Thomas A. Droleskey
The false "pontiff," Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, is certainly showing exceptional vigor in defense of the doctrinal, liturgical and moral revolutions whose progenitor and architect he was and whose chief apologetic force he remains even though he claims that he lacks the strength to continue as the fifth consecutive false claimant to the papal throne since the death of Pope Pius XII on October 9, 1958.
Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI lives in a fantasyland quite similar to that of all other heretics of the past, unable to see that the very crises in the lives of Catholics that he deplores have been caused, at least for the most part, by the revolutions he helped to plan, implement and institutionalize.
Consider the fact that another German, an Augustinian by the name of Father Martin Luther, O.S.A., decried the moral degradation of his "evangelicals" even though it was his own revolution against God's Divine Plan to effect man's return to Him through the teaching authority and sanctifying offices of the Catholic Church that caused his followers to be plunged into one sin after another:
The assumption that Protestantism brought a higher
and purer moral life to the nations that came under its influence does
not need elaborate refutation. It is a fact of uncontroverted
history that "public morality did at once deteriorate to an appalling
degree wherever Protestantism was introduced. Not to mention robberies
of church goods, brutal treatment meted out to the clergy, secular and
regular, who remained faithful, and the horrors of so many wars of
religion," we have the express testimony of [Martin] Luther himself and
several other leaders of the revolt, such as [Martin] Bucer and [Philip]
Melancthon, as to the evil effects of their teaching; and this
testimony is confirmed by contemporaries. Luther's own avowals on this
matter are numberless. Thus he writes:
"There is not one of our Evangelicals,
who is not seven times worse than before he belonged to us, stealing the
goods of others, lying, deceiving, eating, getting drunk, and indulging
in every vice, as if he had not received the Holy Word. If we have been
delivered from one spirit of evil, seven others worse than the first
have come to take its place."
"Men who live under the Gospel are more uncharitable, more irascible,
more greedy, more avaricious than they were before as Papists."
Even Erasmus, who had at first favoured Luther's movement, was soon disillusioned. Thus he writes:
"The New Gospel has at least the advantage of showing us a new
race of men, haughty, impudent, cunning, blasphemous . . . quarrellers,
seditious, furious, to whom I have, to say truth, so great an antipathy
that if I knew a place in the world free of them, I would not hesitate
to take refuge therein." (Father Edward Cahill, S.J., The Framework of a Christian State, first published in 1932, republished by Roman Catholic Books, pp. 102-103.)
Much like the man he praised at length during his pilgrimage to Germany from September 23, 2011, to September 25, 2011 (see Modernist At Work, part one, Modernist At Work, part two and Modernist At Work, part three), Martin Luther, Joseph Ratzinger persists in fantasyland, believing that the media's "misrepresentation" of the "Second" Vatican Council is what has caused problems in the lives of Catholics, not the false council's documents themselves. Ratzinger/Benedict made this incredible assertion at the end of an address he delivered yesterday, Thursday, February 14, 2013, Thursday after Ash Wednesday and the Commemoration of Saint Valentine, to the conciliar "bishops" and clergy of the Diocese of Rome:
I would now like to add yet a third point: there was the Council of the Fathers - the true Council - but there was also the Council of the media. It was almost a Council in and of itself, and the world perceived the Council through them, through the media. So the immediately efficiently Council that got thorough to the people, was that of the media, not that of the Fathers. And while the Council of the Fathers evolved within the faith, it was a Council of the faith that sought the intellectus, that sought to understand and try to understand the signs of God at that moment, that tried to meet the challenge of God in this time to find the words for today and tomorrow. So while the whole council - as I said - moved within the faith, as fides quaerens intellectum, the Council of journalists did not, naturally, take place within the world of faith but within the categories of the media of today, that is outside of the faith, with different hermeneutics. It was a hermeneutic of politics. The media saw the Council as a political struggle, a struggle for power between different currents within the Church. It was obvious that the media would take the side of whatever faction best suited their world. There were those who sought a decentralization of the Church, power for the bishops and then, through the Word for the "people of God", the power of the people, the laity. There was this triple issue: the power of the Pope, then transferred to the power of the bishops and then the power of all ... popular sovereignty. Naturally they saw this as the part to be approved, to promulgate, to help. This was the case for the liturgy: there was no interest in the liturgy as an act of faith, but as a something to be made understandable, similar to a community activity, something profane. And we know that there was a trend, which was also historically based, that said: "Sacredness is a pagan thing, possibly even from the Old Testament. In the New Testament the only important thing is that Christ died outside: that is, outside the gates, that is, in the secular world". Sacredness ended up as profanity even in worship: worship is not worship but an act that brings people together, communal participation and thus participation as activity. And these translations, trivializing the idea of the Council, were virulent in the practice of implementing the liturgical reform, born in a vision of the Council outside of its own key vision of faith. And it was so, also in the matter of Scripture: Scripture is a book, historical, to treat historically and nothing else, and so on.
And we know that this Council of the media was accessible to all. So, dominant, more efficient, this Council created many calamities, so many problems, so much misery, in reality: seminaries closed, convents closed liturgy trivialized ... and the true Council has struggled to materialize, to be realized: the virtual Council was stronger than the real Council. But the real strength of the Council was present and slowly it has emerged and is becoming the real power which is also true reform, true renewal of the Church. It seems to me that 50 years after the Council, we see how this Virtual Council is breaking down, getting lost and the true Council is emerging with all its spiritual strength. And it is our task, in this Year of Faith, starting from this Year of Faith, to work so that the true Council with the power of the Holy Spirit is realized and Church is really renewed. We hope that the Lord will help us. I, retired in prayer, will always be with you, and together we will move ahead with the Lord in certainty. The Lord is victorious. Thank you. (Blame the Media, Not the Council, Not Me or My Apostate Views.)
Well, before getting into the substance of this last part of Ratzinger/Benedict's valedictory address to the "bishops" and clergy of the Diocese of Rome as it continues to be held and controlled by the conciliar robber barons, do not believe for a single moment that the false "pontiff" is "retiring" into a "life of prayer." His personal secretary will serve him in "retirement" while at the same time continuing to serve his successor as executive director of the Occupy Vatican Movement. We are supposed to believe that Ratzinger/Benedict will refrain from making any "suggestions" behind-the-scenes, right? Oh, he may be "hidden" from public view. He has invested too much of himself to institutionalizing and providing what he thinks is the "correct" interpretation of the "Second" Vatican Council to refrain from offering "advice," especially when asked.
Moreover, as noted two days ago in Mister Asteroid Is Looking Pretty Good Right About Now, Ratzinger/Benedict's resignation sets what will be considered as a mandatory precedent for all future executive directors of the Occupy Vatican Movement. And if God does not intervene to put an end the chastisement represented by the apostasies, blasphemies and sacrileges of conciliarism, the "papal" resignation might even lead to calls for "papal" "term limits" and for "re-election" by the conciliar college of colleges over four or eight years. After all, wouldn't this be in line with the "episcopal collegiality" that false "pontiff" praised yesterday as he termed this deviation from the Holy Faith to be an essential part of his new ecclesiology?
As to the substance of this final part of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's valedictory address, one has to be truly thunderstruck at the level of self-delusion necessary to blame the "council of the journalists" for the destruction of the Faith in the lives of so hundreds upon hundreds of millions of Catholics in the past fifty years. The Walt Disney Company would do well to create a special exhibit at Walt Disney World in Orlando, Florida, and Disneyland in Anaheim, California, entitled "Benedict's Fantasyland" for those who are stupid enough to want to spend their money in support of a company that has done much to promote all manner of moral degradation and which has from its very beginning been a virulent agent of naturalism in the world.
I will take the assertions made in this final part of Ratzinger/Benedict's farewell address delivered yesterday on a one-by-one basis before, using each as a means of commenting on other passages in the valedictory.
Assertion Number One:
And while the Council of the Fathers evolved within the faith, it was a Council of the faith that sought the intellectus, that sought to understand and try to understand the signs of God at that moment, that tried to meet the challenge of God in this time to find the words for today and tomorrow.
Evolved with the faith?
Sought the intellectus?
Sought to understand and try to understand the signs of God at that moment, that tried to meet the challenge of God in this time to find the words for today and tomorrow?
