"Partial" Communion Only Goes So Far

by Thomas A. Droleskey

You have an assignment awaiting you this morning (or whenever it is that you will access this article). Given the fact that you had about a six day reprieve from original articles on this site as we were driving up to Connecticut from Texas before the left rear tire on our motor home blew out and then ripped through the vehicle's undercarriage, causing a still as of yet unspecified amount of damage, I think that most of you can make a little bit of time for the assignment that I am about to give you. The assignment? I am so glad that you asked. Please re-read They Like It!

All right. Have you re-read They Like It!?

Why did I ask you to re-read They Like It!? Well, I think that it is important for each of us to recognize, at least now and again, that no amount of argumentation on our parts is going to change the way that most of our relatives and former friends and acquaintances view the apostasies and sacrileges of the counterfeit church of conciliarism. What I try to do on this site is present the truth as I know it to be. Readers, however few that they are, are free to accept or to reject what is presented on this site. Some initially reject the material on this site only to write some years later to say that they have a change of mind. Others remain adamant in their opposition. Either way, of course, the truth of our ecclesiastical situation does not depend on anything we say or or do. Truth is it what it is. We can only point out that the Catholic Church cannot be responsible for the apostasies and blasphemies and sacrileges promoted by the lords of Modernism in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, entrusting all to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.

It is interesting, however, to note the hypocrisy of the lords of Modernism in the counterfeit church of conciliarism. Permit me to explain this, if ever so briefly for the umpteenth time.

The apostates of the counterfeit church of conciliarism regularly praise the "values" of false religions, thereby violating, objectively speaking, the First Commandment as they act and speak in ways that millions of Catholics gave up their lives rather than even to give the appearance of accepting as legitimate.

The apostates of the counterfeit church of conciliarism engage in "inter-religious prayer services" with adherents of false religions in full violation of the First and Second Commandments and in full violation of the doctrine and the Canon Law of the Catholic Church:

From this passage the learned translators of the Rheims New Testament, in their note, justly observe, "That, in matters of religion, in praying, hearing their sermons, presence at their service, partaking of their sacraments, and all other communicating with them in spiritual things, it is a great and damnable sin to deal with them." And if this be the case with all in general, how much more with those who are well instructed and better versed in their religion than others? For their doing any of these things must be a much greater crime than in ignorant people, because they know their duty better. (Bishop George Hay, The Laws of God Forbidding All Communication in Religion With Those of a False Religion.)

The spirit of Christ, which dictated the Holy Scriptures, and the spirit which animates and guides the Church of Christ, and teaches her all truth, is the same; and therefore in all ages her conduct on this point has been uniformly the same as what the Holy Scripture teaches. She has constantly forbidden her children to hold any communication, in religious matters, with those who are separated from her communion; and this she has sometimes done under the most severe penalties. In the apostolical canons, which are of very ancient standing, and for the most part handed down from the apostolical age, it is thus decreed: "If any bishop, or priest, or deacon, shall join in prayers with heretics, let him be suspended from Communion". (Can. 44)

Also, "If any clergyman or laic shall go into the synagogue of the Jews, or the meetings of heretics, to join in prayer with them, let him be deposed, and deprived of communion". (Can. 63) (Bishop George Hay, (The Laws of God Forbidding All Communication in Religion With Those of a False Religion.)

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

 

The teaching of the Catholic Church is clear and certain. The Catholic Church has clearly and certainly taught that there can be NO communication in religious matters with those who are outside of her maternal bosom, that one is either in or out of the Catholic Church, that there is no such thing as "partial communion" with her. It is all or nothing.

The conciliarists believe in the heresy of the "new ecclesiology," that the Protestants and Orthdox are in "partial communion" with the Catholic Church. As will be examined in my upcoming article on the amalgamation of "conservative" Anglicans into the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, true pope after true pope has exhorted the unconditional return of non-Catholics to the true Church. The Catholic Church gives no credence whatsoever to the false worship of false religions.

Alas, however, many of the "bishops" of the counterfeit church of conciliarism who believe in the lie of "partial" and "full" communion, the heresy that is called "Frankenchurch" by Father Anthony Cekada (see Frankenchurch Rises Again: Ratzinger on the Church and Bishop Donald Sanborn's The New Ecclesiology: An Overview), the very men who maintain the likes of, oh, say, Patrick Kennedy and Jack Reed and David Paterson and Mario Cuomo and Richard Durbin and Thomas Harkin and Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rudolph Giuliani and Susan Collins (and so many others) in "good standing" in their wretched structures despite these public officials' support for baby-killing, both by chemical and surgical means, under the cover of the civil law, are quick to state that those who adhere to the canonical doctrine of the Catholic Church that those who defect from the Faith cannot hold ecclesiastical office within her ranks legitimately are out of the Church entirely.

There is no "partial communion" for sedevacantists, in other words.

There have been several instances in recent months (our prayer list for the souls of the faithful departed has expanded greatly this year) of Catholics attached to the conciliar structures being told by various conciliar "bishops" and presbyters that it is a "Mortal Sin" to even passively attend a Requiem Mass offered by a priest who rejects the legitimacy of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI as a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter.

This is most interesting, especially when one considers the large numbers of baptized Catholics who have defected to false religions as a result of the apostasies and blasphemies and sacrileges of conciliarism. Many Catholics all across the vast expanse of the ecclesiastical divide have relatives who die outside of the true Church, placing them, the survivors, in the position of going to faux funeral services conducted by false clergymen who are adherents of false religions. When was the last time you heard a conciliar "bishop" say it was a Mortal Sin for someone to attend one of these false funeral services in false "churches" whose tenets are based upon a manifest rejection of the Catholic Faith, whether in part or en toto.

Would a conciliar "bishop" say it is a Mortal Sin to attend a funeral service or a wedding ceremony at a Jewish synagogue?

Would a conciliar "bishop" say it is a Mortal Sin to attend a funeral service or a wedding ceremony at a Mohammedan mosque?

Would a conciliar "bishop" say it is a Mortal Sin to attend a funeral service or a wedding ceremony at a church of the Lutherans or the Presbyterians or the Methodists or the Anglicans or their cousins, the Episcopalians, or some "evangelical" Protestant church?

Would a conciliar "bishop" say it is a Mortal Sin to attend a funeral service or a wedding ceremony at a temple of the pagan Buddhists or Hindus?

The "ecumenism" and the false spirit of "universal salvation" and the false "compassion" of the "Second" Vatican Council ceases when it comes to Catholics who dissent from nothing contained in the Deposit of Faith and who recognize that the officials of the counterfeit church of conciliarism have expelled themselves from the bosom of Holy Mother Church by assenting to doctrines and engaging in practices that have been condemned solemnly by her infallible teaching authority. (See Ratzinger's War Against Catholicism.) Everyone else has "elements of sanctification and truth" except those who recognize in the conciliar "popes" men who have defected from the Faith according to the consistent teaching of the Catholic Church that was reiterated by Pope Leo XIII in Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896:

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

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

 

Yes, of course, the "bishops" of the counterfeit church of conciliarism would indeed be correct in their assessment of sedevacantists if they and their conciliar "popes" held their offices legitimately and were of one mind and one heart with the Deposit of Faith according to the formula expressed in The Oath Against Modernism, September 1, 1910:

Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical' misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. . . . The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.

 

The mere fact that representatives of the Society of Saint Pius X have to engage officials of the counterfeit church of conciliarism in "negotiations" concerning what constitutes a "correct" understanding of the "Second" Vatican Council and the "magisterium" of the conciliar "popes" is in and of itself proof that concilairism is not Catholicism as, to quote Pope Pius XI once again, the Catholic Church "proposes a complete and easily understood teaching, and is immune when it thus teaches from all danger of erring." There is never any need to engage in "negotiations" to arrive at a true understanding of the teaching of the Catholic Church, in which, as Pope Gregory XVI noted in Mirari Vos, May 25, 1834, her teaching "can be found without even a light tarnish of error."

Catholicism and conciliarism are two entirely different religions, and the fact that conciliar officials are so sanguine about false religions but so harsh on those who adhere to everything taught by the Catholic Church from time immemorial is evidence that these officials have long ago lost the sensus Catholicus as they advance a revolution that has devastated souls and filled the churches and temples of one false religion after another with baptized Catholics who have found nothing but bewilderment and ambiguity in their conciliar parishes.

It is worth repeating once again what I wrote in in If I Were King of the Forest nine days ago now (it seems like an eternity ago given all that we have been through in the past week!):

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is God as sanguine about these things as you are?

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

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

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

 

Many of our relatives and former friends and acquaintances have grown to "like" the apostasies and blasphemies and sacrileges of conciliarism. Although we are absolutely no better than they are and must be earnest about making reparation for our sins and those of the whole world as the consecrated slaves of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, we must recognize that the apostate officials in the counterfeit church of concilairism are hypocrites who are so blinded by apostasy that they cannot even see how inconsistent they are in refusing to treat sedevacantists with the same sweeping false "compassion" of "universal salvation" with which they treat even those who deny and make war upon the Sacred Divinity of Our Lord Itself.

Every Rosary we pray with fervor and meditation helps to plant the seeds for the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. May we seek to plant these seeds in the waning days of the month of October, praying also to Saint Jude the Apostle to help us, impossible cases in so many ways, to sanctify and to save our souls without making any concessions to conciliarism whatsoever.

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.

 

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

 

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior and Balthasar, pray for us.

Saints Simon and Jude, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints