Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us
                 May 15, 2009

Keep Focused on Root Causes

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Catholicism can never be mixed with even the slightest taint of error. It is important to bear this in mind when reviewing the speeches and "homilies" that have been given thus far by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI during his visit to Jordan and Israel that began on Friday, May 8, 2009. No amount of pious invocations of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in front of Catholic audiences and congregations can make one a member of the Catholic Church until and unless he has abjured the apostasies and sacrileges he has committed in front non-Catholic audiences, to say nothing of the multiple ways in which one defects from the Faith by believing in and and promoting propositions that have been condemned most solemnly by the Church's teaching authority and by her true popes.

Although I included this quotation from Pope Gregory XVI's Singulari Nos, June 25, 1834, in several recent articles, including the one posted yesterday, Words and Actions of Antichrist, it is worth repeating once again so as to demonstrate that a man who can refer to mosques as "jewels" that stand out "across the face of the earth" and who can refuse to seek the conversion of the Jews has as little understanding as to Who Our Lord is as does a Protestant. No one who can blaspheme God by entering into--and praising--places of false worship and the false religions practiced therein has a clue as to Who God is and what He as revealed to His true Church for Its eternal safekeeping and infallible explication:

As for the rest, We greatly deplore the fact that, where the ravings of human reason extend, there is somebody who studies new things and strives to know more than is necessary, against the advice of the apostle. There you will find someone who is overconfident in seeking the truth outside the Catholic Church, in which it can be found without even a light tarnish of error. Therefore, the Church is called, and is indeed, a pillar and foundation of truth. You correctly understand, venerable brothers, that We speak here also of that erroneous philosophical system which was recently brought in and is clearly to be condemned. This system, which comes from the contemptible and unrestrained desire for innovation, does not seek truth where it stands in the received and holy apostolic inheritance. Rather, other empty doctrines, futile and uncertain doctrines not approved by the Church, are adopted. Only the most conceited men wrongly think that these teachings can sustain and support that truth.

 

Pope Leo XIII made it clear in Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896, that the heretics of yore did not abandon all of the Faith, that they defected only from part of the Faith. That partial defection from Faith was all that was needed to expel from the Church entirely. It did not matter how many articles of the Faith that they continued to adhere to or how eloquently they spoke about Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and His Most Blessed Mother and Saint Joseph or other saints. All that mattered was that they had defected from the Faith one in thing. That alone was sufficient to cause them to fall in Its entirety. It is not possible for a Catholic to adhere knowingly to errors that have been condemned by the teaching authority of the Holy Mother Church without expelling themselves from 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).

 

We have witnessed Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI place many drops of poison during his pilgrimage to Jordan and Israel in the past seven days that have inflected"the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition."

It must be remembered that Modernism is a mixture of truth and error. Most Catholics have become so accustomed to this admixture of truth and error (see Accustomed to Apostasy) that they are prone to dismiss major acts of apostasy and sacrilege because they believe that the devotional statements made by the "popes" and the "bishops" of the counterfeit church of conciliarism somehow "counter-balance" those acts of apostasy and sacrilege. Some have been so bold as to suggest that there is an "irreducible minima" of beliefs that one can maintain while remaining a member of the Catholic Church, a patently absurd proposition that has been made up out of whole cloth and has absolutely not a shred of any foundation in the writings of the Church Fathers or the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. Indeed, as Pope Leo XIII stated so forcefully in Satis Cognitum, the exact opposite the phony "irreducible minima" standard that is designed to exculpate the conciliar "pontiffs" is true: to defect from the Faith in one thing is to defect from It in Its entirety.

Pope Saint Pius X warned us about the ways of the Modernists, explaining to us that they can sound like Catholics at some times and as Modernists on other occasion. The warning is clear. Very clear:

Although they express their astonishment that We should number them amongst the enemies of the Church, no one will be reasonably surprised that We should do so, if, leaving out of account the internal disposition of the soul, of which God alone is the Judge, he considers their tenets, their manner of speech, and their action. Nor indeed would he be wrong in regarding them as the most pernicious of all the adversaries of the Church. For, as We have said, they put into operation their designs for her undoing, not from without but from within. Hence, the danger is present almost in the very veins and heart of the Church, whose injury is the more certain from the very fact that their knowledge of her is more intimate. Moreover, they lay the ax not to the branches and shoots, but to the very root, that is, to the faith and its deepest fibers. And once having struck at this root of immortality, they proceed to diffuse poison through the whole tree, so that there is no part of Catholic truth which they leave untouched, none that they do not strive to corrupt. Further, none is more skillful, none more astute than they, in the employment of a thousand noxious devices; for they play the double part of rationalist and Catholic, and this so craftily that they easily lead the unwary into error; and as audacity is their chief characteristic, there is no conclusion of any kind from which they shrink or which they do not thrust forward with pertinacity and assurance. To this must be added the fact, which indeed is well calculated to deceive souls, that they lead a life of the greatest activity, of assiduous and ardent application to every branch of learning, and that they possess, as a rule, a reputation for irreproachable morality. Finally, there is the fact which is all hut fatal to the hope of cure that their very doctrines have given such a bent to their minds, that they disdain all authority and brook no restraint; and relying upon a false conscience, they attempt to ascribe to a love of truth that which is in reality the result of pride and obstinacy. . . .

The Modernists completely invert the parts, and of them may be applied the words which another of Our predecessors Gregory IX, addressed to some theologians of his time: "Some among you, puffed up like bladders with the spirit of vanity strive by profane novelties to cross the boundaries fixed by the Fathers, twisting the meaning of the sacred text...to the philosophical teaching of the rationalists, not for the profit of their hearer but to make a show of science...these men, led away by various and strange doctrines, turn the head into the tail and force the queen to serve the handmaid."

