Just More Conciliar Incongruities

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Raymond "Cardinal" Burke, who has served as the conciliar prefect of the Apostolic Signatura since June 27, 2008, is at it again, protesting indignantly about the President Barack Hussein Obama's mandate to require all employers, including religious institutions, to provide health insurance coverage for each of their employees. "Cardinal" Burke, who is the former conciliar "bishop" of the Diocese of La Crosse, Wisconsin, and "archbishop" of St. Louis, Missouri, is a "conservative" within the conciliar structures, one who has frequently taken stands that have angered his brother non-bishops in the United States of America.

Readers with exceptionally good memories might recall that it was Burke, who had to be overturned by the authorities in the conciliar Vatican when, as the "bishop" of La Crosse, he permitted a man who had undergone a "gender change" operation to enter the consecrated religious life as a woman, was very outspoken in 2004 when United States Senator John F. Kerry (D-Massachusetts) received the presidential nomination of the organized crime family of the false opposite of the naturalist "left," the Democratic Party, The then "Bishop" Burke said publicly that Catholics in civil life who supported the surgical assassination of innocent preborn babies in their mothers' wombs should be denied what purports to be Holy Communion in the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service. This caused quite a controversy as most of the conciliar "bishops" in the United States of America, including Theodore "Cardinal" McCarrick, then the conciliar "archbishop" of Washington, District of Columbia, openly opposed such a penalty to be imposed upon pro-abort Catholics in public life. McCarrick and other American non-bishops preferred "dialogue" to "confrontation."

After a fair deal of typical confusion with what passes for decision-making in the conciliar Vatican, including the then Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger's seeming to support Burke before issuing a statement that McCarrick brandished at a meeting of the so-called United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in June of 2004 that seemed to support his position. Confused? So was I at the time! Here is a timeline of these confusing events, written when I subscribed to the "resist but recognize" view of the s that saw me write an article in Catholic Family News criticizing "Cardinal" Ratzinger before thinking that I had been wrong, concluding ultimately as I had wrote at the time, "never mind, I was the right the first time:"

June 4, 2004: The Most Reverend Donald Pellotte, the Bishop of Gallup, New Mexico, reported that Cardinal Ratzinger had told a group of American bishops during their ad limina apostolorum they should "proceed cautiously" in the matter of denying Holy Communion to pro-abortion Catholic politicians.

June 17, 2004: A Catholic World News report indicated that Cardinal Ratzinger had sent a private letter to Theodore Cardinal McCarrick, the Archbishop of Washington, D.C., and Bishop Wilton Gregory, the President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, that provided guidelines for the American bishops on the matter as they deliberated on it during their semi-annual meeting, held in Englewood, Colorado. The initial report was sketchy, but it indicated that Ratzinger had seemed to side with the stands that had been taken by St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Leo Burke and Colorado Springs, Colorado, Bishop Michael Sheridan. The details were shrouded in mystery. It appeared that Ratzinger's remarks could have served either side of the issue, typical of the conciliarist penchant for ambiguity and uncertainty.

June 17, 2004: The American bishops voted overwhelmingly to adopt a statement of "Catholics in Political Life" that was essentially an agreement for the bishops to disagree with each other, stating that each bishop had to approach the matter of denying Holy Communion to pro-abortion Catholics in public life on his own.

July 3, 2004: The text of what was purported to be Cardinal Ratzinger's letter to the American hierarchy is published by a well-respected Italian reporter of Vatican affairs, Sandro Magister. The statement, though raising a lot of questions, seemed to indicate that Catholic pro-abortion politicians must be denied Holy Communion after an undefined period of "instruction" on the part of their pastors (although who specifically is defined as "pastor," whether a parish priest or a diocesan bishop). Apart from a very important and much needed clarification between the issues of abortion and the imposition of the death penalty, the statement contained a horrific Note Bene which basically undermined the likes of Archbishop Burke and Bishop Sheridan, who had said that Catholics could never for a pro-abortion candidate, stating that Catholics could vote for a pro-abortion candidate for public office if they did for "proportionate reasons" despite that candidate's "permissive" pro-abortion stance and not meaning to endorse such a stance. In other words, it was the status quo ante.

July 4, 2004: Thinking I had gotten the story wrong, I did a mea culpa and wiped the egg off of my face to apologize to His Eminence for suggesting in Catholic Family News that he had sided with the likes of Cardinal McCarrick and Roger Cardinal Mahony, the Archbishop of Los Angeles, both of whom had said that they would not deny Holy Communion to pro-abortion Catholic politicians. I did raise a number of questions about the ambiguities contained in the statement. However, I thought that the Ratzinger statement was released to make the American bishops look bad and to give a sort of back-handed endorsement to the approach taken by Archbishop Burke and Bishop Sheridan. Sandro Magister's article was entitled, "What Ratzinger Wanted, but Didn't Get."

July 6, 2004: Cardinal McCarrick says that the Ratzinger statement, which he said at the time that he had not seen, was not the whole story, that the Prefect of the Congregation for the Faith had sent a cover letter to the statement (never mind the apparent contradiction between McCarrick saying that he had not seen the Ratzinger statement and that a cover letter had been sent with it) that gave the American bishops great leeway to decide the matter for themselves. McCarrick implies that a series of phone conversations with Cardinal Ratzinger had given the American bishops the same impression.

After July 6, 2004: A series of articles were published by prominent Catholics to praise Cardinal Ratzinger's firmness and to criticize most of the American bishops for failing to follow the Ratzinger statement. Several of these Catholics strained at gnats, trying to convince themselves that the Ratzinger statement was more or less binding on the American bishops, that His Eminence's statement that Catholic pro-abort politicians "must" be denied Holy Communion was an absolute mandate. Others overlooked the problematic Note Bene, wherein Ratzinger basically gave Catholics carte blanche to vote for pro-abortion politicians, something that I pointed out in an article posted on the Daily Catholic website on July 9, 2004. The matter had become a typical postconciliar mess. Bishops arguing with each other. Well-meaning Catholics attempting to grasp at straws to prove that their hero, Cardinal Ratzinger, was defending the integrity of the Eucharist.

July 13, 2004: After more days of confusion and contradictory statements, Cardinal McCarrick released a letter, dated July 9, 2004, by Cardinal Ratzinger which stated the following:

Your Eminence:

With your letter of June 21, 2004, transmitted via fax, you kindly sent a copy of the Statement "Catholics in Political Life," approved by the members of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops at their June meeting.

The Congregation is grateful for this courtesy. The statement is very much in harmony with the general principles "Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion," sent as a fraternal service-to clarify the doctrine of the Church on this specific issue-in order to assist the American Bishops in their related discussion and determinations.

It is hoped that this dialogue can continue as the Task Force carries on its important work.

With fraternal regards and prayerful best wishes, I am,

Sincerely yours in Christ
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (The letter can be found archived at the Office of Communications of the so-called United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.)

Thus, the June 17, 2004, statement of Cardinal Ratzinger, "Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion," was merely sent "as a fraternal service to clarify the doctrine of the Church on this specific issue--in order to assist the American bishops in their related discussion and determinations." It was not binding on the bishops. It does not have the force of law. It was  simply another empty "white paper" from the Vatican that has been trumped by the machinations of those bishops in the United States of America who do not support the position taken by Archbishop Burke and Bishop Sheridan. Once again, a threat to the novelty of "collegiality," which has done much to undermine the good of the Church and thus of souls, had to be resolved by the papering over of differences between the Holy See and many of the American bishops, including Cardinal McCarrick and his allies.

In other words, I was right in my July article in Catholic Family News. Cardinal Ratzinger is neither a defender of the Faith or of the Eucharist. He is a propagator of many doctrinal (Jews look "expectantly" for the Messiah) and pastoral errors that are symbolic of the entire state of confusion ushered in as a result of the Second Vatican Council and its aftermath. If apologies are owed to anybody, they are to be given to Cardinal McCarrick, of all people, who turns out to have been telling the truth, evidently, when he said last week that Cardinal Ratzinger had affirmed privately what the American bishops had decided in Englewood, Colorado. McCarrick is wrong on the stand he has taken with respect to this issue. Then again, so was Cardinal Ratzinger's June 17 statement. The only fitting way to deal with pro-abortion Catholic politicians is to excommunicate them all, not to engage them in more "dialog" as babies are killed both chemically and surgically.

 

Yes, yes, yes. Sure, sure, sure. I had a lot to learn. I permitted myself to played like a fool by this charade, thinking that the conciliar officials were legitimate "bishops" and that they held actual positions of authority within the Catholic Church, which they do not.

