with churches and priests to baptize all of you.

HERZL: [At this point Conte Lippay had himself announced. The Pope bade him be admitted. The Conte kneeled, kissed his hand, and joined in the conversation by telling of our “miraculous” meeting in the Bauer beerhall at Venice. The miracle was that he had originally intended to stay overnight in Padua, and instead, it turned out that he was given to hear me express the wish to kiss the Holy Father’s foot. At this the Pope made no movement, for I hadn’t even kissed his hand. Lippay proceeded to tell how I had expiated on the noble qualities of Jesus Christ. The Pope listened, and now and then took a pinch of snuff and sneezed into a big red cotton handkerchief. It is these peasant touches which I like about him best and which most of all compel my respect. Lippay, it would appear, wanted to account for his introducing me, and perhaps ward off a word of reproach. But the Pope said:

POPE: On the contrary, I am glad you brought me the Signor Commendatore.

HERZL: [As to the real business, he repeated what he had told me, until he dismissed us:]

POPE: Not possible!

HERZL: [Lippay stayed on his knees for an unconscionable time and never seemed to tire of kissing his hand. It was apparent that this was what the Pope liked. But on taking leave, I contented myself with shaking his hand warmly and bowing deeply. The audience lasted about twenty-five minutes. While spending the last hour in the Raphael gallery, I saw a picture of an Emperor kneeling before a seated Pope and receiving the crown from his hands. That’s how Rome wants it.]   (Marvin Lowenthal, Diaries of Theodore Herzl, pp. 427- 430.)

 

Pope Saint Pius X was reiterating the consistent teaching of the Catholic Church from the time of the discourse of Saint Peter, our first Pope, in Jerusalem on Pentecost Sunday. The conciliar "popes" reject the necessity of seeking with urgency the unconditional conversion of everyone, including adherents of the Talmud, to the true Faith, the Catholic Faith, rejecting also the consistent teaching of the Catholic Church that the Mosaic Covenant has been superseded by the New and Eternal Covenant instituted by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the true Paschal Lamb Who taketh away the sins of the world, at the Last Supper and that was ratified by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross. No difference between the "pre-Vatican II" and "post-Vatican II" periods, "Bishop" Nickless? You are, knowingly or unknowingly, misrepresenting the truth and distorting reality.

Indeed, my very few readers, how can lies and heresies and acts of apostasy and blasphemy and sacrilege serve as "building stones" for the "restoration of the ecclesiastical traditions of the Catholic Church" that Joseph Ratzinger himself helped to raze as a peritus at the "Second" Vatican Council?

How can the "ecclesiastical traditions of the Catholic Church" be restored when the putative "pontiff" employs a philosophically absurd and dogmatically condemned proposition (the "hermeneutic of continuity and discontinuity") that would have us believe that the language employed by the Fathers of the Church's legitimate dogmatic councils were "conditioned" by the historical circumstances in which they worked, thereby blaspheming the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, Who directed those Church Fathers of councils and our true popes to write and to speak as they did?

How can the "ecclesiastical traditions of the Catholic Church" be restored when the following decree of the [First] Vatican Council, reiterated by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907, an encyclical letter never mentioned by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, and inserted into The Oath Against Modernism, September 1, 1910, is contradicted directly by Ratzinger/Benedict's laughable, absurd proposition, made on December 22, 2005, that "we had to learn" that the language contained in dogmatic statements is contingent on the historical circumstances in which those statements were made?

You want proof of how Ratzinger/Benedict's "hermeneutic of continuity and discontinuity" has been condemned by the Catholic Church? Here, for the umpteenth time on this site, is his statement, following by the prophetic condemnations of it by the authority of the Catholic Church:

"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. (Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, Christmas greetings to the Members of the Roman Curia and Prelature, December 22, 2005.)

The Catholic Church:  "Hence, that meaning of the sacred dogmata is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy Mother Church, and there must never be an abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.... If anyone says that it is possible that at some given time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmata propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has always understood and understands: let him be anathema." [Vatican Council, 1870.] (See also Ratzinger's War Against Catholicism and  Continuity Plus Discontinuity Will Always Equal Insanity, something that "Bishop" Walter Nickless needs to do to understand the nature of the apostasy that he is promoting as he supports in a "pastoral letter" the absurdity that is the "hermeneutic of continuity and discontinuity.)

 

How can the "ecclesiastical traditions of the Catholic Church" be restored by a man who rejects, fundamentally and categorically, the Scholasticism of Saint Thomas Aquinas in favor of the "new theology" of the likes of the Hegelian Hans Urs von Balthasar, who believed in the absurdity that truth contains within itself the seeds of its own contradiction, and Henri de Lubac and Maurice Blondel and Yves Congar and Karl Rahner? Did the Third Person of the Most Holy Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, "keep" "knowledge" of the "hermeneutic of continuity and discontinuity" from the Fathers of the [First] Vatican Council and from Saint Pius X? Preposterous and utterly blasphemous.

How can the "ecclesiastical traditions of the Catholic Church" be restored by a man who rejects the "ecumenism of the return" and who believes that a generic sense of "Christianity," not a return to the totality of Catholicism, is good enough for a stable Europe?

How can the "ecclesiastical traditions of the Catholic Church" be restored by a man who rejects the Social Reign of Christ the King and endorses time and time again the condemned falsehood of "separation of Church and State" as he extols the heresy of "religious liberty," praising the nonexistent ability of one false religion after another to "contribute" to the "building" of a "better world"? (See (see Urbanely Accepting Evil,  Respect Those Who Break the First Commandment? Respect Those Who Break the Fifth Commandment,  L'Osservatore Del Naturalista, A "Blessing" on a Murderer and His Work, Figures of Antichrist Applauding Each Other, and Working for the Nobel Prize From Hell).

 

Anyone possessed of the sensus Catholicus knows that none of these these blasphemous actions and/or heresies are an exercise in the "restoration of the ecclesiastical traditions of the Catholic Church," that each of these blasphemous actions is offensive to the honor and majesty and glory of God, that they demand our public acts of reparation as they represent, objectively speaking, scandalous violations of the First and Second Commandments.

The Church Militant on earth is not going to be restored by means of minor alterations in a putative liturgy that was composed to please Protestants (see and is meant to convey the Masonic ethos of "universal brotherhood," an ethos that is very much at the heart of each of the conciliar "pontiffs," starting with Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII, as one conciliar "pope" after another does an says things have never been said and done by any true pope of the Catholic Church in her history, things that are repugnant in the sight God. Or does anyone out there in Motu-land want to contend that acts esteeming the symbols of false religions is pleasing to the true God of Revelation?

That which is false, that which is repugnant in the sight of the Most Blessed Trinity can never serve as the foundation of any kind of "restoration" of the Church Militant on earth.

That which is false, that which is repugnant in the sight of the Most Blessed Trinity can never be mixed with a "little bit of truth" and a "little bit" of alleged liturgical "decorum" to serve as the foundation of any kind of "restoration" of the Church Militant on earth. Truth mixed with error is all error.

Was Pope Gregory XVI wrong when he wrote in Singulari Nos, May 25, 1834, that the Catholic Church can never be stained with the slightest taint of 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.

 

Can truth and error be part of the teaching of the Catholic Church? Is it possible for doctrinal and pastoral statements to be so filled with ambiguity that it is necessary for an "super-magisterium," if you will, the Society of Saint Pius X, to serve as a "watchdog" upon the words and actions of a putative "council" of the Catholic Church and of putative Successors of Saint Peter? No:

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.)

 

No one who defects knowingly from a single proposition in the Deposit of Faith can remain a member of the Catholic Church in good standing. A la carte Catholicism is wrong for those Catholics who support one moral evil (abortion, contraception, perversity, usury). A la carte Catholicism is wrong for putative "popes" and "bishops" who deny the nature of dogmatic truth and and reject the Church's official philosophy, Scholasticism, and support most brazenly movements (false ecumenism) and propositions (religious liberty, separation of Church and State, the new ecclesiology) that have been condemned by the teaching authority of the Catholic Church.

It is always useful to remind readers of the simple truth that no one can hold to a single proposition that has been condemned by the authority of the Catholic Church and remain within her maternal bosom:

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

The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodore :, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. "No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic" (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88). (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896.)

 

As I demonstrated two months ago now in Keep Trying, Keep Trying, the era of apostasy and betrayal has been many centuries in the making. The first of the conciliar "pontiffs," Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII, was in the vanguard of supporting the very Masonic proposition of "universal brotherhood," condemned by Pope Leo XIII in Custodi Di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892, and by Pope Saint Pius X in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910. False ideas always lead to bad consequences, and each of the conciliar "popes," starting with Roncalli, held false ideas that, as you will be able to see yet again, have been condemned by the true popes of the Catholic Church:

At Pentecost of 1944, shortly before his departure from Istanbul, in his farewell homily, embracing with his gaze the variegated and composite assembly packing the Cathedral, Roncalli emphasized that:

“We can all find the best reasons to underscore the differences of race, culture, religion or conduct. The Catholics, in particular, are keen to distinguish themselves from the “ others” : Orthodox brothers, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, believers and non-believers of other religions”… “ Dear brothers and sons, I have to tell you that, in light of the Gospel and of the Catholic principle, that is a false logic. Jesus came to knock down these barriers; He died in order to proclaim universal brotherhood; the central point of His teaching is charity, that is, the love which binds all men to Him as the first of all brothers, and which binds Him, with us, to the Father” (30)." (From: http://www.novusordowatch.org/resources/John-XXIII-Beatified.pdf; I thank the reader who sent me this important link to an article by Father Luigi Villa, Ph.D., a sedeplenist priest, on the apostasies of Angelo Roncalli, whose embrace of "universal brotherhood" came straight from Judeo-Masonry by way of the principles of The Sillon, which were condemned by Pope Saint Pius X in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910,  that he, Roncalli, continued to support after they were condemned by Pope Saint Pius X!)

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, nevertheless, is what they want to do with human society; they dream of changing its natural and traditional foundations; they dream of a Future City built on different principles, and they dare to proclaim these more fruitful and more beneficial than the principles upon which the present Christian City rests.

No, Venerable Brethren, We must repeat with the utmost energy in these times of social and intellectual anarchy when everyone takes it upon himself to teach as a teacher and lawmaker - the City cannot be built otherwise than as God has built it; society cannot be setup unless the Church lays the foundations and supervises the work; no, civilization is not something yet to be found, nor is the New City to be built on hazy notions; it has been in existence and still is: it is Christian civilization, it is the Catholic City. It has only to be set up and restored continually against the unremitting attacks of insane dreamers, rebels and miscreants. omnia instaurare in Christo. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)

 

At the essence of Modernism is the admixture of truth and error. Alas, truth and error cannot exit in the bosom of the spotless Mystical Bride of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the Holy Roman Catholic Church that He founded upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope.

It took me long enough to recognize the fact that the Catholic Church cannot give us defective liturgies that are in se offensive to God and that she never countenances or reaffirms adherents of false religions in their false beliefs. It took me long enough to realize that Our Lord instituted the papacy to preserve Catholic doctrine and that there is no need for members of a "super-magisterium" to engage in "negotiations" with putative representatives of the Holy See to arrive at a mutually agreeable "understanding" of various contested points. I am not going to castigate anyone who does not as of yet recognize these truths. I must, however, point out that the restoration of the Catholic Church cannot be accomplished on the basis of a mixture of truth and error and on the foundation of scandalous blasphemies committed publicly by a false "pontiff" for all the world to see.

Catholic doctrine is clear and unambiguous, which is why these words, quoted in Saturday's article, Suffering For The Love of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, are worth repeating once again to demonstrate that the Society of Saint Pius X is possessed of the spirit of the Gallican heresy that has convinced them that they can do in the Twenty-first Century what their predecessors in France did in the Seventeenth Century, namely, to "sift" the words of a man they consider to be a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter:

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, p. 25.)

 

All the more reason, of course, to flee from everything to do with conciliarism and its false shepherds. If we can't see that the public esteeming of the symbols and places of "worship" of false religions is offensive to God and can in no way lead to any kind of authentic restoration of the "Catholic" Church, then it is perhaps necessary to recall these words of Saint Teresa of Avila in her Foundations:

"Know this: it is by very little breaches of regularity that the devil succeeds in introducing the greatest abuses. May you never end up saying: 'This is nothing, this is an exaggeration.'" (Saint Teresa of Avila, Foundations, Chapter Twenty-nine)

 

Do you believe that calling a mosque "sacred" is "nothing" or "an exaggeration" that can be ignored because of Summorum Pontificum and various efforts, proposed and actual, to rein various practices (the use of "for all" in the "Eucharistic Prayer" in English) in the Novus Ordo service that Ratzinger/Benedict himself continues to observe without any hint of a change at the level of pastoral praxis? (See the "papal" Missals for Ratzinger/Benedict's "apostolic journeys:" Missal for the Journey to the Holy Land, Missal for the Journey to the United States of America, Missal for World Youth Day in Sydney.)

Indeed, how is it a "restoration" of our "ecclesiastical traditions" for almost totally naked aborigines to prance around in front of the putative "pope" and then to engage in "full, active and conscious" participation in a Novus Ordo travesty in Sydney, Australia, on Sunday, July 20, 2008? Is this "nothing" or an "exaggeration" in the sight of God Himself?

Do you believe that esteeming the symbols of five false religions is "nothing" or "an exaggeration" that can be ignored because you want to project onto the Modernist mind of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, a progenitor and apologist of the "Second" Vatican Council, a Catholicism that is not there?

Do you believe that going into a synagogue and treating Talmudic Judaism is "nothing" or "an exaggeration" that can be ignored because of the "progress" that has been made in the past four years?

Do you believe that the thirteen million martyrs who were killed between 67 A.D. and 313 A.D. by the authorities of the Roman Empire were "martyrs for religious liberty," as Ratzinger/Benedict contended blasphemously on December 22, 2005? Is this "nothing" or "an exaggeration"?

Do you believe that Ratzinger/Benedict's praise for evolutionism and for Teilhard de Chardin, a consummate theological evolutionist, is "nothing" or "an exaggeration"?

Is God as sanguine about these things as you are?

No amount of argumentation is going to convince others who don't want to see or to admit these facts to accept them. Argumentation didn't convince me. I had to see things for myself as others prayed for me to do so. We must keep this in mind as we seek to sanctify and to save our own souls, which must be the first and last priorities of our daily lives, as we cling to to true bishops and true priests in the catacombs who make no concessions to conciliarism or the nonexistent legitimacy of its false officials.

We can't force others to see or to accept that which they are not ready to see or to accept. Our sacrifices and our prayers and our sufferings and humiliations and penances, offered to the Most Holy Trinity through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, can help. However, we must be content to be thought of as crazy or disloyal or schismatic as we refuse to have contact with the false religion of conciliarism, as we refuse to accept a belief that the upcoming "negotiations" between the Society of Saint Pius X and the counterfeit church of conciliarism can do anything other than result in the acceptance of apostasy, at least in a "nuanced" manner. This is unacceptable to God. It must be unacceptable to us.

Our Lady wants us to sanctify and to save our souls as members of the Catholic Church. She wants us to trust in her loving maternal care. She wants us to cooperate with the graces won for us by the shedding of every single drop of her Divine Son's Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross and that flow through her loving hands as the Mediatrix of All Graces to want to pray more, to suffer more, and to sacrifice more and more for the cause of the restoration of the Church Militant here on earth as part of the glorious fruit of the Triumph of her Immaculate Heart. Do we not have enough love and tenderness in our poor, pitiable hearts to say more Rosaries each day, especially during this month of October?

May this week prior to the celebration of the great Feast of Christ the King in six days, Sunday, October 25, 2009, help us to be more conformed to the Cross of the Divine Redeemer and to bear with patience and gratitude the crosses of our own personal lives--as well as those associated with the problems of the Church Militant on earth and the world-at-large--the sorrows that come our way, giving them to all to God through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, which loves us with a love that is perfect united to and beats in unison with the matchless love of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus.

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary?

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

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.

Saint Peter of Alcantara, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints

Appendix

Mr. Michael Creighton's List of the Errors of the Society of Saint Pius X

Mr. Michael Creighton has catalogued the principle errors of the Society of Saint Pius X and the ways in which those who assist at Society chapels justify these errors by way of responding to an article that appeared last year on the Tradition in Action website:

To briefly enumerate some of the problems in the SSPX, they are:

1  A rejection of the of the ordinary magisterium (Vatican I; Session III - Dz1792) which must be divinely revealed. For instance Paul VI claimed that the new mass and Vatican II were his “Supreme Ordinary Magisterium” and John Paul II promulgated his catechism which contains heresies and errors in Fide Depositum by his “apostolic authority” as “the sure norm of faith and doctrine” and bound everyone by saying who believes what was contained therein is in “ecclesial communion”, that is in the Church.

2  A rejection of the divinely revealed teaching expressed in Vatican I , Session IV, that the faith of Peter [the Pope] cannot fail. Three ancient councils are quoted to support this claim. (2nd Lyons, 4th Constantinople & Florence). Pope Paul IV’s bull Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio teaches the same in the negative sense of this definition.

3  A distortion of canon law opposed to virtually all the canonists of the Church prior to Vatican II which tell us a heretical pope ipso facto loses his office by the operation of the law itself and without any declaration. This is expressed in Canon 188.4 which deals with the divine law and footnotes Pope Paul IV’s bull, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio. The SSPX pretends that sections of the code on penalties somehow apply to the pope which flatly contradicted by the law itself. The SSPX pretends that jurisdiction remains in force when the code clearly says jurisdiction is lost and only ‘acts’ of jurisdiction are declared valid until the person is found out (canons 2264-2265). This is simply to protect the faithful from invalid sacraments, not to help heretics retain office and destroy the Church. Charisms of the office, unlike indelible sacraments, require real jurisdiction. The SSPX pretends that penalties of the censure of ipso facto excommunication cannot apply to cardinals since it reserved to Holy See (canon 2227). This is another fabrication since the law does not refer to automatic (latae sententiae) penalties but only to penalties in which a competent judge is needed to inflict or declare penalties on offenders. Therefore it only refers to condemnatory and declaratory sentences but not automatic sentences. To say that ipso facto does not mean what it says is also condemned by Pope Pius VI in Auctorem Fidei.

4  The SSPX holds a form of the Gallican heresy that falsely proposes a council can depose a true pope. This was already tried by the Council of Basle and just as history condemned those schismatics, so it will condemn your Lordship. This belief also denies canon 1556 “The First See is Judged by no one.” This of course means in a juridical sense of judgment, not remaining blind to apostasy, heresy and crime which automatically takes effect.

5  The SSPX denies the visible Church must manifest the Catholic faith. They claim that somehow these men who teach heresy can’t know truth. This is notion has been condemned by Vatican I, Session III, Chapter 2. It is also condemned by canon 16 of the 1917 code of canon law. Clearly LaSalette has been fulfilled. Rome is the seat of anti-Christ & the Church is eclipsed. Clearly, our Lords words to Sr. Lucy at Rianjo in 1931 have come to pass. His “Ministers [Popes] have followed the kings of France into misfortune”.

6  The SSPX reject every doctor of the Church and every Church father who are unanimous in stating a heretic ipso facto is outside the Church and therefore cannot possess jurisdiction & pretends that is only their opinion when St. Robert states “... it is proven, with arguments from authority and from reason, that the manifest heretic is ipso facto deposed.” The authority he refers to is the magisterium of the Church, not his own opinion.

7  Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis is misinterpreted by the SSPX to validly elect a heretic to office against the divine law. A public heretic cannot be a cardinal because he automatically loses his office. This decree only refers to cardinals and hence it does not apply to ex-cardinals who automatically lost their offices because they had publicly defected from the Catholic faith. The cardinals mentioned in this decree who have been excommunicated are still Catholic and still cardinals; hence their excommunication does not cause them to become non-Catholics and lose their offices, as does excommunication for heresy and public defection from the Catholic faith. This is what the Church used to call a minor excommunication. All post 1945 canonists concur that Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis does not remove ipso facto excommunication: Eduardus F. Regatillo (1956), Matthaeus Conte a Coronata (1950), Serapius Iragui (1959), A. Vermeersch - I. Creusen (1949), Udalricus Beste (1946) teach that a pope or cardinal or bishop who becomes a public heretic automatically loses his office and a public heretic cannot legally or validly obtain an office. Even supposing this papal statement could apply to non-Catholics (heretics), Pope Pius XII goes on to say “at other times they [the censures] are to remain in vigor” Does this mean the Pope intends that a notorious heretic will take office and then immediately lose his office? It is an absurd conclusion, hence we must respect the interpretation of the Church in her canonists.

Errors/Heresies typical of an SSPX chapel attendees & priests:

1)  We are free to reject rites promulgated by the Church. [Condemned by Trent Session VII, Canon XIII/Vatican I, Session II]

2)  The Pope can’t be trusted to make judgments on faith and morals. We have to sift what is Catholic. [Condemned by Vatican I, Session IV, Chapter III.]

3) We are free to reject or accept ordinary magisterial teachings from a pope since they can be in error. This rejection may include either the conciliar ‘popes’ when teach heresy or the pre-conciliar popes in order to justify the validity of the conciliar popes jurisdiction, sacraments, etc [Condemned by Vatican I (Dz1792)/Satis Cognitum #15 of Leo XIII]

4)  The Kantian doctrine of unknowability of reality. We can’t know what is heresy, therefore we can’t judge. [Condemned by Vatican I, Session III, Chapter 2: On Revelation, Jn7:24].

5)  The faith of the Pope can fail. Frequently this is expressed as “we work for” or “we pray for the Popes conversion to the Catholic faith”. [condemned by Vatican I and at least 3 earlier councils mentioned above].

6)  Universal salvation, ecumenism, religious liberty, validity of the Old Covenant, etc. can be interpreted in a Catholic sense. [Condemned by every saint, every doctor of the Church and every Pope who comments on such issues; for instance Pope Eugene IV (Cantate Domino – Council of Florence)]

7)  Contraries can be true. [Hegelian doctrine against Thomistic Philosophy]. If these positions appear to be contradictory, they are.

When I point out these positions are against the Faith, frequently the Hegelian doctrine is employed by those in attendance at the SSPX chapel. (Please also listen, yes, once again, to Father Anthony Cekada's The Errors of the Society of St Pius X and read His Excellency Bishop Donald Sanborn's Logical Chickens Coming Home to Roost: A Commentary on Recent Events in SSPX)