Ratzinger/Benedict really, really believes in the Modernist doctrine of "evolution of doctrine" that he has repackaged and relabeled under the slogan of "the hermeneutic of continuity. God has spoken clearly and with one consistent voice throughout the history of Holy Mother Church without any shadow of contradiction.
To put it in summary form, ladies and gentleman, as I have to undergo a CT-SCAN in a little over twelve hours from the time this is being written, the false "pontiff" wants Catholics and non-Catholics alike to believe that the "Second" Vatican Council" represented no rupture with the immutable teaching of the Catholic Church simply because he has asserted this as being so. A man who rejects Scholasticism in favor of the "new theology whose tenets were condemned by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis, August 12, 1950, and who thus lives in an imaginary world of ambiguity and complex, Ratzinger/Benedict has the audacity to assert that the "real council" is just being "discovered" or "understood" now. Left unstated in this is that the outgoing "pontiff" is congratulating himself for having made this "discovery" and been its chief evangelist. Incredible hubris.
Assertion Number Two:
Ratzinger/Benedict went to great length in the first part of his address yesterday to recall what a tremendous "accomplishment" it was that the original schema presented for the consideration of the assembled bishops at the "Second" Vatican Council was thrown out the window in order to make it possible for his own apostate likes to "renew" the Church with a new liturgy and a new ecclesiology that are in reality, of course, nothing other than a new religion:
The Pope then recalled how they saw "that the relationship between the Church and the modern period was one of some ‘contrasts’ from the outset, starting with the error in the Galileo case, "and the idea was to correct this wrong start "and to find a new relationship between the Church and the best forces in the world, "to open up the future of humanity, to open up to real progress."
The Pope recalled: "We were full of hope, enthusiasm and also of good will." "I remember - he said - the Roman Synod was considered as a negative model" - where - it is said - they read prepared texts, and the members of the Synod simply approved them, and that was how the Synod was held. The bishops agreed not to do so because they themselves were the subject of the Council. So - he continued - even Cardinal Frings, who was famous for his absolute, almost meticulous, fidelity to the Holy Father said that the Pope has summoned the bishops in an ecumenical council as a subject to renew the Church.
Benedict XVI recalled that "the first time this attitude became clear, was immediately on the first day." On the first day, the Commissions were to be elected and the lists and nominations were impartially prepared. And these lists were to be voted on. But soon the Fathers said, "No, are not simply going to vote on already made lists. We are the subject. "They had to move the elections - he added - because the Fathers themselves wanted to get to know each other a little ', they wanted to make their own lists. So it was done. "It was a revolutionary act - he said - but an act of conscience, of responsibility on the part of the Council Fathers."
So - the Pope said - a strong activity of mutual understanding began. And this - he said - was customary for the entire period of the Council: "small transversal meetings." In this way he became familiar with the great figures like Father de Lubac, Danielou, Congar, and so on. And this – he said "was an experience of the universality of the Church and of the reality of the Church, that does not merely receive imperatives from above, but grows and advances together, under the leadership - of course – of the Successor of Peter" .
He then reiterated that everyone “arrived with great expectations" because "there had never been a Council of this size," but not everyone knew how to make it work. The French, German, Belgian, Dutch episcopates, the so-called " Rhineland Alliance”, had the most clearly defined intentions." And in the first part of the Council - he said - it was they who suggested the road ahead, then it’s activities rapidly expanded and soon all participated in the "creativity of the Council."
The French and the Germans - he observed - had many interests in common, even with quite different nuances. Their initial intention - seemingly simple - "was the reform of the liturgy, which had begun with Pius XII," which had already reformed Holy Week; their second intention was ecclesiology; their third the Word of God, Revelation, and then also ecumenism. The French, much more than the Germans - he noted - still had the problem of dealing with the situation of the relationship between the Church and the world. (Blame the Media, Not the Council, Not Me or My Apostate Views.)
Well, a bit of a longer commentary:
Ratzinger/Benedict needs a primer on the Galileo case. I would suggest that he contact Dr. Robert Sugnenis, who, of course, is very much opposed to sedevacantism: Galileo Was Wrong The Church Was Right. The defense of Galileo has long been one of Ratzinger/Benedict's favorite hobby horses.
Praising Modernists such as Henri de Lubac, Yves Congar and Jean Danielou (see Does This Man Give Any Thought To His Particular Judgment)?
As to the last part in the passage cited just above, although I well understand the juridical reasons why some fully traditional bishops and priests use the liturgy that was in place at the death of Pope Pius XII on October 9, 1958, I do not understand the utter unwillingness of some even to admit that the changes foisted upon Pope Pius XII by Fathers Ferdinando Anontello, O.F.M., and Annibale Bugnini, C.M., as they made one false representation concerning how the changes were "restorations" of the past were part of a carefully constructed plan by the "liturgical movement" to pave the way for the revolution that took place in the 1960s and thereafter. Time and time again, you see, the conciliar "popes" have told us that this was the case. Why not take them at face value?
As to the other assertions made in the passage cited above, perhaps a few questions and answers will suffice.
A new relationship with the "best forces" of the world?
What might that be?
Democracy and a more "democratic" method of associating the bishops with each other and with the putative Successor of Saint Peter.
Religious liberty, insisted upon as Ratzinger/Benedict noted yesterday, by the American bishops.
Separation of Church and State.
Contrary to what Ratzinger/Benedict contended, Holy Mother Church has nothing to "learn" from a "world" informed by the aftermath of Protestantism and controlled by the ethos of Judeo-Masonry.
Alas, this is nothing new. This is what Ratzinger/Benedict contended in his infamous curial address of December 22, 2005, in which he gave "voice" to his "hermeneutic of continuity," which, as noted before, is nothing other than a repackaging of the philosophically absurd and dogmatically condemned principle of "evolution of dogma" that was "sold" by Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II under the slogan of "living tradition:"
Is clear that this commitment to expressing a specific truth in a new
way demands new thinking on this truth and a new and vital relationship
with it; it is also clear that new words can only develop if they come
from an informed understanding of the truth expressed, and on the other
hand, that a reflection on faith also requires that this faith be lived.
In this regard, the programme that Pope John XXIII proposed was
extremely demanding, indeed, just as the synthesis of fidelity and
dynamic is demanding.
However, wherever this interpretation guided the implementation of
the Council, new life developed and new fruit ripened. Forty years after
the Council, we can show that the positive is far greater and livelier
than it appeared to be in the turbulent years around 1968. Today, we
see that although the good seed developed slowly, it is nonetheless
growing; and our deep gratitude for the work done by the Council is
likewise growing. . . .
In the 19th century under Pius IX, the clash between the Church's
faith and a radical liberalism and the natural sciences, which also
claimed to embrace with their knowledge the whole of reality to its
limit, stubbornly proposing to make the "hypothesis of God" superfluous,
had elicited from the Church a bitter and radical condemnation of this
spirit of the modern age. Thus, it seemed that there was no longer any
milieu open to a positive and fruitful understanding, and the rejection
by those who felt they were the representatives of the modern era was
In the meantime, however, the modern age had also experienced
developments. People came to realize that the American Revolution was
offering a model of a modern State that differed from the theoretical
model with radical tendencies that had emerged during the second phase
of the French Revolution. . . .
Secondly, it was necessary to give a new definition to the
relationship between the Church and the modern State that would make
room impartially for citizens of various religions and ideologies,
merely assuming responsibility for an orderly and tolerant coexistence
among them and for the freedom to practise their own religion.
Thirdly, linked more generally to this was the problem of religious
tolerance - a question that required a new definition of the
relationship between the Christian faith and the world religions. In
particular, before the recent crimes of the Nazi regime and, in general,
with a retrospective look at a long and difficult history, it was
necessary to evaluate and define in a new way the relationship between
the Church and the faith of Israel. (Christmas greetings to the Members of the Roman Curia and Prelature, December 22, 2005)
Yes, Ratzinger/Benedict has said it all before. Many times. Ad nauseam, ad infinitum.
No rupture with the past? Just an "evolution of the faith"?
Is there any need to repeat what has been stated in hundreds upon hundreds of articles of this site (see, for example, Impressed With His Own Originality, Accepting "Popes" As Unreliable Teachers, Obeying The Commands of a False Church, Boilerplate Ratzinger, "Cardinals" Burke and Canizares, Meet The Council of Trent, Vesakh, Not Miller, Time at the Vatican, Saint Vincent Ferrer and Anti-Saint Vincent Ferrers, Celebrating Apostasy and Dereliction of Duty, To Be Loved by the Jews, As We Continue To Blaspheme Christ the King and His True Church, which is an updated listing of Ratzinger/Benedict's offenses against the Faith in the past six years, Coloring Everything He Says and Does, part one, Coloring Everything He Says and Does, part two, Perhaps Judas Was the First to Sing "A Kiss is Just a Kiss", Enjoy the Party, George, Enjoy the Party, Anticlimactic "Beatification" for an Antipope, Open Letter to Pretended Catholic Scholars, Scholarship in Conciliarism's Land of Oz, As the Conciliar Fowler Lays More Snares, part one, As the Conciliar Fowler Lays More Snares, part two, As the Conciliar Fowler Lays More Snares, part three, As the Conciliar Fowler Lays More Snares, part four, Peeking into the Old Conciliar Fowler's Lair, part one, Peeking into the Old Conciliar Fowler's Lair, part two, Future Home of the "Reform of the Reform", Quite Right,
which contains a summary of some of the false "pope's" warfare against
the immutability of dogma and a listing of the major ecclesiological
errors of the Society of Saint Pius X that undermines and, indeed, makes
a mockery of the papacy itself and of their priests' defense of the
Social Reign of Christ the King, Excuse Me, Father, While I Look For My New Paperwork From Rome, Just A Personal Visit, Conversion of Russia Update, So Much For Charles Martel, So Much for the Crusades, So Much for Pius V and Jan Sobieski, So Much for Catholic Truth and Let's Play The Let's Pretend Game, From Sharp Focus to Fuzziness. Another Year of the Same Conciliar Apostasy, part one, Another Year of the Same Conciliar Apostasy, part two and Another Year of the Same Conciliar Apostasy, part three, using this as a springboard to announce plans for Assisi III--see Bearing "Fruits" From Hell Itself, part one, Bearing "Fruits" From Hell Itself, part 2, and, more recently, Ratzinger Should Just Canonize Himself And Be Done With It, Still Praising His First Saint, Preparing To Spend All Eternity With His Allegorical Figure, Forever Preserving False "Traditions" and Mister Asteroid Is Looking Pretty Good Right About Now)?
No rupture with the faith?
Far from proving that the "council of the journalists" was responsible for the emptying of convents and church pews, Ratzinger/Benedict's own words prove that the "Second" Vatican Council itself, both in its documents and by means of the "magisterium" of the conciliar "popes" and the "official" pastoral praxis sponsored by the counterfeit church of conciliarism, was solely responsible for a wholesale revolution against the entirety of the sensus Catholicus, starting with the Sacred Liturgy, which will be the focus of part two of this commentary.
Also involved in the "new orientation" was more "openness" for Scriptural exegetes to deconstruct the plain meaning of Sacred Scripture and to make short work of the teaching of the Fathers and Doctors of Holy Mother Church by the use of the historical-critical method, which Ratzinger/Benedict uses in part while, laughably, claiming to reject in part, when discussing Sacred Scripture as he did his hideous Jesus of Nazareth trilogy.
Pope Pius XII warned against this "new orientation of Scriptural exegesis in Humani Generis, August 12, 1950:
22. To return, however, to the new opinions mentioned
above, a number of things are proposed or suggested by some even
against the divine authorship of Sacred Scripture. For some go so far as
to pervert the sense of the Vatican Council's definition that God is
the author of Holy Scripture, and they put forward again the opinion,
already often condemned, which asserts that immunity from error extends
only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and
religious matters. They even wrongly speak of a human sense of the
Scriptures, beneath which a divine sense, which they say is the only
infallible meaning, lies hidden. In interpreting Scripture, they
will take no account of the analogy of faith and the Tradition of the
Church. Thus they judge the doctrine of the Fathers and of the Teaching
Church by the norm of Holy Scripture, interpreted by the purely human
reason of exegetes, instead of explaining Holy Scripture according to
the mind of the Church which Christ Our Lord has appointed guardian and
interpreter of the whole deposit of divinely revealed truth.
23. Further, according to their
fictitious opinions, the literal sense of Holy Scripture and its
explanation, carefully worked out under the Church's vigilance by so
many great exegetes, should yield now to a new exegesis, which they are
pleased to call symbolic or spiritual. By means of this new exegesis the
Old Testament, which today in the Church is a sealed book, would
finally be thrown open to all the faithful. By this method, they say,
all difficulties vanish, difficulties which hinder only those who adhere
to the literal meaning of the Scriptures.
Everyone sees how foreign all this is to the principles and norms of
interpretation rightly fixed by our predecessors of happy memory, Leo
XIII in his Encyclical "Providentissimus," and Benedict XV in the
Encyclical "Spiritus Paraclitus," as also by Ourselves in the Encyclical
"Divino Affflante Spiritu."
25. It is not surprising that novelties of
this kind have already borne their deadly fruit in almost all branches
of theology. It is now doubted that human reason, without divine
revelation and the help of divine grace, can, by arguments drawn from
the created universe, prove the existence of a personal God; it is
denied that the world had a beginning; it is argued that the creation of
the world is necessary, since it proceeds from the necessary liberality
of divine love; it is denied that God has eternal and infallible
foreknowedge of the free actions of men -- all this in contradiction to
the decrees of the Vatican Council (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, August 12, 1950.)
Has the Catholic Church ever considered Protestant "exegesis" to contribute to her "understanding" of Sacred Scripture, something that Ratzinger/Benedict contended in his capacity as "Pope" Benedict XVI yesterday and not in his "unofficial" books?
The problem of Revelation provoked even greater discussion: at issue was the relationship between Scripture and tradition, and above all this interested exegetes of a greater freedom, who felt somewhat – shall we say - in a situation of negativity before Protestants, who were making great discoveries, while Catholics felt a little '"handicapped" by the need to submit themselves to Magisterium. There was therefore a very concrete issue at stake: how free are exegetes? How does one read Scriptures well? What is meant by tradition? It was a pluri-dimensional battle that I can not outline now, but certainly what is important thing is that Scripture is the Word of God and the Church is subject to the Scriptures, obeys the Word of God and is not above Scripture. Yet, Scripture is Scripture only because there is the living Church, its living subject, without the living subject of the Church Scripture is only a book, open to different interpretations but which does not give any final clarity. (Blame the Media, Not the Council, Not Me or My Apostate Views.)
This is a denial of the Divine Constitution of Holy Mother Church, she who needs no "outside" force to help her "understand" the meaning of anything contained in the Sacred Deposit of Faith (where Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition).
When will sincere, hard-working, well-meaning Catholics attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism come to realize that a man such as Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI who makes terms with theological error and who blasphemes God and dishonors the honor, majesty and glory that are His due is an enemy of the Holy Faith and thus an enemy of the restoration of full legal protection to innocent human life without any exception, reservation or qualification whatsoever? No one who publicly rejects the Social Reign of Christ King by embracing the falsehoods of "religious liberty" and "separation of Church and State" can do anything but further institutionalize the grip that the anti-Incarnational errors of Modernity have on men and their nations today.
The Catholic Church does not bring forth her teaching in such a complex, opaque manner as to need over fifty years to "digest" and "understand."
This is how the Catholic Church brings forth her teaching:
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 Gregory XVI, Singulari Nos, May 25, 1834.)
Just as Christianity cannot penetrate into the
soul without making it better, so it cannot enter into public life
without establishing order. With the idea of a God Who governs all, Who
is infinitely Wise, Good, and Just, the idea of duty seizes upon the
consciences of men. It assuages sorrow, it calms hatred, it engenders
heroes. If it has transformed pagan society--and that transformation was
a veritable resurrection--for barbarism disappeared in proportion as
Christianity extended its sway, so, after the terrible shocks which
unbelief has given to the world in our days, it will be able to put that
world again on the true road, and bring back to order the States and
peoples of modern times. But the return of Christianity will not
be efficacious and complete if it does not restore the world to a
sincere love of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. In the
Catholic Church Christianity is Incarnate. It identifies Itself
with that perfect, spiritual, and, in its own order, sovereign society,
which is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ and which has for Its
visible head the Roman Pontiff, successor of the Prince of the Apostles.
It is the continuation of the mission of the Savior, the daughter and
the heiress of His Redemption. It has preached the Gospel, and has
defended it at the price of Its blood, and strong in the Divine
assistance and of that immortality which has been promised it, It
makes no terms with error but remains faithful to the commands which
it has received, to carry the doctrine of Jesus Christ to the uttermost
limits of the world and to the end of time, and to protect it in its
inviolable integrity. Legitimate dispenser of the teachings of
the Gospel it does not reveal itself only as the consoler and Redeemer
of souls, but It is still more the internal source of justice and
charity, and the propagator as well as the guardian of true liberty, and
of that equality which alone is possible here below. In applying the
doctrine of its Divine Founder, It maintains a wise equilibrium and
marks the true limits between the rights and privileges of society. The
equality which it proclaims does not destroy the distinction between the
different social classes. It keeps them intact, as nature itself
demands, in order to oppose the anarchy of reason emancipated from
Faith, and abandoned to its own devices. The liberty which it gives in
no wise conflicts with the rights of truth, because those rights are
superior to the demands of liberty. Not does it infringe upon the rights
of justice, because those rights are superior to the claims of mere
numbers or power. Nor does it assail the rights of God because they are
superior to the rights of humanity. (Pope Leo XIII, A Review of His Pontificate, March 19, 1902.)
10. So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this
Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the
assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be
promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of
those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily
left it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to
all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author,
exactly the same as He instituted it. During the lapse of
centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated,
nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears
witness: "The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is
incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the
sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly." The same holy
Martyr with good reason marveled exceedingly that anyone could believe
that "this unity in the Church which arises from a divine foundation,
and which is knit together by heavenly sacraments, could be rent and
torn asunder by the force of contrary wills." For since the
mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is
one, compacted and fitly joined together, it were foolish and out of
place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are
disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with
the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its
head. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)
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.)
Please note that Pope Gregory XVI wrote that the truth can be found in the Catholic Church without "even a slight tarnish of error."
Please note that Pope Leo XIII stressed that the Catholic Church "makes
no terms with error but remains faithful to the command which it has
received, to carry the doctrine of Jesus Christ to the uttermost limits
of the world and to the end of time, and to protect it in its inviolable
Please note that that Pope Pius XI explained that the Catholic Church brings forth her teaching "with ease and security to the knowledge of men."
Anyone who says that this has been done by the
counterfeit church of conciliarism, which has made its
with the false principles of Modernity that leave no room for the
confessionally Catholic civil state and the Social Reign of Christ the
King, is not thinking too clearly (and that is as about as charitably
I can put the matter) or is being, perhaps more accurately,
intellectually dishonest. If the conciliar church has brought forth its
teaching "with ease and security to the knowledge of men," why is
such disagreement even between the "progressive" conciliarists and
"conservative" conciliarists concerning the proper "interpretation" of
the "Second" Vatican Council and its aftermath? Or does this depend
what one means by "ease and security"?
No, the Catholic Church has never endorsed error in
any of her officials documents and we have never seen anything like the
apostasies, blasphemies and sacrileges that have characterized the the
"magisterium" of the conciliar "popes" in the past fifty-four years now.
In the midst of this "operation of error" that abounds in the midst of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, we need to ask Our Lady to help us remain with our true bishops and true priests who make no concessions to conciliarism. Any shepherd who does not warn his faithful to stay completely and totally away from the conciliar wolves is exposing them to the deceits of the devil represented by likes of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and his henchmen who live in a fantasyland of their own making.
Our Lady's Immaculate Heart will indeed triumph in the end. May we persevere in this season of penance, Lent, in our praying of as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit so that we, unworthy though we may be, might be able to plant a few seeds for the day when Catholics can say "so long" to the conciliar revolutionaries and their perverse liturgies and their corrupt doctrinal and their false moral teachings and "hello" to true popes and true bishops who are defenders of the entirety of the Catholic Faith, including the Social Reign of Christ the King.
Alleluia! He is Risen!
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.
Saints Faustinus and Jovita, pray for us.
See also: A Litany of Saints