This will appear more clearly to anybody who studies the conduct of Modernists, which is in perfect harmony with their teachings. In their writings and addresses they seem not unfrequently to advocate doctrines which are contrary one to the other, so that one would be disposed to regard their attitude as double and doubtful. But this is done deliberately and advisedly, and the reason of it is to be found in their opinion as to the mutual separation of science and faith. Thus in their books one finds some things which might well be approved by a Catholic, but on turning over the page one is confronted by other things which might well have been dictated by a rationalist. When they write history they make no mention of the divinity of Christ, but when they are in the pulpit they profess it clearly; again, when they are dealing with history they take no account of the Fathers and the Councils, but when they catechize the people, they cite them respectfully. In the same way they draw their distinctions between exegesis which is theological and pastoral and exegesis which is scientific and historical. So, too, when they treat of philosophy, history, and criticism, acting on the principle that science in no way depends upon faith, they feel no especial horror in treading in the footsteps of Luther and are wont to display a manifold contempt for Catholic doctrines, for the Holy Fathers, for the Ecumenical Councils, for the ecclesiastical magisterium; and should they be taken to task for this, they complain that they are being deprived of their liberty. Lastly, maintaining the theory that faith must be subject to science, they continuously and openly rebuke the Church on the ground that she resolutely refuses to submit and accommodate her dogmas to the opinions of philosophy; while they, on their side, having for this purpose blotted out the old theology, endeavor to introduce a new theology which shall support the aberrations of philosophers.

 

Why is it so difficult for Catholics to recognize that this is the case with Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who personifies the following synopsis of Modernism's three specific means of undermining the Faith as summarized by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominci Gregis?

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. They desire the reform of theology: rational theology is to have modern philosophy for its foundation, and positive theology is to be founded on the history of dogma. As for history, it must be written and taught only according to their methods and modern principles. Dogmas and their evolution, they affirm, are to be harmonized with science and history. In the Catechism no dogmas are to be inserted except those that have been reformed and are within the capacity of the people. Regarding worship, they say, the number of external devotions is to he reduced, and steps must be taken to prevent their further increase, though, indeed, some of the admirers of symbolism are disposed to be more indulgent on this head. They cry out that ecclesiastical government requires to be reformed in all its branches, but especially in its disciplinary and dogmatic departments They insist that both outwardly and inwardly it must be brought into harmony with the modern conscience which now wholly tends towards democracy; a share in ecclesiastical government should therefore be given to the lower ranks of the clergy and even to the laity and authority which is too much concentrated should be decentralized The Roman Congregations and especially the index and the Holy Office, must be likewise modified. The ecclesiastical authority must alter its line of conduct in the social and political world; while keeping outside political organizations it must adapt itself to them in order to penetrate them with its spirit. With regard to morals, they adopt the principle of the Americanists, that the active virtues are more important than the passive, and are to be more encouraged in practice. They ask that the clergy should return to their primitive humility and poverty, and that in their ideas and action they should admit the principles of Modernism; and there are some who, gladly listening to the teaching of their Protestant masters, would desire the suppression of the celibacy of the clergy. What is there left in the Church which is not to be reformed by them and according to their principles?

 

Although comprehensive list of ways in which Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI defects from the Catholic Faith can be found in Ratzinger's War Against Catholicism (as well as in Singing the Old Songs and Calling Poison Health Food Doesn't Make It So and Pots and Kettles; a comprehensive list of concilairism's major apostasies in theory and in pastoral praxis can be found in Embracing The Faith No Matter the Consequence), it is perhaps instructive once again to provide just a summary of some of Ratzinger/Benedict's principal defections from the Faith in light of his non-stop binge or apostasy and sacrilege that has characterized his pilgrimage to Jordan and Israel that ends today, Friday, May 15, 2009:

First, Ratzinger/Benedict denies the nature of dogmatic truth, cleaving to  philosophically absurd notion that dogmatic truth can never be expressed adequately at any one point in time, that each expression of dogma is necessarily "conditioned" by the historical circumstances in which it was pronounced. Condemned by the [First] Vatican Council, Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907, and The Oath Against Modernism, and by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis, August 12, 1950.

Ratzinger/Benedict has coined a phrase, the "hermeneutic of continuity and discontinuity" to refer his view of dogmatic truth that is at the foundation of his view of the Faith. To put matters bluntly and simply, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI does not believe in God as He has revealed Himself to us exclusively through the Catholic Church. His concept of God and His Revelation is but a projection of the condemned precepts of his "New Theology" onto God, a projection that manifests the sort of contempt that Pope Saint Pius X wrote in Pascendi that Modernists have for dogmatic truth, a projection that makes a mockery of the workings of God the Holy Ghost, Who cannot contradict Himself or make the teaching of Our Lord obscure or ambiguous, in the Church at dogmatic councils and in the papal encyclical letters of true popes prior to the death of Pope Pius XII on October 9, 1958. See Ratzinger's War Against Catholicism for a detailed contrast between Ratzinger's beliefs and the teaching of the Catholic Church on this crucial, foundational apostasy of his.

A concrete manifestation of this contempt for "past" pronouncements that Ratzinger/Benedict rejects can be found in his action as the head of the conciliar "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith" in 2001 when he "overturned" condemnations of forty propositions of the late Father Antonio Rosmini that had been approved by Pope Leo XIII, meaning that Pope Leo acted erroneously on a matter touching the Faith. True popes cannot err on matters of Faith and Morals. This is impossible. (See Beatifying Their Own for a review of the Rosmini case.)

Second, Ratzinger/Benedict believes in an ecclesiology of "full" and "partial" communion that flies in the face of the teaching of the Catholic Church, a teaching documented so well by His Excellency Bishop Donald Sanborn in The New Ecclesiology: An Overview and The New Ecclesiology: Documentation and Communion: Ratzinger's Ecumenical One-World Church). One of the many manifestations of this is the Common declaration by His Holiness Benedict XVI and Patriarch Bartholomew I ,November 30, 2006, in which the head of the heretical and schismatic Greek Orthodox Church and Ratzinger, who believes himself to be, albeit falsely, the head of the Catholic Church, referred to each other as "pastors in the Church of Christ." The Church of Christ is the Catholic Church, none other. "Patriarch" Bartholomew is not a member of the Catholic Church. He is not a "pastor" therein as a result. This is really simple.

Third, Ratzinger/Benedict specifically, rejects the "ecumenism of the return," thereby making a mockery of the exhortations of one true pope after another for such a return of non-Catholics to the true Church.

Ratzinger/Benedict has refused to seek the conversion of the Jews, making a mockery of the words of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ that He spoke to the Eleven on Ascension Thursday and mocking the work of the first, Pope, Saint Peter, who specifically sought to convert his fellow Jews to the true Faith in his first papal discourse, delivered in Jerusalem on the first Pentecost Sunday after the descent of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, upon the Apostles and our dear Blessed Mother in the same Upper Room in Jerusalem where Our Lord had instituted the Holy Priesthood and the Holy Eucharist at the Last Supper fifty-three days before.

Here is just comparison between Ratzinger/Benedict's rejection of the "ecumenism of the return" and the exhortation of Pope Pius IX, contained in Iam Vos Omnes, September 13, 1868:

Benedict XVI: "We all know there are numerous models of unity and you know that the Catholic Church also has as her goal the full visible unity of the disciples of Christ, as defined by the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council in its various Documents (cf. Lumen Gentium, nn. 8, 13; Unitatis Redintegratio, nn. 2, 4, etc.). This unity, we are convinced, indeed subsists in the Catholic Church, without the possibility of ever being lost (cf. Unitatis Redintegratio, n. 4); the Church in fact has not totally disappeared from the world.

"On the other hand, this unity does not mean what could be called ecumenism of the return:  that is, to deny and to reject one's own faith history. Absolutely not!

"It does not mean uniformity in all expressions of theology and spirituality, in liturgical forms and in discipline. Unity in multiplicity, and multiplicity in unity:  in my Homily for the Solemnity of Sts Peter and Paul on 29 June last, I insisted that full unity and true catholicity in the original sense of the word go together. As a necessary condition for the achievement of this coexistence, the commitment to unity must be constantly purified and renewed; it must constantly grow and mature." (Ecumenical meeting at the Archbishopric of Cologne English)

The Catholic Church: "It is for this reason that so many who do not share 'the communion and the truth of the Catholic Church' must make use of the occasion of the Council, by the means of the Catholic Church, which received in Her bosom their ancestors, proposes [further] demonstration of profound unity and of firm vital force; hear the requirements [demands] of her heart, they must engage themselves to leave this state that does not guarantee for them the security of salvation. She does not hesitate to raise to the Lord of mercy most fervent prayers to tear down of the walls of division, to dissipate the haze of errors, and lead them back within holy Mother Church, where their Ancestors found salutary pastures of life; where, in an exclusive way, is conserved and transmitted whole the doctrine of Jesus Christ and wherein is dispensed the mysteries of heavenly grace.

"It is therefore by force of the right of Our supreme Apostolic ministry, entrusted to us by the same Christ the Lord, which, having to carry out with [supreme] participation all the duties of the good Shepherd and to follow and embrace with paternal love all the men of the world, we send this Letter of Ours to all the Christians from whom We are separated, with which we exhort them warmly and beseech them with insistence to hasten to return to the one fold of Christ; we desire in fact from the depths of the heart their salvation in Christ Jesus, and we fear having to render an account one day to Him, Our Judge, if, through some possibility, we have not pointed out and prepared the way for them to attain eternal salvation. In all Our prayers and supplications, with thankfulness, day and night we never omit to ask for them, with humble insistence, from the eternal Shepherd of souls the abundance of goods and heavenly graces. And since, if also, we fulfill in the earth the office of vicar, with all our heart we await with open arms the return of the wayward sons to the Catholic Church, in order to receive them with infinite fondness into the house of the Heavenly Father and to enrich them with its inexhaustible treasures. By our greatest wish for the return to the truth and the communion with the Catholic Church, upon which depends not only the salvation of all of them, but above all also of the whole Christian society: the entire world in fact cannot enjoy true peace if it is not of one fold and one shepherd." (Pope Pius IX, Iam Vos Omnes, September 13, 1868.)

 

Ratzinger/Benedict XVI believes that The Ravenna Document, a statement issued by representatives of the counterfeit church of conciliarism and various Orthodox churches, can re-define the nature of Papal Primacy, or at least the exercise thereof, in a manner in defiance of the decrees of the [First] Vatican Council and the solid history of the first millennium of the Church provided by Pope Leo XIII in Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae, June 20, 1894.

Fourth, Ratzinger/Benedict blasphemes God repeatedly by entering into places of false worship (an action that is proscribed by the Canon Law of the Catholic Church, a proscription that has injunctions dating back to Apostolic times; see The Laws of God Forbidding All Communication in Religion With Those of a False Religion) and esteeming them as "sacred" and as "jewels" that "stand out on the face of the earth. Millions of saints gave up their lives rather than even to give the appearance of such blasphemy and apostasy. His actions in this regard have been on full display during his pilgrimage to Jordan and Israel (see Archbishop Who?, Accustomed to Apostasy, Knights of Conciliarism, How Catholics Act and Speak in Jerusalem, and Words and Actions of Antichrist). These violations against the First Commandment have been open and blatant.

Ratzinger/Benedict has gone into two synagogues and has been treated as an inferior by his Talmudic hosts.

Ratzinger/Benedict has gone into two mosques (and delivered an address outside of a third in Jordan, which he called a "jewel" and a "splendid" place of "worship"), taking off his shoes on both occasions and once turning in the direction of Mecca and assuming the Mohammedan "prayer" position.

Ratzinger/Benedict has personally esteemed the symbols of five false religions with his own priestly hands. (See for yourself, April 17, 2008 - 6:15 p.m. - Interreligious Gathering.)

Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ would have done none of those things. Each of those things are hideous in His sight. No one can do those things and remain a member of the Catholic Church in good standing, no less hold ecclesiastical office within her ranks legitimately.

While lots of Catholics are concerned--and justifiably so--about the honorary doctorate being given to the pro-abort statist President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama, by the University of Notre Dame du Lac in Notre Dame, Indiana, two days from now, that is, on Sunday, May 17, 2009, the violations against the First Commandment being committed by a putative "Roman Pontiff" are more heinous, more grave, more evil in the sight of God, Who hates false religions and wants them eradicated from the face of this earth as Catholics seek with urgency the unconditional conversion of their adherents to the true Church, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order. Who is going to march on the Vatican with their Rosaries held high to protest these outrages against God? Who is even going to speak out against them?

Fifth, Ratzinger/Benedict embraces concilairism's definition of "religious liberty" as he praises the nonexistent ability of false religions to "contribute" to the "betterment" of nations and the world. Condemned by Pope Pius VI, Brief Quod aliquantum, March 10, 1791, Religious Liberty, a “Monstrous Right, Pope Pius VII in Post Tam Diuturnas, April 29, 1814, Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832, by Pope Pius IX in Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864, and by Pope Leo XIII in Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885, and Libertas, June 20, 1888. He did so yesterday, May 14, 2009, in Nazareth when meeting with representatives of "other religions" in an Auditorium that is part of the Shrine of the Annunciation there:

At the heart of all religious traditions is the conviction that peace itself is a gift from God, yet it cannot be achieved without human endeavor. Lasting peace flows from the recognition that the world is ultimately not our own, but rather the horizon within which we are invited to participate in God’s love and cooperate in guiding the world and history under his inspiration. We cannot do whatever we please with the world; rather, we are called to conform our choices to the subtle yet nonetheless perceptible laws inscribed by the Creator upon the universe and pattern our actions after the divine goodness that pervades the created realm.

Galilee, a land known for its religious and ethnic diversity, is home to a people who know well the efforts required to live in harmonious coexistence. Our different religious traditions have a powerful potential to promote a culture of peace, especially through teaching and preaching the deeper spiritual values of our common humanity. By molding the hearts of the young, we mold the future of humanity itself. Christians readily join Jews, Muslims, Druze, and people of other religions in wishing to safeguard children from fanaticism and violence while preparing them to be builders of a better world.

 

Barack Hussein Obama himself could have uttered those words. The text of the honorary degree to be given to this enemy of Christ the King and thus of all social order could be used to describe the work of another enemy of the Social Reign of Christ the King and thus of all social order, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who dares to praise the ability of "religions" to promote peace, which is the byproduct of individual souls being at peace with God by means of having Sanctifying Grace residing habitually in their immortal souls.

Ratzinger/Benedict's respect for the ability of false religions" to contribute to a better world has been condemned repeatedly by the Catholic Church, including by Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832:

This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. "But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error," as Augustine was wont to say. When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly "the bottomless pit" is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws -- in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty.

 

This respect for false religions is the work of Antichrist. It has been a hallmark of the entirety of Joseph Ratzinger's priesthood. It has been on full display for the past even days in Jordan and Israel.

Sixth, Ratzinger/Benedict endorses the "separation of Church and State," a thesis called absolutely false by Pope Saint Pius X in Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906, and rejects the obligation of the civil state to recognize the Catholic Church as its official religion and to pursue the common temporal good in light of man's Last End, an obligation reiterated by pope after pope following the rise of the religiously indifferentist civil state of Modernity.

Ratzinger/Benedict, therefore, falls into the category of a social modernist described by Pope Pius XI in Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922 (see: The Binding Nature of Catholic Social Teaching).

Seventh, Joseph Ratzinger has long rejected the official philosophy of the Catholic Church, the Scholasticism of Saint Thomas Aquinas, in favor of the condemned precepts of the so-called "New Theology, the subject of an article, The Memories of a Destructive Mind: Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger's Milestones, on a Society of Saint Pius X website that may well "disappear"--along with other "damaging" citations that will have to be removed as part of the conciliar process of "purification of memory"--once a formal "regularization" takes place. (See also: Attempting to Coerce Perjury.) This rejection of Scholasticism is, as Pope Saint Pius X noted in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, a cornerstone of Modernism and is a mockery of the decrees of numerous popes reaffirming the work of Saint Thomas Aquinas as the sure guarantee against error. (See Ratzinger's War Against Catholicism.)

Pope Leo XIII summarized the decrees of these popes as follows in Aeterni Patris, August 4, 1879:

But, furthermore, Our predecessors in the Roman pontificate have celebrated the wisdom of Thomas Aquinas by exceptional tributes of praise and the most ample testimonials. Clement VI in the bull 'In Ordine;' Nicholas V in his brief to the friars of the Order of Preachers, 1451; Benedict XIII in the bull 'Pretiosus,' and others bear witness that the universal Church borrows luster from his admirable teaching; while St. Pius V declares in the bull 'Mirabilis' that heresies, confounded and convicted by the same teaching, were dissipated, and the whole world daily freed from fatal errors; others, such as Clement XII in the bull 'Verbo Dei,' affirm that most fruitful blessings have spread abroad from his writings over the whole Church, and that he is worthy of the honor which is bestowed on the greatest Doctors of the Church, on Gregory and Ambrose, Augustine and Jerome; while others have not hesitated to propose St. Thomas for the exemplar and master of the universities and great centers of learning whom they may follow with unfaltering feet. On which point the words of Blessed Urban V to the University of Toulouse are worthy of recall: 'It is our will, which We hereby enjoin upon you, that ye follow the teaching of Blessed Thomas as the true and Catholic doctrine and that ye labor with all your force to profit by the same.' Innocent XII, followed the example of Urban in the case of the University of Louvain, in the letter in the form of a brief addressed to that university on February 6, 1694, and Benedict XIV in the letter in the form of a brief addressed on August 26, 1752, to the Dionysian College in Granada; while to these judgments of great Pontiffs on Thomas Aquinas comes the crowning testimony of Innocent VI: 'is teaching above that of others, the canonical writings alone excepted, enjoys such a precision of language, an order of matters, a truth of conclusions, that those who hold to it are never found swerving from the path of truth, and he who dare assail it will always be suspected of error.'

The ecumenical councils, also, where blossoms the flower of all earthly wisdom, have always been careful to hold Thomas Aquinas in singular honor. In the Councils of Lyons, Vienna, Florence, and the Vatican one might almost say that Thomas took part and presided over the deliberations and decrees of the Fathers, contending against the errors of the Greeks, of heretics and rationalists, with invincible force and with the happiest results. But the chief and special glory of Thomas, one which he has shared with none of the Catholic Doctors, is that the Fathers of Trent made it part of the order of conclave to lay upon the altar, together with sacred Scripture and the decrees of the supreme Pontiffs, the 'Summa' of Thomas Aquinas, whence to seek counsel, reason, and inspiration.

A last triumph was reserved for this incomparable man -- namely, to compel the homage, praise, and admiration of even the very enemies of the Catholic name. For it has come to light that there were not lacking among the leaders of heretical sects some who openly declared that, if the teaching of Thomas Aquinas were only taken away, they could easily battle with all Catholic teachers, gain the victory, and abolish the Church. A vain hope, indeed, but no vain testimony. (Pope Leo XIII, Aeterni Patris, August 4, 1879.)

 

Eighth, Ratzinger/Benedict holds to a view of the Doctrine of Justification that, in essence, hinges on the belief that the Fathers of the Council of Trent, who met under the influence and protection of God the Holy Ghost, were wrong (as is explained in Attempting to Coerce Perjury). See Bishop Donald Sanborn's Critical Analysis of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification.

Ninth, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has dared to disparage Pope Pius IX's The Syllabus of Errors, December 8, 1864, by referring to the texts the "Second" Vatican Council's Gaudium et Spes and Dignitatis Humanae as part of a "countersyllabus of errors:"

Let us be content to say here that the text serves as a countersyllabus and, as such, represents on the part of the Church, an attempt at an official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789 (Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, p. 382.)

 

Pope Leo XIII, writing in Custodi di Quella Fede, December 8, 1864, explained that there can be no "reconciliation" between the Church and the maxims of the revolutions of Modernity:

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.)

 

Tenth, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has used the cover provided him by the "non-binding" work of the International Theological Commission and "pontifical" councils to undermine belief in Limbo, in the unicity of the Church, in her mission to seek to convert all men, including the Protestants and the Orthodox, with great urgency and to convince Catholics that we can "learn" from the "fruit" of "inter-religious dialogue. Such documents as The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptised and the Balamand Statement and The Ravenna Document contain numerous defections from the Catholic Faith, each of which is believed whole-heartedly by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI.

Eleventh, it was Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger who personally insisted that a conciliar presbyter, Bruno Forte, be "consecrated" a "bishop" in Italy in 2004 even though, Forte, had written a book denying the fact of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ's Bodily Resurrection from the dead:

Another example of this alarming situation, which threatens to make the Pope’s disciplinary laxity seem strictly conservative by comparison, is the little-noticed story of how Bruno Forte, a priest of the Archdiocese of Naples, was suddenly made a bishop five months ago.

Forte, who last year was brought to the Vatican to preach a Lenten retreat to an already incapacitated Pope, is rumored to be Cardinal Ratzinger’s replacement as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.  How this happened is anybody’s guess.  The rumor has caused a great deal of consternation for one simple reason: Forte is a flaming neo-modernist.  As noted in the Winter 2005 issue of The Latin Mass in a report by its Italian correspondent, Alessandro Zangrando, Forte was a pupil of none other than the infamous Cardinal Walter Kasper.  (In yet another sign of things falling apart at the top, immediately after Kasper’s own elevation to the rank of cardinal he publicly declared to the press that the Old Covenant remains in force and is salvific for the Jews, and that Protestants are under no obligation to convert and become Catholics.) 

Worse still, Zangrando, a respected journalist not given to reckless claims, relates that Forte’s 1994 essay Gesu di Nazaret, storia di Dio, Dio della storia (Jesus of Nazareth, history of God, God of history) reveals Forte as nothing less than “the standard-bearer of theories so radical as to the point of putting in doubt even the historicity of the resurrection of Christ.  The empty tomb, he argues, is a legend tied into the Jewish-Christian ritual performed at the place of Jesus’ burial. It is a myth inherited by the Christians from Jesus’ early disciples. Therefore, the empty tomb, along with other details surrounding the resurrection, is nothing but a ‘proof’ made up by the community. In other words, Forte is trying to change the resurrection of Christ into a myth, into a kind of fairy tale that cannot be proven.”

Forte’s elevation to bishop was rather mysterious. Zangrando notes that Forte’s name did not appear in any list of possible candidates submitted to the Italian Nunciature, and even his ordinary, Cardinal Michele Giordano, Archbishop of Naples, “was reportedly against that appointment.” But, “in an apparent attempt at putting to rest a growing controversy” over Forte’s candidacy, he was personally consecrated a bishop by none other than Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the very man Forte will succeed as head of the CDF, according to the rumors.  Yes, “our only friend in the Vatican” has struck again.  More and more it becomes apparent that this man is perhaps the most industrious ecclesial termite of the post-conciliar epoch, tearing down even as he makes busy with the appearance of building up.  The longer Ratzinger “guards” Catholic doctrine, the more porous the barriers that protect it become.

Indeed, as I have pointed out more than once on these pages, it was Ratzinger who wrote in 1987 (in the second edition of his Principles of Catholic Theology) that the “demolition of bastions” in the Church is “a long-overdue task.”  The Church, he declared, “must relinquish many of the things that have hitherto spelled security for her and that she has taken for granted. She must demolish longstanding bastions and trust solely the shield of faith.” Now it seems that with the bastions all but demolished, even the shield of faith is about to clatter to the ground. 

There is no doubt the Holy Ghost will save the Church from extinction and bring about her restoration. In the end, no other result is possible.  Before this happens, however, the difference between extinction and non-extinction may come to be far smaller than even traditionalists might have supposed. On the other hand, the very next Pope could be another Saint Pius X, who will finally take arms against our enemies and impose immediate restorative measures we could scarcely have imagined.   Who knows which way it will go?   All we can do is continue our loyal opposition, pray for the advent of a kingly, militant pope, and hope that the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary will soon be upon us. (Christopher A. Ferrara, Ratzinger Personally Consecrates Neo-Modernist Bishop; the "loyal opposition" position was handed by Father Anthony Cekada in Sedevacantism and Mr. Ferrara's Cardboard Pope. Anyone who thinnks Ratzinger, the former "ecclesiastical termite" is a "restorer of the Faith" has to overlook a lot of blasphemy and sacrilege to maintain such a contention with a straight face.)

 

Twelfth,  it was Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger, approved a "Eucharistic Prayer" from the schismatic and heretical Assyrian Church that does not have any words of consecration (see Guidelines for Chaldean Catholics receiving the Eucharist in Assyrian Churches and my own Not Such a Triumph After All), something that is without any precedent in the history of the Cathlolic Church.

 

There is, of course, just a partial listing of Ratzinger/Benedict's warfare against the Faith.

Ratzinger/Benedict also wars against the Faith by his many acts of omission and by making gratuitous references to Catholic devotions that are devoid of actual content.

To wit, Ratzinger/Benedict, who has been one of the chief enemies of Our Lady's Fatima Message (see The Devil's Final Battle and an article about The Third Secret, Proof the Third Secret of Fatima was to be released in 1960, written by non-sedevacantist authors), actually made reference to Our Lady of Fatima on May 13, 2009, when he delivered an address at a Visit to the Caritas Baby Hospital in Bethlehem.

The reference was gratuitous in that Our Lady called upon Jacinta and Francisco Marto and Lucia dos Santos to make reparation for their sins and those of the whole world. There is no such talk from Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who has, along with his co-conspirators in deconstructing Our Lady's Fatima Message, Angelo "Cardinal" Sodano and Tarcisio Bertone, sought to turn the Shrine of the Most Holy Trinity in Fatima, where an unspeakable abomination occurred on May 5, 2004, as Hindu "priests" were permitted to worship their devils in the Chapel of the Apparitions, into an center for false ecumenism, which Our Lady abhors.

On whose authority do I write that Our Lady abhors false ecumenism? By the authority of Our Lady herself:

"Do you think that I do not know that you are the heretic? Realize that your end is at hand. If you do not return to the True Faith, you will be cast into Hell! But if you change your beliefs, I shall protect you before God. Tell people to pray that they may gain the good graces which, God in His mercy has offered to them." (See: If You Do Not Return to the True Faith, You Will Be Cast Into Hell!)

 

Ratzinger/Benedict prayed in Bethlehem on May 13, 2009, that Our Lady's Immaculate Heart would triumph ("May it be so!"). The Triumph of Our Lady's Immaculate Heart cannot occur unless her Fatima Message is fulfilled and unless her Most Holy Rosary is promoted publicly as the means to save poor sinners from Hell as we, poor sinners ourselves who need to be saved from Hell (!), attempt to make reparation for our sins and those of the whole world.

Ratzinger/Benedict has thus far made not one public reference to Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary during the first seven days of his pilgrimage to Jordan and Israel. Not one, repeating during this pilgrimage his abject refusal to mention Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary during his pilgrimage to the United States of America from Tuesday, April 15, 2008, to Sunday, April 20, 2008. How can one make a reference to Our Lady of Fatima and to the Triumph of her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart and not exhort one and all to pray the Rosary at every possible opportunity that presents itself? It is no wonder that man trained in Marxism is President of the United States when the errors of Russia have been permitted to spread like wildfire as a result of the refusal to fulfill Our Lady's Fatima Message and as a result to deconstruct that message. A failure to promote the Rosary leads quite indeed to the spread of the errors of Russia!

Pope Leo XIII, writing twenty-four years before Our Lady's Fatima apparitions explained the importance of the Rosary for helping to cure social ills:

For evils such as these let us seek a remedy in the Rosary, which consists in a fixed order of prayer combined with devout meditation on the life of Christ and His Blessed Mother. Here, if the joyful mysteries be but clearly brought home to the minds of the people, an object lesson of the chief virtues is placed before their eyes. Each one will thus be able to see for himself how easy, how abundant, how sweetly attractive are the lessons to be found therein for the leading of an honest life. Let us take our stand in front of that earthly and divine home of holiness, the House of Nazareth. How much we have to learn from the daily life which was led within its walls! What an all-perfect model of domestic society! Here we behold simplicity and purity of conduct, perfect agreement and unbroken harmony, mutual respect and love -- not of the false and fleeting kind -- but that which finds both its life and its charm in devotedness of service. Here is the patient industry which provides what is required for food and raiment; which does so "in the sweat of the brow," which is contented with little, and which seeks rather to diminish the number of its wants than to multiply the sources of its wealth. Better than all, we find there that supreme peace of mind and gladness of soul which never fail to accompany the possession of a tranquil conscience. These are precious examples of goodness, of modesty, of humility, of hard-working endurance, of kindness to others, of diligence in the small duties of daily life, and of other virtues, and once they have made their influence felt they gradually take root in the soul, and in course of time fail not to bring about a happy change of mind and conduct. Then will each one begin to feel his work to be no longer lowly and irksome, but grateful and lightsome, and clothed with a certain joyousness by his sense of duty in discharging it conscientiously. Then will gentler manners everywhere prevail; home-life will be loved and esteemed, and the relations of man with man will be loved and esteemed, and the relations of man with man will be hallowed by a larger infusion of respect and charity. And if this betterment should go forth from the individual to the family and to the communities, and thence to the people at large so that human life should be lifted up to this standard, no one will fail to feel how great and lasting indeed would be the gain which would be achieved for society.

A second evil, one which is specially pernicious, and one which, owing to the increasing mischief which it works among souls, we can never sufficiently deplore, is to be found in repugnance to suffering and eagerness to escape whatever is hard or painful to endure. The greater number are thus robbed of that peace and freedom of mind which remains the reward of those who do what is right undismayed by the perils or troubles to be met with in doing so. Rather do they dream of a chimeric civilization in which all that is unpleasant shall be removed, and all that is pleasant shall be supplied. By this passionate and unbridled desire of living a life of pleasure, the minds of men are weakened, and if they do not entirely succumb, they become demoralized and miserably cower and sink under the hardships of the battle of life.

In such a contest example is everything, and a powerful means of renewing our courage will undoubtedly be found in the Holy Rosary, if from our earliest years our minds have been trained to dwell upon the sorrowful mysteries of Our Lord's life, and to drink in their meaning by sweet and silent meditation. In them we shall learn how Christ, "the Author and Finisher of Our faith," began "to do and teach," in order that we might see written in His example all the lessons that He Himself had taught us for the bearing of our burden of labor -- and sorrow, and mark how the sufferings which were hardest to bear were those which He embraced with the greatest measure of generosity and good will. We behold Him overwhelmed with sadness, so that drops of blood ooze like sweat from His veins. We see Him bound like a malefactor, subjected to the judgment of the unrighteous, laden with insults, covered with shame, assailed with false accusations, torn with scourges, crowned with thorns, nailed to the cross, accounted unworthy to live, and condemned by the voice of the multitude as deserving of death. Here, too, we contemplate the grief of the most Holy Mother, whose soul was not merely wounded but "pierced" by the sword of sorrow, so that she might be named and become in truth "the Mother of Sorrows." Witnessing these examples of fortitude, not with sight but by faith, who is there who will not feel his heart grow warm with the desire of imitating them?

Then, be it that the "earth is accursed" and brings forth "thistles and thorns," -- be it that the soul is saddened with grief and the body with sickness; even so, there will be no evil which the envy of man or the rage of devils can invent, nor calamity which can fall upon the individual or the community, over which we shall not triumph by the patience of suffering. For this reason it has been truly said that "it belongs to the Christian to do and to endure great things," for he who deserves to be called a Christian must not shrink from following in the footsteps of Christ. But by this patience, We do not mean that empty stoicism in the enduring of pain which was the ideal of some of the philosophers of old, but rather do We mean that patience which is learned from the example of Him, who "having joy set before Him, endured the cross, despising the shame" (Heb. xvi., 2). It is the patience which is obtained by the help of His grace; which shirks not a trial because it is painful, but which accepts it and esteems it as a gain, however hard it may be to undergo. The Catholic Church has always had, and happily still has, multitudes of men and women, in every rank and condition of life, who are glorious disciples of this teaching, and who, following faithfully in the path of Christ, suffer injury and hardship for the cause of virtue and religion. They reecho, not with their lips, but with their life, the words of St. Thomas: "Let us also go, that we may die with him" (John xi., 16).

May such types of admirable constancy be more and more splendidly multiplied in our midst to the weal of society and to the glory and edification of the Church of God!

The third evil for which a remedy is needed is one which is chiefly characteristic of the times in which we live. Men in former ages, although they loved the world, and loved it far too well, did not usually aggravate their sinful attachment to the things of earth by a contempt of the things of heaven. Even the right-thinking portion of the pagan world recognized that this life was not a home but a dwelling-place, not our destination, but a stage in the journey. But men of our day, albeit they have had the advantages of Christian instruction, pursue the false goods of this world in such wise that the thought of their true Fatherland of enduring happiness is not only set aside, but, to their shame be it said, banished and entirely erased from their memory, notwithstanding the warning of St. Paul, "We have not here a lasting city, but we seek one which is to come" (Heb. xiii., 4).

When We seek out the causes of this forgetfulness, We are met in the first place by the fact that many allow themselves to believe that the thought of a future life goes in some way to sap the love of our country, and thus militates against the prosperity of the commonwealth. No illusion could be more foolish or hateful. Our future hope is not of a kind which so monopolizes the minds of men as to withdraw their attention from the interests of this life. Christ commands us, it is true, to seek the Kingdom of God, and in the first place, but not in such a manner as to neglect all things else. For, the use of the goods of the present life, and the righteous enjoyment which they furnish, may serve both to strengthen virtue and to reward it. The splendor and beauty of our earthly habitation, by which human society is ennobled, may mirror the splendor and beauty of our dwelling which is above. Therein we see nothing that is not worthy of the reason of man and of the wisdom of God. For the same God who is the Author of Nature is the Author of Grace, and He willed not that one should collide or conflict with the other, but that they should act in friendly alliance, so that under the leadership of both we may the more easily arrive at that immortal happiness for which we mortal men were created.

But men of carnal mind, who love nothing but themselves, allow their thoughts to grovel upon things of earth until they are unable to lift them to that which is higher. For, far from using the goods of time as a help towards securing those which are eternal, they lose sight altogether of the world which is to come, and sink to the lowest depths of degradation. We may doubt if God could inflict upon man a more terrible punishment than to allow him to waste his whole life in the pursuit of earthly pleasures, and in forgetfulness of the happiness which alone lasts for ever.

It is from this danger that they will be happily rescued, who, in the pious practice of the Rosary, are wont, by frequent and fervent prayer, to keep before their minds the glorious mysteries. These mysteries are the means by which in the soul of a Christian a most clear light is shed upon the good things, hidden to sense, but visible to faith, "which God has prepared for those who love Him." From them we learn that death is not an annihilation which ends all things, but merely a migration and passage from life to life. By them we are taught that the path to Heaven lies open to all men, and as we behold Christ ascending thither, we recall the sweet words of His promise, "I go to prepare a place for you." By them we are reminded that a time will come when "God will wipe away every tear from our eyes," and that "neither mourning, nor crying, nor sorrow, shall be any more," and that "We shall be always with the Lord," and "like to the Lord, for we shall see Him as He is," and "drink of the torrent of His delight," as "fellow-citizens of the saints," in the blessed companionship of our glorious Queen and Mother. Dwelling upon such a prospect, our hearts are kindled with desire, and we exclaim, in the words of a great saint, "How vile grows the earth when I look up to heaven!" Then, too, shall we feel the solace of the assurance "that which is at present momentary and light of our tribulation worketh for us above measure exceedingly an eternal weight of glory" (2 Cor. iv., 17).

Here alone we discover the true relation between time and eternity, between our life on earth and our life in heaven; and it is thus alone that are formed strong and noble characters. When such characters can be counted in large numbers, the dignity and well-being of society are assured. All that is beautiful, good, and true will flourish in the measure of its conformity to Him who is of all beauty, goodness, and truth the first Principle and the Eternal Source. (Pope Leo XIII, Laetitiae Sanctae, September 8, 1893.)

 

We have never heard such talk from the lips of the man possessed of the Modernist heart and mind, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who has never once repeated these words of Our Lady to Saint Dominic de Guzman, the founder of the Order of Preachers, to whom she gave her Psalter, the Most Holy Rosary, consisting of 150 Hail Marys in the fifteen minutes (one Hail Mary for each of the Psalms) and 153 in total, representing the number of fish caught by Saint Peter, the first pope, when He was instructed by Our Lord to cast his net yet again:

"One day, through the Rosary and Scapular I will save the world."

 

Our Lady did say on October 13, 1917, that she was the Lady of the Rosary. She did appear clothed as Our Lady of Mount Carmel with the Brown Scapular during the Miracle of the Sun. No one who is serious about peace in the Middle East or anywhere else would dare to neglect to promote the Rosary and the Brown Scapular, no less to have gone to extraordinary efforts to deconstruct the Third Secret of Fatima and to turn the Shrine of the Most Holy Trinity in a center for the false ecumenism that has been on full display in Jordan and Israel for the last week.

Sadly, however, silence, still prevails from the ranks of "conservative" Catholics and Motarians attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism about the outrages given to the honor and glory and majesty of God by the false "pontiff" in Jordan and Israel. This silence has extended even to the bishops and the priests of the Society of Saint Pius X, including Bishop Richard Williamson. It appears that "full communion" in the One World Church of Joseph Ratzinger is more appealing than defending the honor and glory and majesty of God having to admit that "The Nine" were right all along.

People are all atwitter about Obama at Notre Dame. All well and good. I will have another article on this scandal by later today. However, the earth resounds with silence from most Catholics about the offenses given the honor and glory and majesty of God by Ratzinger/Benedict, who could have put a stop to the scandal of Obama at Notre Dame if he had wanted to do so. We must keep focused at all times on the root causes, remote and proximate, of the problems we face. Conciliarism is proximate root cause for why Obama is at Notre Dame and why so many people have grown so accustomed to apostasy that they are silent in the face of blasphemous outrages.

Why the silence about calling mosques "splendid" places of "worship"?

Why the silence about the praise given to false religions?

Why the silence about Ratzinger's refusal to seek the conversion of the Mohammedans and the Jews?

The words of Pope Saint Leo the Great still come to mind about this silence:

But it is vain for them to adopt the name of catholic, as they do not oppose these blasphemies: they must believe them, if they can listen so patiently to such words. (Pope Saint Leo the Great, Epistle XIV, To Anastasius, Bishop of Thessalonica, St. Leo the Great | Letters 1-59 )

 

We must keep focused at all times on the root causes, remote and proximate, of the problems we face. Conciliarism is proximate root cause for why Obama is at Notre Dame and why so many people have grown so accustomed to apostasy that they are silent in the face of blasphemous outrages.

As I noted on the home page of this site two days ago, if the non-stop binge of apostasy and blasphemy and sacrilege of May 12, 2009, is not enough to convince Catholics that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is a figure of Antichrist, I rather doubt that even Ratzinger's making a formal announcement that this is the case would convince them of the fact.

After all, someone who has access to a computer and an internet connection would claim that "the announcement that 'Pope' Benedict XVI is a figure of Antichrist is 'unofficial,' it has no standing, it does not bind anyone."

Such, however, is the self-made delusion of those who refuse to come to the defense of the honor and majesty and glory of God by denouncing Ratzinger/Benedict's words and actions that make a mockery of fidelity to the Deposit of Faith that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has entrusted exclusively to His Catholic Church for Its eternal safekeeping and infallible explication.  No one who doesn't "get it" now in light of the terrible apostasies being committed by Ratzinger/Benedict during his current pilgrimage to Jordan and Israel is likely to "get it" later. The hour is very late. Who will rise to the defense of the honor and glory and majesty of God and the integrity of the Catholic Faith?

The price one pays for "recognition" and "inclusion" in the One World Ecumenical Church of conciliarism could very well be his immortal soul if he knows that offenses have been committed against God and prefers to keep his mouth shut for reasons of personal expedience, human respect or simply the prideful refusal to admit that one has been wrong about the nonexistent "legitimacy" of the conciliar "pontiffs."

His Excellency Bishop Daniel L. Dolan preached on Wednesday, May 13, 2009, that a little known saint, Saint Servatus, who shares that day with Saint Robert Bellarmine and Our Lady of Fatima, had something to say about those who continue in communion with (una cum) "bishops" who defect from the Catholic Faith:

Servatus held the bishopric of Tongres (Belgium) at a time when the whole of Christendom had Arian tendencies. The all-powerful emperor, Constantius, was a heretic and supported the heresy; many bishops no longer believed in the divinity of Our Lord; St. Athanasius and St. Hilary, great champions of orthodoxy, were in exile.

The story of the Jewish origins of St. Servatus and his kinship with St. Anne appears legendary. It is not known when he became bishop of Tongres, but by 336, when St. Athanasius spent his exile at Trier, he had already occupied the see. The declaration which he made before the Council of Cologne in 346 informs us both of his meeting with the celebrated Alexandrian doctor and of his own orthodoxy. This is what he says in reference to the bishop of Cologne, deposed on that occasion: "It is not from hearsay that I know what he has been teaching, but from having myself heard it. Our churches are adjacent; many times I have had occasion to contradict him, when he has denied the divinity of Jesus Christ. It has happened in the presence of Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria. .. . I judge that he can no longer be bishop of Christians; and those do not deserve to be considered Christians who remain in communion with him."

After failing in his efforts to reconcile the usurper, Magnetius, with the Emperor Constantius, Servatus made a pilgrimage to Rome. He returned convinced that Tongres would soon fall to the Huns. Hastily he carried the relics of the church to Maestricht, and there, shortly afterwards, he died.The towns of Tongres remained thereafter for nearly a century without a bishop. (Omer Engelbert, The Lives of the Saints, Barnes and Noble, p. 186.)

 

We have heard and seen the offenses given to God by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. We have read his apostate words that reek of the stench of his "New Theology," which is but the product of a recycled Modernism. We have seen how true popes have prophetically condemned his every belief about Divine Revelation and the nature of dogmatic truth and the nature of the Church and false ecumenism and inter-religious prayer services and esteeming false religions and their "values and religious liberty and separation of Church and State and Limbo and Justification and Biblical inerrancy, to name just a few ways Ratzinger/Benedict's views have been condemned by true popes in the decades before the "Second" Vatican Council. To paraphrase Saint Servatus, how do we deserve to be considered Christians who remain in communion (una cum) with him when the evidence of his apostasy and his willingness to blaspheme and offend God so repeatedly is so clear?

The Sixth Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church, the Third Council of Constantinople, explained that the Catholic Faith is unchanging, rejecting innovation in no uncertain terms, and it is innovation and novelty, such as Ratzinger/Benedict's "hermeneutic of continuity and discontinuity" to justify the apostasies and blasphemies and sacrileges of conciliarism as being in concert with the Catholic Faith, that has led to a meltdown of the Faith--and to silence in the face of abject, open, public and undeniable offenses against the honor and majesty and glory of God by this false "pontiff"--among a large preponderance of Catholics, both clergy and laity alike, who are as of yet attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism:

These firings, therefore, with all diligence and care having been formulated by us, we define that it be permitted to no one to bring forward, or to write, or to compose, or to think, or to teach a different faith. Whosoever shall presume to compose a different faith, or to propose, or teach, or hand to those wishing to be converted to the knowledge of the truth, from the Gentiles or Jews, or from any heresy, any different Creed; or to introduce a new voice or invention of speech to subvert these things which now have been determined by us, all these, if they be Bishops or clerics let them be deposed, the Bishops from the Episcopate, the clerics from the clergy; but if they be monks or laymen: let them be anathematized. (Sixth Ecumenical: Constantinople III).

 

Yes, keep focused on root causes. Keep focused on the fact that the no true pope of the Catholic Church can teach error or introduce "innovation" or teach in any way at any time anything contrary to the Faith. Keep focused on the fact that the Catholic Church brings forth her teaching with "ease and security," not with obscurity or ambiguity or any degree of contradiction of her perennial teaching, which is, of course, absolutely immutable:

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.)

Begging Our Lady to help us in this hour of apostasy and betrayal, may we pray as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit, asking her to help us to cleave exclusively to true bishops and to true priests who make absolutely no concessions to conciliarism or to its false shepherds whatsoever.

Yes, Our Lady's Immaculate Heart will triumph, and that triumph will sweep away all of Joseph Ratzinger's blasphemous talk of mosques being "jewels" and of our "shared values" with Talmudic Jews who reject the Sacred Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and of a concept of "peace" that is founded in everything except the Reign of Christ the King in our hearts, consecrated as they must be to His Most Sacred Heart through the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and the His Social Reign over every nation on the face of this earth.

 

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!

Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us now and at the hour of our death.

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, especially on your feast day today!

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

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

Saint John Baptist de la Salle, pray for us.

Saint Dymphna, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints

.




© Copyright 2009, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.