No Room for Christ the King on the South Lawn
by Thomas A. Droleskey
Modernism is an admixture of truth and error. The counterfeit church of conciliarism enshrines the sometimes mutually contradictory principles of Modernism as it gives the appearance, something ornate, elaborate and most inspiring, of Catholicism. Be not deceived by the appearances of Catholicism emanating from the visit of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. The counterfeit church of conciliarism is an ape of the Catholic Church.
Remember this essential fact about Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI: he personally believes that dogmatic truths can be understood differently at different times, placing him squarely at odds with this decree issued by the [First] Vatican Council:
Hence, that meaning of the sacred dogmata is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy Mother Church, and there must never be an abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.... If anyone says that it is possible that at some given time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmata propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has always understood and understands: let him be anathema.
Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI rejects this out of hand:
The text [of the Second Vatican Council] also presents the various forms of bonds that rise from the different degrees of magisterial teaching. It affirms -- perhaps for the first time with this clarity -- that there are decisions of the Magisterium that cannot be a last word on the matter as such, but are, in a substantial fixation of the problem, above all an expression of pastoral prudence, a kind of provisional disposition. Its nucleus remains valid, but the particulars, which the circumstances of the times have influenced, may need further ramifications.
“In this regard, one may think of the declarations of Popes in the last century about religious liberty, as well as the anti-Modernist decisions at the beginning of this century, above all, the decisions of the Biblical Commission of the time. As a cry of alarm in the face of hasty and superficial adaptations, they will remain fully justified. A personage such as Johann Baptist Metz said, for example, that the Church's anti-Modernist decisions render the great service of preserving her from immersion in the liberal-bourgeois world. But in the details of the determinations they contain, they become obsolete after having fulfilled their pastoral mission at the proper moment.” (L'Osservatore Romano, July 2, 1990)
Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's rejection of the immutable nature of dogmatic truth, which is itself an attack upon the very immutability of God Himself, leads to an incredible array of contradictions in a mind full of contradictions in a single presentation. As will be discussed in greater detail below, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI can praise the American model of "secularism" (the separation of Church and State) in one breath, but then speaks of some of its limitations in the next breath without giving any evidence at all that it is the very falsehood of the separation of Church and State wrought by the Protestant Revolt and institutionalized by Judeo-Masonry that must result in the rise of relativism and, ultimately, in the triumph of practical atheism as the lowest common denominator of society.
In others, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, a student and a progenitor of the New Theology of Henri de Lubac and Maurice Blondel and Hans Urs von Balthasar and Yves Congar and, at least to a certain extent in his earlier days, Karl Rahner, rejects Scholasticism as the official philosophy of the Catholic Church. This subjects his mind to cloudiness and murkiness. All of Ratzinger/Benedict's talk about "reason" is vitiated by the fact that he attempts to "reason" as a disciple of the New Theology (neo-Modernism) and not as a Thomist. An unclear mind grasps symptoms of problems rather than understanding their root causes.
Karl Marx, for example, saw symptoms of social problems. Rejecting all religion, including the true Faith, Marx did not understand that all social problems are the result of Original Sin and of the Actual Sins of men, and that the only way to ameliorate the problems caused by human sin was the daily reformation of individual lives in cooperation with the graces won for us on the wood of the Holy Cross by the shedding of every single drop of the Most Precious Blood of the Divine Redeemer, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and that flows into the hearts and souls of men through the loving hands of Our Lady, the Mediatrix of All Graces. Marx invented an entire economic/political/social system on false premises.
In like manner, you see, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI sees symptoms of contemporary social problems. He does not understand that the proximate cause of our social problems is the very overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King that resulted in the founding of the "secular" civil state that he extols so very much. There are no "moderate," "half-way" measures to retard the evils that must flow as the logical consequences of a civil state based a rejection of a due submission of men at all times and in all things to the Deposit of Faith that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ entrusted to the eternal safekeeping and infallible teaching authority of the Catholic Church that He founded upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope.
While the Catholic Church will seek to do what she can in the midst of the most of unfavorable of political and social circumstances, such as those that exist in the United States of America, to carry out the mission that her Divine Bridegroom has given her to teach and to sanctify souls, she never ceases to identify false principles as false. She makes an accommodation to the reality of the the concrete circumstances in which she finds herself. She never accepts false principles as the foundations of personal and social order. This is what the counterfeit church of conciliarism has done, which is why Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has such difficulty expressing a coherent set of remarks on the amelioration of social problems.
To believe in what it is purported to be the objective "good" of what Pope Pius VII termed in Post Tam Diuturnas, April 29, 1814, the "heresy" of religious liberty is to blind oneself to the consequences of this heresy. God is greatly offended by the propagation and proliferation of falsehoods about Him. It is difficult enough on most occasions for fallen man to do what is right even when he knows what is right. It is neigh-well impossible for men whose minds are clouded by one error after another, repeated in the name of "religious freedom" and "freedom of speech" and "freedom of press," "freedoms" that are exalted by conciliarism, to sort out truth from error.
Pope Gregory XVI saw all of this with crystal clarity because he believed and thought as a Catholic who made no compromises whatsoever to the spirit of Modernity. Contrast his clear rejection of the insanity of the "freedoms" mentioned above with two passages from yesterday's speeches given by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI in Washington, District of Columbia:
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.
Here We must include that harmful and never sufficiently denounced freedom to publish any writings whatever and disseminate them to the people, which some dare to demand and promote with so great a clamor. We are horrified to see what monstrous doctrines and prodigious errors are disseminated far and wide in countless books, pamphlets, and other writings which, though small in weight, are very great in malice. We are in tears at the abuse which proceeds from them over the face of the earth. Some are so carried away that they contentiously assert that the flock of errors arising from them is sufficiently compensated by the publication of some book which defends religion and truth. Every law condemns deliberately doing evil simply because there is some hope that good may result. Is there any sane man who would say poison ought to be distributed, sold publicly, stored, and even drunk because some antidote is available and those who use it may be snatched from death again and again?
The Church has always taken action to destroy the plague of bad books. This was true even in apostolic times for we read that the apostles themselves burned a large number of books. It may be enough to consult the laws of the fifth Council of the Lateran on this matter and the Constitution which Leo X published afterwards lest "that which has been discovered advantageous for the increase of the faith and the spread of useful arts be converted to the contrary use and work harm for the salvation of the faithful." This also was of great concern to the fathers of Trent, who applied a remedy against this great evil by publishing that wholesome decree concerning the Index of books which contain false doctrine."We must fight valiantly," Clement XIII says in an encyclical letter about the banning of bad books, "as much as the matter itself demands and must exterminate the deadly poison of so many books; for never will the material for error be withdrawn, unless the criminal sources of depravity perish in flames." Thus it is evident that this Holy See has always striven, throughout the ages, to condemn and to remove suspect and harmful books. The teaching of those who reject the censure of books as too heavy and onerous a burden causes immense harm to the Catholic people and to this See. They are even so depraved as to affirm that it is contrary to the principles of law, and they deny the Church the right to decree and to maintain it. (Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832.)
In the next few days, I look forward to meeting not only with America's Catholic community, but with other Christian communities and representatives of the many religious traditions present in this country. Historically, not only Catholics, but all believers have found here the freedom to worship God in accordance with the dictates of their conscience, while at the same time being accepted as part of a commonwealth in which each individual group can make its voice heard. (Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI,
White House Welcoming Ceremony.)
It is in this fertile soil, nourished from so many different sources, that all of you, Brother Bishops, are called to sow the seeds of the Gospel today. This leads me to ask how, in the twenty-first century, a bishop can best fulfill the call to "make all things new in Christ, our hope"? How can he lead his people to "an encounter with the living God", the source of that life-transforming hope of which the Gospel speaks (cf. Spe Salvi, 4)? Perhaps he needs to begin by clearing away some of the barriers to such an encounter. While it is true that this country is marked by a genuinely religious spirit, the subtle influence of secularism can nevertheless color the way people allow their faith to influence their behavior. Is it consistent to profess our beliefs in church on Sunday, and then during the week to promote business practices or medical procedures contrary to those beliefs? Is it consistent for practicing Catholics to ignore or exploit the poor and the marginalized, to promote sexual behavior contrary to Catholic moral teaching, or to adopt positions that contradict the right to life of every human being from conception to natural death? Any tendency to treat religion as a private matter must be resisted. Only when their faith permeates every aspect of their lives do Christians become truly open to the transforming power of the Gospel. (From Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's formal address to the assembled conciliar "bishops" in the Crypt Church of the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, Wednesday, April 16, 2008.)
1. The Holy Father is asked to give his assessment of the challenge of increasing secularism in public life and relativism in intellectual life, and his advice on how to confront these challenges pastorally and evangelize more effectively.
I touched upon this theme briefly in my address. It strikes me as significant that here in America, unlike many places in Europe, the secular mentality has not been intrinsically opposed to religion. Within the context of the separation of Church and State, American society has always been marked by a fundamental respect for religion and its public role, and, if polls are to be believed, the American people are deeply religious. But it is not enough to count on this traditional religiosity and go about business as usual, even as its foundations are being slowly undermined. A serious commitment to evangelization cannot prescind from a profound diagnosis of the real challenges the Gospel encounters in contemporary American culture.
Of course, what is essential is a correct understanding of the just autonomy of the secular order, an autonomy which cannot be divorced from God the Creator and his saving plan (cf. Gaudium et Spes, 36). Perhaps America's brand of secularism poses a particular problem: it allows for professing belief in God, and respects the public role of religion and the Churches, but at the same time it can subtly reduce religious belief to a lowest common denominator. Faith becomes a passive acceptance that certain things "out there" are true, but without practical relevance for everyday life. The result is a growing separation of faith from life: living "as if God did not exist". This is aggravated by an individualistic and eclectic approach to faith and religion: far from a Catholic approach to "thinking with the Church", each person believes he or she has a right to pick and choose, maintaining external social bonds but without an integral, interior conversion to the law of Christ. Consequently, rather than being transformed and renewed in mind, Christians are easily tempted to conform themselves to the spirit of this age (cf. Rom 12:3). We have seen this emerge in an acute way in the scandal given by Catholics who promote an alleged right to abortion.
On a deeper level, secularism challenges the Church to reaffirm and to pursue more actively her mission in and to the world. As the Council made clear, the lay faithful have a particular responsibility in this regard. What is needed, I am convinced, is a greater sense of the intrinsic relationship between the Gospel and the natural law on the one hand, and, on the other, the pursuit of authentic human good, as embodied in civil law and in personal moral decisions. In a society that rightly values personal liberty, the Church needs to promote at every level of her teaching - in catechesis, preaching, seminary and university instruction - an apologetics aimed at affirming the truth of Christian revelation, the harmony of faith and reason, and a sound understanding of freedom, seen in positive terms as a liberation both from the limitations of sin and for an authentic and fulfilling life. In a word, the Gospel has to be preached and taught as an integral way of life, offering an attractive and true answer, intellectually and practically, to real human problems. The "dictatorship of relativism", in the end, is nothing less than a threat to genuine human freedom, which only matures in generosity and fidelity to the truth.
Much more, of course, could be said on this subject: let me conclude, though, by saying that I believe that the Church in America, at this point in her history, is faced with the challenge of recapturing the Catholic vision of reality and presenting it, in an engaging and imaginative way, to a society which markets any number of recipes for human fulfillment. I think in particular of our need to speak to the hearts of young people, who, despite their constant exposure to messages contrary to the Gospel, continue to thirst for authenticity, goodness and truth. Much remains to be done, particularly on the level of preaching and catechesis in parishes and schools, if the new evangelization is to bear fruit for the renewal of ecclesial life in America. (Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, Question and Answer Session, session with the conciliar "bishops" of the United States of America, Crypt Church of the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, Wednesday, April 16, 2008, Meeting with the Conciliar"Bishops".)
Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI does not understand that "recapturing the Catholic vision of reality" means rejecting conciliarism en toto. Each of the problems enumerated by the false "pontiff" are the symptoms of the larger problem facing Modernity: the rejection of the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity in Our Lady's Virginal and Immaculate Womb by the power of God the Holy Ghost, the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, as defining every aspect of human existence without any exception whatsoever. The civil state has a positive obligation founded in the Divine Positive Law to recognize the Catholic Church as the true religion and to seek to foster those conditions in civil society wherein citizens could better sanctify and thus save their immortal souls as members of that same Church.
Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI does not believe this, making his a victim of the theological relativism wrought by Father Martin Luther, O.S.A., nearly five hundred years ago. The disciple of the "new theology" is the prisoner of a "dictatorship of relativism" wrought by his own Modernist rejection of the immutably binding nature of dogmatic truth, to which he had to swear to uphold when he took the Oath Against Modernism, issued by Pope Saint Pius X, 1910.
The Catholic "vision of reality" was expressed consistently by pope after pope without any contradiction at all prior to 1958. The Catholic "vision of reality" was expressed eloquently by Pope Saint Pius X in Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906:
That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him. Besides, this thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits the action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during this life only, which is but the proximate object of political societies; and it occupies itself in no fashion (on the plea that this is foreign to it) with their ultimate object which is man's eternal happiness after this short life shall have run its course. But as the present order of things is temporary and subordinated to the conquest of man's supreme and absolute welfare, it follows that the civil power must not only place no obstacle in the way of this conquest, but must aid us in effecting it. The same thesis also upsets the order providentially established by God in the world, which demands a harmonious agreement between the two societies. Both of them, the civil and the religious society, although each exercises in its own sphere its authority over them. It follows necessarily that there are many things belonging to them in common in which both societies must have relations with one another. Remove the agreement between Church and State, and the result will be that from these common matters will spring the seeds of disputes which will become acute on both sides; it will become more difficult to see where the truth lies, and great confusion is certain to arise. Finally, this thesis inflicts great injury on society itself, for it cannot either prosper or last long when due place is not left for religion, which is the supreme rule and the sovereign mistress in all questions touching the rights and the duties of men. Hence the Roman Pontiffs have never ceased, as circumstances required, to refute and condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State. Our illustrious predecessor, Leo XIII, especially, has frequently and magnificently expounded Catholic teaching on the relations which should subsist between the two societies. "Between them," he says, "there must necessarily be a suitable union, which may not improperly be compared with that existing between body and soul.-"Quaedam intercedat necesse est ordinata colligatio (inter illas) quae quidem conjunctioni non immerito comparatur, per quam anima et corpus in homine copulantur." He proceeds: "Human societies cannot, without becoming criminal, act as if God did not exist or refuse to concern themselves with religion, as though it were something foreign to them, or of no purpose to them.... As for the Church, which has God Himself for its author, to exclude her from the active life of the nation, from the laws, the education of the young, the family, is to commit a great and pernicious error. -- "Civitates non possunt, citra scellus, gerere se tamquam si Deus omnino non esset, aut curam religionis velut alienam nihilqueprofuturam abjicere.... Ecclesiam vero, quam Deus ipse constituit, ab actione vitae excludere, a legibus, ab institutione adolescentium, a societate domestica, magnus et perniciousus est error."
"Hence the Roman Pontiffs have never ceased, as circumstances required, to refute and condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State." How could they have done so? Alas, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI does so with utter impunity, hailed by baptized Catholics across the "ecclesiastical divide" for championing causes that have been condemned by the authority of the Catholic Church without any equivocation or contradiction. Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI rejects the authentic Catholic vision of reality reiterated by Pope Saint Pius X in Vehementer Nos, something that no member of the Catholic Church is free to do at all.
Once again, it is important to point out that no Catholic is free to reject the condemnations of "religious liberty" and of the separation of Church and State:
Many believe in or claim that they believe in and hold fast to Catholic doctrine on such questions as social authority, the right of owning private property, on the relations between capital and labor, on the rights of the laboring man, on the relations between Church and State, religion and country, on the relations between the different social classes, on international relations, on the rights of the Holy See and the prerogatives of the Roman Pontiff and the Episcopate, on the social rights of Jesus Christ, Who is the Creator, Redeemer, and Lord not only of individuals but of nations. In spite of these protestations, they speak, write, and, what is more, act as if it were not necessary any longer to follow, or that they did not remain still in full force, the teachings and solemn pronouncements which may be found in so many documents of the Holy See, and particularly in those written by Leo XIII, Pius X, and Benedict XV.
There is a species of moral, legal, and social modernism which We condemn, no less decidedly than We condemn theological modernism.
It is necessary ever to keep in mind these teachings and pronouncements which We have made; it is no less necessary to reawaken that spirit of faith, of supernatural love, and of Christian discipline which alone can bring to these principles correct understanding, and can lead to their observance. This is particularly important in the case of youth, and especially those who aspire to the priesthood, so that in the almost universal confusion in which we live they at least, as the Apostle writes, will not be "tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive." (Ephesians iv, 14) (Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922.)
Do not be deceived by the singing of the Pater Noster and the Regina Coeli in Latin. Each of the conciliar "bishops" who were in attendance last night in the Crypt Church of the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, District of Columbia, are full-throated enthusiasts of conciliarism. Each believes in the new ecclesiology false ecumenism and inter-religious prayer and religious liberty and episcopal collegiality. Each "offers" the abomination that is the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service. Each mandates classroom instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments, instruction that was specifically prohibited by Pope Pius XI in Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929. The appearance and the sounds of Catholicism does not make one a member of the Catholic Church. Adherence to everything contained in the Deposit of Faith, including the Catholic Church's Social Teaching, is the standard by which one is a member of the Catholic Church.
There was no room for Christ the King on the South Lawn of the White House yesterday, where the genius known as President George Walker Bush mispronounced "Pax Tecum" and attributed the origin of these words to "Saint Ahhhh-gus---teeen" (Mr. President, perhaps someone can give you a Douay-Rheims translation of the Bible:
"Now whilst they were speaking these things, Jesus stood in the midst of them, and saith to them: Peace be to you; it is I, fear not." Lk. 24-36; see also John 20: 19, 20, 26"). Indeed, as my dear wife Sharon noted as we watched the Americanist spectacle on this computer, "They gave the same speech. Same speech, different accents." Absolutely correct.
There was no room for Christ the King in the Crypt Church of the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception yesterday. How could there be? There is no room for Christ the King in the schema of the counterfeit church of conciliarism.
Today will be the day in which representatives of false religions, each of which comes from Hell and is loathed by God, will present the symbols of these false religions to Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, carrying on the egregious sacrileges committed by Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II. (as was noted three days ago in
Saints and Idols: No Room for "Coexistence".) This should be a day of special reparation and grieving.
Mindful of our own need to make reparation for our own many sins, it is nevertheless essential to continue praying our Rosaries of reparation for the offenses being given to God in His Holy Name during the visit of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI to the United States of America, praying also for his own conversion back to the Faith before he dies. He is very sincere in his thorough commitment to the false principles of conciliarism. We must pray for him. He is a priest. He is a priest, however, who has offended God greatly in his words and by his deeds, offenses that continue to multiply.
Our Lady, who is the enemy of false ecumenism and who hates blasphemy and sacrilege, is our sure refuge in these times of apostasy and betrayal. We must simply keep praying Rosaries as we offer to the Most Sacred Heart of her Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, whatever merit we earn for remaining faithful to the true Church in the catacombs where no concessions are made to the confusing and contradictory cascade of conciliar words and deed--and where no concessions are made to the legitimacy of false shepherds whose "vision" is anything but authentically Catholic.
Our Lady, Help of Christians, pray for us!
Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?
Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!
Saint Joseph, pray for us.
Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.