The point of reprising this history is to note that Raymond Leo "Cardinal" Burke has made statements in the past that have been considered as "off message" to his brother "bishops" and even some officials in the conciliar-occupied Vatican. It will be interesting to see if any other officials in the Vatican will add their own comments as, quite of course, it "clarified" by Vatican officials. There will no doubt be some kind of "clarification" issued in the near future to "soften" the following comments that the head of what is the Vatican's own supreme court made in an interview that was televised yesterday by the Eternally Wishful Television Network (EWTN);

Thomas McKenna:  “It is beautiful to see how the faithful have rallied behind the Hierarchy….How does your Eminence comment on the union of solidarity of our bishops?”

Cardinal Burke:  “Yes, I have received emails and other communications from lay faithful who say that they are supporting their bishops 100% and they have communicated to their bishops their gratitude and assured them that they want them to continue to be courageous and not to be deceived by any kind of false accommodations which in fact continue this same kind of agenda which sadly we have witnessed for too long in our country which is totally secular and therefore is anti-life and anti-family. I admire very much the courage of the bishops.  At the same time I believe they would say it along with me that they are doing no more than their duty.  A bishop has to protect his flock and when any individual or government attempts to force the flock to act against conscience in one of its most fundamental precepts then the bishops have to come to defend those who are entrusted to their pastoral care. So I am deeply grateful to all of the bishops who have spoken about this and who are encouraging the members of their flock to also speak up because our government needs to understand that what is being done with this mandate is contrary first of all to the fundamental human right, the right to the free exercise of one’s conscience and at the same time contrary to the very foundation of our nation.”

Thomas McKenna: “So a Catholic employer, really getting down to it, he does not, or she does not provide this because that way they would be, in a sense, cooperating with the sin…the sin of contraception or the sin of providing a contraceptive that would abort a child, is this correct?”

Cardinal Burke: “This is correct.  It is not only a matter of what we call “material cooperation” in the sense that the employer by giving this insurance benefit is materially providing for the contraception but it is also “formal cooperation” because he is knowingly and deliberately doing this, making this available to people. There is no way to justify it. It is simply wrong.” (Vatican Cardinal: If Catholic employers provide contraceptive coverage they cooperate in sin.)

"Cardinal" Burke has gone beyond the position taken by the most outspoken of the American non-bishops, the president of the alleged United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Timothy "Cardinal" Dolan, who has been the conciliar "archbishop" of New York since April 15, 2009 (for a discussion of his recent interview with Bob Schieffer on Face the Nation on Easter Sunday, April 8, 2012, see Candidate For Man Of The Year?).

Heretofore, you see, Timothy "Cardinal" Dolan has been focused almost exclusively on the "religious liberty" "rights" of what he believes is the Catholic Church in the United States of America and their affiliate institutions (hospitals, universities, schools, etc.). Almost none of the conciliar "bishops" has referred to the bind in which individual Catholics who own their own companies or businesses have been put by the Obama administration's mandate to provide health insurance coverage for contraception and related "services" to their employees. The almost exclusive focus of the conciliar "bishops" in the United States of America has been on the issue of "religious liberty" that produced the current crisis in the first place (see John Carroll Opened The Door To Today's Persecution).

It is completely incongruous for any conciliar official to attempt to fight their current battle against the administration of Barack Hussein Obama on the basis of the very heresy, religious liberty, that produced the social conditions that made possible the spread of such error and confusion that a man such as the current reigning caesar could be taken seriously by anyone as an instrument of what he calls "the audacity of hope." It is also incongruous for men, such as Raymond Leo Burke, who attempt to defend the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage when they violate the binding precepts of the First, Second, Third and Fourth Commandments on a regular basis, thus making it possible for the Fourth through Tenth Commandments to be broken with impunity by Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

So few people, including most traditionally-minded Catholics no matter where they fall along the vast expanse of the ecclesiastical divide, understand that It is impossible to fight moral with with the very doctrinal heresies that made its institutionalization under cover of the civil law possible as though attempting to "fight" commit grave sacrileges and spread apostasies on a daily basis. Yet is that the conciliar "bishops" in the United States of America, many of whom never preach against contraception or take disciplinary measures against priests/presbyters, consecrated religious or teachers who speak publicly in favor of it, are once again attempting to use this very poison of "religious liberty," which was termed a heresy by Pope Pius VII in Post Tam Diuturnas, April 29, 1814, and as insanity by Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832, and as injurious babbling by Pope Pius IX in Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864, as the means to "rally" Catholics against the Obama administration's health-insurance mandate to provide coverage for contraception and other "family planning" services.

The fact remains, however, that those who offend God in matters of Faith and Worship wind up undermining whatever feeble efforts they may make now and again to retard social evils as those social evils have increased exponentially in the past five decades now precisely because of their ways in which the false doctrines and novel, condemned pastoral practices of the counterfeit church of conciliarism have undermined the integrity of the Holy Faith. Offenses against God are, of course, greater sins in the hierarchy of evils than offenses against creatures. The more that one offends God in matters of Faith and Worship is the more that evil will spread in the world.

The conciliar "popes" and their "bishops" have violated the First Commandment by placing strange gods before them whenever they have gone into places of false worship and treated the ministers of false religions as having a mission from from the true God of Divine Revelation to sanctify and save souls while appearing as an equal, if not an inferior, to those ministers, thereby conveying in a de facto manner the impression that the "pope" is simply one true religious leader among so many others in the world. 

The conciliar "popes" and their "bishops" have violated the Second Commandment by daring to use the Holy Name of God and the Holy Name of Jesus in connection with the "mission" and "traditions" of Protestant sects and by praising non-Christian religions as possessing "teachings" that can be of benefit to the building of the "better world." Not to be overlooked, of course, are the many times that the Holy Name of the Divine Redeemer and His Sign of the Cross have been omitted from meetings with the leaders of non-Christian sects. This is especially the case with adherents of the blasphemous Talmud. The obsequiousness of the conciliar "popes" and "bishops" in this regard has been such as to remove crucifixes so as to avoid "offending" their guests whenever they have appeared in ecumenical events in once Catholic churches and facilities.

It is beyond the power of any human being on the face of this earth to make it "pleasing" to God to esteem the symbols of false religions, each of which is from the devil, or to term places of false worship as "sacred" or to place false religions on a level of equality with Catholic Church.

The false "popes" and their "bishops" have violated the Third Commandment by permitting Catholics attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism to satisfy their Sunday obligation by attending a staging of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service on Saturday afternoon or evening and to attend such a staging on the afternoon or evening before one of the few Holy Days of Obligation that have not been moved or whose obligation has not been eliminated as a result of a certain feast falling on a Monday or a Saturday. This has contributed mightily to the descralization of Sundays as Catholics of all ages get their "obligation" out of the way on Saturday afternoons or evenings in order to have Sundays "free" for the "really important" things in life (football, baseball, golf, boating, sleeping in, watching the Sunday morning and afternoon interview programs, etc.).

The Third Commandment has been violated, of course, by the very insidious, sacrilegious nature of the sacramentally barren Novus Ordo service in se, a subject that has been explored on this site hundreds of times. It has been through that abominable liturgical service that the apostasies, blasphemies and sacrileges of conciliarism have robbed the lion's share of Catholics in the conciliar structures of their sensus Catholicus, accustoming them to ceaseless liturgical change in order for them to accept changes in doctrine and pastoral praxis from which they would have otherwise recoiled and rejected entirely out-of-hand.

Even the late Monsignor Klaus Gamber, who was not a traditionalist, admitted in his The Reform of the Roman Liturgy that the Novus Ordo service as a change of the liturgical rite because it enshrined and meant to teach a different faith that the Faith of our Fathers:

Not only is the Novus Ordo Missae of 1969 a change of the liturgical rite, but that change also involved a rearrangement of the liturgical year, including changes in the assignment of feast days for the saints. To add or drop one or the other of these feast days, as had been done before, certainly does not constitute a change of the rite, per se. But the countless innovations introduced as part of liturgical reform have left hardly any of the traditional liturgical forms intact . . .

At this critical juncture, the traditional Roman rite, more than one thousand years old and until now the heart of the Church, was destroyed. A closer examination reveals that the Roman rite was not perfect, and that some elements of value had atrophied over the centuries. Yet, through all the periods of the unrest that again and again shook the Church to her foundations, the Roman rite always remained the rock, the secure home of faith and piety. . . .

Was all this really done because of a pastoral concern about the souls of the faithful, or did it not rather represent a radical breach with the traditional rite, to prevent the further use of traditional liturgical texts and thus to make the celebration of the "Tridentime Mass" impossible--because it no loner reflected the new spirit moving through the Church?

Indeed, it should come as no surprise to anyone that the prohibition of the traditional rite was announced at the same time as the introduction of the new liturgical texts; and that a dispensation to continue celebrating the Mass according to the traditional rite was granted only to older priests.

Obviously, the reformers wanted a completely new liturgy, a liturgy that differed from the traditional one in spirit as well as in form; and in no way a liturgy that represented what the Council Fathers had envisioned, i.e., a liturgy that would meet the pastoral needs of the faithful.

Liturgy and faith are interdependent. That is why a new rite was created, a rite that in many ways reflects the bias of the new (modernist) theology. The traditional liturgy simply could not be allowed to exist in its established form because it was permeated with the truths of the traditional faith and the ancient forms of piety. For this reason alone, much was abolished and new rites, prayers and hymns were introduced, as were the new readings from Scripture, which conveniently left out those passages that did not square with the teachings of modern theology--for example, references to a God who judges and punishes.

At the same time, the priests and the faithful are told that the new liturgy created after the Second Vatican Council is identical in essence with the liturgy that has been in use in the Catholic Church up to this point, and that the only changes introduced involved reviving some earlier liturgical forms and removing a few duplications, but above all getting rid of elements of no particular interest.

Most priests accepted these assurances about the continuity of liturgical forms of worship and accepted the new rite with the same unquestioning obedience with which they had accepted the minor ritual changes introduced by Rome from time to time in the past, changes beginning with the reform of the Divine Office and of the liturgical chant introduced by Pope St. Pius X.

Following this strategy, the groups pushing for reform were able to take advantage of and at the same time abuse the sense of obedience among the older priests, and the common good will of the majority of the faithful, while, in many cases, they themselves refused to obey. . . .

The real destruction of the traditional Mass, of the traditional Roman rite with a history of more than one thousand years, is the wholesale destruction of the faith on which it was based, a faith that had been the source of our piety and of our courage to bear witness to Christ and His Church, the inspiration of countless Catholics over many centuries. Will someone, some day, be able to say the same thing about the new Mass? (Monsignor Klaus Gamber, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, p. 39, p. 99, pp. 100-102.)

 

The conciliar "popes" and their "bishops," including "Cardinal" Burke, have been unwilling to face the reality that the Novus Ordo has been and continues to be a means to evangelize in behalf of the false religion of ecumenism, especially as it relates to false ecumenism and to a de facto acceptance of the falsehood known as "universal salvation" that was near and dear to the heart of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's beloved mentor, the late Father Hans Urs von Balthasar. "Cardinals" Burke and Canizares do not understand or are unwilling to admit that the Novus Ordo liturgical service is itself responsible for the loss of the Faith on the part of countless millions upon millions of Catholics worldwide, a point that has been made on this site repeatedly (for a sampling of a few of the articles on this subject in the past two years or so, please see With Perfection Staring Directly At Them, Turning Perfection Aside For A More Perfect Banality, Taking The Obvious For Granted, Enough Spin To Make Our Heads Spin, Calling Cesar Romero, Calling Cesar Romero, part two, Transforming the Extraordinary Into the Ordinary and The Better Mousetrap.

The false "popes" and their "bishops" have violated the Fourth Commandment in a variety of ways, including endorsing the separation of Church and State, a thesis termed absolutely false by Pope Saint Pius X in Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906, thereby eviscerating the doctrine of the Social Reign of Christ the King, and they have undermined the authority of parents to be the principal educators of their children by mandating classroom instruction, much of which is graphic and seeks to mainstream immorality in the name of "compassion" and "dignity," in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments in full violation of the following prohibition placed upon such instruction by Pope Pius XI in Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929:

65. Another very grave danger is that naturalism which nowadays invades the field of education in that most delicate matter of purity of morals. Far too common is the error of those who with dangerous assurance and under an ugly term propagate a so-called sex-education, falsely imagining they can forearm youths against the dangers of sensuality by means purely natural, such as a foolhardy initiation and precautionary instruction for all indiscriminately, even in public; and, worse still, by exposing them at an early age to the occasions, in order to accustom them, so it is argued, and as it were to harden them against such dangers.

66. Such persons grievously err in refusing to recognize the inborn weakness of human nature, and the law of which the Apostle speaks, fighting against the law of the mind; and also in ignoring the experience of facts, from which it is clear that, particularly in young people, evil practices are the effect not so much of ignorance of intellect as of weakness of a will exposed to dangerous occasions, and unsupported by the means of grace.

67. In this extremely delicate matter, if, all things considered, some private instruction is found necessary and opportune, from those who hold from God the commission to teach and who have the grace of state, every precaution must be taken. Such precautions are well known in traditional Christian education, and are adequately described by Antoniano cited above, when he says:

Such is our misery and inclination to sin, that often in the very things considered to be remedies against sin, we find occasions for and inducements to sin itself. Hence it is of the highest importance that a good father, while discussing with his son a matter so delicate, should be well on his guard and not descend to details, nor refer to the various ways in which this infernal hydra destroys with its poison so large a portion of the world; otherwise it may happen that instead of extinguishing this fire, he unwittingly stirs or kindles it in the simple and tender heart of the child. Speaking generally, during the period of childhood it suffices to employ those remedies which produce the double effect of opening the door to the virtue of purity and closing the door upon vice.

 

How do children learn to grow in purity? By being taught to love God with their whole hearts, minds, bodies, souls, and strength. By eliminating, as far as is humanly possible, the incentives to sin as found in popular culture (eliminating the television as a starting point, of course), refusing to expose children to the near occasions of sin represented by immodestly dressed relatives or friends, refusing to permit them to associate with playmates whose innocence and purity have been undermined by the culture and by "education" programs that serve in public schools to be instruments of promoting sin and that serve in conciliar schools as the means of justifying it. By keeping our children close to the Sacraments, which means, of course, getting them out of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, and making sure that the family Rosary is prayed every day with fervor and devotion.

Do we need "theft instruction" in order to keep our children from stealing. Do children, who are naturally curious, have to learn about the various forms of thievery available to them in order to know that it is wrong to violate the Seventh Commandment? Might such "theft instruction" actually serve as an incentive to the mischievous to steal?

The conciliar "popes" and their "bishops" have indeed undermined the Natural Law right of parents to educate their children as they have countenance the undermining of the innocence and purity of the young.

The conciliar "popes" have dared to undermine the Fifth Commandment in a number of ways, principally by making it appear as though the imposition of the death penalty by the civil state upon malefactors found guilty after due process of law of heinous crimes is an offense against both justice and the "dignity of the human person." A true pope can no more make it appear as though the death penalty is opposed to the Fifth Commandment than he could proclaim that there there are four natures and six souls in the Person of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. He hath not the power to do such a thing.

Yes, for the conciliar "popes" and their "bishops" to be correct about the death penalty, then a true pope, Pope Saint Pius V would have had to have been wrong when he wrote that it should be imposed by the civil state equally upon clerics caught in perverse sins against nature as upon laymen caught in such sins:

That horrible crime, on account of which corrupt and obscene cities were destroyed by fire through divine condemnation, causes us most bitter sorrow and shocks our mind, impelling us to repress such a crime with the greatest possible zeal.

Quite opportunely the Fifth Lateran Council [1512-1517] issued this decree: "Let any member of the clergy caught in that vice against nature . . . be removed from the clerical order or forced to do penance in a monastery" (chap. 4, X, V, 31). So that the contagion of such a grave offense may not advance with greater audacity by taking advantage of impunity, which is the greatest incitement to sin, and so as to more severely punish the clerics who are guilty of this nefarious crime and who are not frightened by the death of their souls, we determine that they should be handed over to the severity of the secular authority, which enforces civil law.

Therefore, wishing to pursue with the greatest rigor that which we have decreed since the beginning of our pontificate, we establish that any priest or member of the clergy, either secular or regular, who commits such an execrable crime, by force of the present law be deprived of every clerical privilege, of every post, dignity and ecclesiastical benefit, and having been degraded by an ecclesiastical judge, let him be immediately delivered to the secular authority to be put to death, as mandated by law as the fitting punishment for laymen who have sunk into this abyss. (Pope Saint Pius V, Horrendum illud scelus, August 30, 1568.

 

It is no wonder, therefore, that the conciliarists find themselves under siege from the statists of Modernity as their own Modernist revolution was nothing other than an "official reconciliation" with the "principles of that new era inaugurated in 1789." It is impossible to fight the evils of Modernity with the evils of Modernism.

Well, I think that I have mined this subject of the conciliar officials and their efforts to oppose the Obama administration's health insurance mandate to provide coverage for contraception and other "family planning" services about as much as is humanly possible. I have done so again only to help the readers of this site not to get distracted by their relatives into thinking that there is "hope" for a "renewal" within the conciliar church as even the "conservative" officials are part and parcel of the doctrinal and liturgical revolutions that have eviscerated the Faith in the souls of billions of souls and thus in the world-at-large.

We need to pray for the conversion of the conciliarists as we pray for our own conversion as we seek with  a pure motive to serve God as by surrendering ourselves to Him through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary. That is is all that matters. The Immaculate Heart of Mary will indeed triumph in the end.

Continue to pray as many Rosaries as your state in life permits. Remember that it is a privilege to live in these challenging times as this is the time from all eternity that God has appointed for us to live and thus to know, love and serve Him through His Catholic Church in this time of apostasy and betrayal.

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.

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints