Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us

                 December 27, 2013


Partners In Lies and Lawlessness

Part Two

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Although I would rather have a tub of hot molten lead poured over me than to write yet another article about the lawless liars of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, I did want to address a few subjects that have arisen in the last few weeks to demonstrate the perfect consistency in the deceptions of the lords of conciliarism as they continue to eradicate the last remaining vestiges of anything approaching recognizable Catholicism from their counterfeit church.

To wit, much has been made in recent weeks of Jorge Mario Bergoglio's decision to declare Blessed Father Peter Faber (also rendered as Favre), co-founder with Saint Ignatius of Loyola of the Society of Jesus, who was beatified by Pope Pius IX himself on September 5, 1872, to be "canonized" by means of a "papal" fiat, referred to as an "equivalent canonization," even though there does not exist an additional miracle attached to his intercession. Many commentators have noted the false "pontiff's" total disregard for even the vastly streamlined canonical processes that exist in the counterfeit church of conciliarism that Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II used to turn the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints into a veritable "saint factory."

Why the shock?

Although there have been instances when those "beatified" and/or "canonized" by Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II and Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI "canonized" 482 people from the first "canonization" ceremony at which he officiated, on June 20, 1922, to his last extravaganza, which was held on his eighty-fourth birthday, May 16, 2004 (see Table of the Canonizations during the  reign of John Paul II). He beatified 996 people between April 29, 1979 and October 3, 2004. The "heroic virtue" listed for one woman 'beatified by John Paul II in the early-1990s was that she prayed her Rosary every day! This prompted me to tell a then-friend in the conciliar clergy, "Hey, I got a shot at this!" (I was joking.) My now former friend laughed heartily after I had made comment. Saying one's prayers every day is not "heroic." It is our duty.

As is well known, the counterfeit church of conciliarism's ideological manipulation of the "beatification" and "canonization" has sought to raise to the Cranmer tables on which the abominable Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service is staged its own progenitors and exemplars as a means of placing the stamp of "sanctity" upon rank liars who sought to advance every single tenet of the Modernism in defiance of the various solemn anathemas and papal condemnations that were issued prior to the "election" of the soon-to-be "canonized" Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII (see Two For The Price Of One, part one).

A careful distinction needs to be made before proceeding: there have been truly worthy candidates for beatification and canonization who have been advanced by the conciliarists. The "wheat" of authentic sanctity (such as belonged to Jacinta and Francisco Marto, Father Junipero Serra, Father Miguel Augustin Pro, Venerable Anne Katherine Emmerich, Pauline Jaricot, Kateri Tekakwitha, Elizabeth Ann Seton, Bishop John Neumann, Juan Diego, Padre Pio, Father Maximilian Kolbe, who opposed all forms of naturalism, including both "national" socialism and "international" socialism) will have to be separated from the "chaff" of Modernism (Josemaria Escriva Balaguer y Albas, Mother Teresa, Karol Wojtyla, Angelo Roncalli, Antonio Rosmini et al.) by a true pope when the conciliarists are removed by the very hand of God Himself as the fruit of the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. The inclusion of truly worthy candidates to be considered  for canonization has permitted the conciliarists to attempt to promote their own number (Escriva, Roncalli, Wojtyla) to the ranks of the blessed.

In other words, you see, the inclusion of worthy candidates in the "saint factory" of conciliarism has provided a "cover," if you will, for the inclusion of the progenitors of the conciliar agenda in the canonization process. Although an indulterer at the time, even I knew that the "beatification" of Pope Pius IX and the decrepit Modernist named Angelo Roncalli, who had his corpulent corpus preserved artificially so as to make it appear that it was "incorrupt" to those investigating his "cause" after his death, on the same day, September 3, 2000, was an exercise in Hegelianism. After all, how can one "reconcile" heralding Pope Pius IX and Angelo Roncalli on the same day when the former, Pope Pius IX, condemned the very propositions that were at the foundation of the life's work of the latter, Roncalli?

Wojtyla/John Paul II's successor, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, used his own false "pontificate" to advance the cause of Father Antonio Rosmini even though it was in 1887 that Pope Leo XIII had personally condemned forty of the latter's propositions each of which has become standard "orthodoxy" within the counterfeit church of conciliarism. It is important to dwell on this case for a bit as the conciliar manipulation of the beatification and canonization processes did not start with Jorge Mario Bergoglio. Indeed, as he is doing with the rest of his apostate teaching, Bergoglio's equivalent "canonization" of Father Peter Faber merely strips away the pretense of supposed "miracles" attributed to many conciliar "blesseds" and "saints" to show the world once and for all that the conciliar officials will "beatify" and/or "canonize" anyone they "like," especially those with whom they share an ideological kinship.

The Rosmini rehabilitation, which was issued on July 1, 2001, provoked a good deal of analysis at the time. Even a most radical theologian, a true child of conciliarism and of all its ecumenical foundations named Gregory Baum, noted in National Catholic Reporter on January 25, 2002, that Joseph Ratzinger had raised a significant question concerning the stability of Magisterial pronouncements:


Today the situation is different. First, according to Ratzinger, serious research has shown that if Rosmini's ambiguous and obscure passages are interpreted in the light of his own philosophical work, which is, of course, the only honest way of reading a philosophical text, then their meaning is not contrary to the Catholic tradition. Second, in his encyclical Faith and Reason of 1998, John Paul II has welcomed philosophical pluralism in the church and, in fact, mentioned with great respect Antonio Rosmini among several Catholic thinkers of the 19th century. That is why, at the present time, lifting the condemnations decreed in 1887 is justified.

The nota of July 2001 is an important ecclesiastical document because it applies the historical-critical method to the understanding of the magisterium. Yet has Ratzinger's "attentive reading" demonstrated that lifting the condemnation does not involve the magisterium in an internal contradiction? I do not think so.

He has shown that the condemnation of Rosmini's propositions in 1887 were justified in terms of the church's pastoral policy and hence could be lifted without inconsistency later. Yet he does not raise the truth question. The readers of the condemnation of 1886 were made to believe that these propositions were erroneous: They were not told that they were erroneous only when read from a neo-Thomist perspective and that their true meaning should not be pursued at that time because Pope Leo XIII wanted neo-Thomism to become the church's official philosophy.

The nota demonstrates that the condemnation of 1886 exercised a useful ecclesiastical function, not that it was true. Ratzinger's explanation reveals that the Holy Office showed no respect for the truth at all. Its intentions were tactical and political. The Holy Office at that time saw itself as a servant of the church's central government and judged ideas in terms of their ecclesiastical implications, not their truth.

Still, the nota is an important document since it is the first time an ecclesiastical statement wrestles with a question that has troubled Catholics for a long time. How are we to interpret apparent contradictions in the magisterium?

Here is a famous example. In the bull Unam Sanctam of 1302, Pope Boniface VIII wrote these words: "We declare, we set forth, we define that submission to the Roman pontiff is necessary for the salvation of any human creature." And the Council of Florence solemnly declared in 1442 that outside the Catholic church there is no salvation, neither for heretics nor schismatics, even if they should live holy lives or shed their blood in the name of Christ. Vatican Council II appeared to proclaim an entirely different doctrine. We read in Gaudium et Spes that since Christ has died for all humans and since the destiny of humanity is one, we are to hold that, in a manner known to God, participation in the mystery of redemption is offered to every human being.

We are bound to ask with Ratzinger whether there is an internal contradiction in the magisterium. Were the solemn declarations of Boniface VIII and the Council of Florence wrong? The words of Boniface were so emphatic, "we declare, we set forth, we define," that the reader may wonder whether Vatican Council II has made a mistake. At the same time, the declarations of Boniface and the cardinals in attendance at the Council of Florence were hard to reconcile with the teaching of the Church Fathers of the second and third centuries who believed that God's redemptive Word, incarnate in Christ, was operative wherever people sought the truth. There may have been good church-political reasons for Boniface and the cardinals of the Council of Florence to make these harsh declarations, yet -- I would argue -- these declarations were wrong. The magisterium has made mistakes. The church, guided by the Spirit, is forever learning.

Ratzinger's document has sent theologians off into a new area of research. (Ratzinger explains how condemnation was right then, wrong now. See Appendix A below for an analysis of the Ratzinger rehabilitation of Father Antonio Rosmini that was written by the anti-sedevacantist author Mr. James Larson.)

That a man who had forty of his propositions condemned by a true pope is considered to be a fit candidate for "beatification" is a telling statement on how far the revolutionaries will go to raise to their "tables" those who made possible the triumph of their Modernist propositions of contradiction and "continuity in discontinuity" that Ratzinger/Benedict himself championed as early as 1971 (see Trying To Put Humpty Dumpty Back Together Again). The "beatification" of Father Antonio Rosmini, whose genuine love for the poor and unfortunate must be placed in the context of his philosophical warfare against the very nature of God and His Holy Truths, was  just part of a revolutionary process by which the Modernist mind is exalted and its adherents "venerated" as holy men and women of the Catholic Church. The pending "canonizations" of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II and Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII represent yet another important turning point in this revolutionary process.

So does the "equivalent canonization" of Father Peter Faber, who far from being an exponent of conciliarism as Jorge Mario Bergoglio may believe, was considered a saint by none other than Saint Francis de Sales, who admired Father Faber for his desire to convert those steeped in Calvinism and not to engage in "dialogue" with them as some have suggested in recent weeks. (See Appendix B for the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Father Faber's life and work.) Bergoglio has chosen a man known by his contemporaries for his sanctity to be "canonized" by "papal" fiat in order to pave the way for the "equivalent canonizations" of revolutionary figures, possibly including the late evolutionist Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, S.J., Father Karl Rahner, S.J., and Father Hans Urs von Balthasar, who was a Jesuit until leaving the Society of Jesus in 1950 to pursue his Hegelianism without the constraints of religious life, and, among others, Henri "Cardinal" de Lubac, S.J. Yes, the possibilities are endless.

The conciliar revolutionaries are indeed partners in lies and lawlessness, which is why all of the outrage about the arbitrary punishments being meted out by "Father" Fidenzio Volpi at the behest of Jorge Mario Bergoglio against the traditionally-minded founder, Father Stefano Manelli, and members of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate is very sad to behold.

I mean, do we really expect, especially at this late date, men who have no respect for the laws of God and the binding nature of the truth that He has revealed to in His Sacred Deposit of Faith that He entrusted to the infallible teaching authority of the Catholic Church to safeguard eternally to have respect for their own established laws and procedures?

Do we really expect, especially at this late date, men who have personally esteemed the symbols of false religions with their own hands and who have entered into false temples of worship to praise the nonexistent ability of "believers" to work for the "better world" without once exhorting anyone to convert to the Catholic Faith to treat those who dissent, even if only slightly, from the official conciliar party line with the "charity" with which they treat even those who deny the Sacred Divinity of the Divine Redeemer, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

The hour is very, very late. Those who have not yet come to grips with the reality of our situation had better do so quickly as Antichrist is not going to give us his calling card, and he cannot be a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter. The Catholic Church is the virginal, spotless mystical bride of her Divine Founder and Invisible Head, Christ the king. She can never be spotted by even the slightest taint of error.

Who says so?

Oh well, our true popes themselves:


66. And if at times there appears in the Church something that indicates the weakness of our human nature, it should not be attributed to her juridical constitution, but rather to that regrettable inclination to evil found in each individual, which its Divine Founder permits even at times in the most exalted members of His Mystical Body, for the purpose of testing the virtue of the shepherds no less than of the flocks, and that all may increase the merit of their Christian faith. For, as We said above, Christ did not wish to exclude sinners from His Church; hence if some of her members are suffering from spiritual maladies, that is no reason why we should lessen our love for the Church, but rather a reason why we should increase our devotion to her members. Certainly the loving Mother is spotless in the Sacraments, by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed on all; in the evangelical counsels which she recommends; in those heavenly gifts and extraordinary graces through which, with inexhaustible fecundity, [130] she generates hosts of martyrs, virgins and confessors. But it cannot be laid to her charge if some members fall, weak or wounded. In their name she prays to God daily: "Forgive us our trespasses"; and with the brave heart of a mother she applies herself at once to the work of nursing them back to spiritual health. When therefore we call the Body of Jesus Christ "mystical," the very meaning of the word conveys a solemn warning. It is a warning that echoes in these words of St. Leo: "Recognize, O Christian, your dignity, and being made a sharer of the divine nature go not back to your former worthlessness along the way of unseemly conduct. Keep in mind of what Head and of what Body you are a member." [131] (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943.)

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. (Constantinople III).

These and many other serious things, which at present would take too long to list, but which you know well, cause Our intense grief. It is not enough for Us to deplore these innumerable evils unless We strive to uproot them. We take refuge in your faith and call upon your concern for the salvation of the Catholic flock. Your singular prudence and diligent spirit give Us courage and console Us, afflicted as We are with so many trials. We must raise Our voice and attempt all things lest a wild boar from the woods should destroy the vineyard or wolves kill the flock. It is Our duty to lead the flock only to the food which is healthful. In these evil and dangerous times, the shepherds must never neglect their duty; they must never be so overcome by fear that they abandon the sheep. Let them never neglect the flock and become sluggish from idleness and apathy. Therefore, united in spirit, let us promote our common cause, or more truly the cause of God; let our vigilance be one and our effort united against the common enemies.

Indeed you will accomplish this perfectly if, as the duty of your office demands, you attend to yourselves and to doctrine and meditate on these words: "the universal Church is affected by any and every novelty" and the admonition of Pope Agatho: "nothing of the things appointed ought to be diminished; nothing changed; nothing added; but they must be preserved both as regards expression and meaning." Therefore may the unity which is built upon the See of Peter as on a sure foundation stand firm. May it be for all a wall and a security, a safe port, and a treasury of countless blessings. To check the audacity of those who attempt to infringe upon the rights of this Holy See or to sever the union of the churches with the See of Peter, instill in your people a zealous confidence in the papacy and sincere veneration for it. As St. Cyprian wrote: "He who abandons the See of Peter on which the Church was founded, falsely believes himself to be a part of the Church . . . .

But for the other painful causes We are concerned about, you should recall that certain societies and assemblages seem to draw up a battle line together with the followers of every false religion and cult. They feign piety for religion; but they are driven by a passion for promoting novelties and sedition everywhere. They preach liberty of every sort; they stir up disturbances in sacred and civil affairs, and pluck authority to pieces.(Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832.)

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.)

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.)

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. (Pope Leo XIII, A Review of His Pontificate, March 19, 1902.)

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.)

Let, therefore, the separated children draw nigh to the Apostolic See, set up in the City which Peter and Paul, the Princes of the Apostles, consecrated by their blood; to that See, We repeat, which is 'the root and womb whence the Church of God springs,' not with the intention and the hope that 'the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth' will cast aside the integrity of the faith and tolerate their errors, but, on the contrary, that they themselves submit to its teaching and government. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)

Perhaps it is wise for those in the "resist while recognize" movement to consider once again the following words of Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., that he wrote concerning the reign of Pope Saint Clement I and an epistle he had written:


Its tone is dignified but paternal, according to St. Peter's advice to pastors. There is nothing in it of a domineering spirit; but the grave and solemn language bespeaks the universal pastor, whom none can disobey without disobeying God Himself. These words so solemn and so firm wrought the desired effect: peace was re-established in the church of Corinth, and the messengers of the Roman Pontiff soon brought back the happy news. A century later, St. Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, expressed to Pope St. Soter the gratitude still felt by his flock towards Clement for the service he had rendered. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year.)

Dom Prosper reminds us that the authority of the Vicar of Christ is absolute, that the pope is one "whom none can disobey without disobeying God Himself." Indeed. Although I am late to have my own eyes opened to the ramifications of this truth, suffice it to say that a legitimate pontiff commands our obedience in all things that do not pertain to sin, in all things that pertain to faith and morals. No one can oppose a legitimate pontiff without opposing Our Lord Himself. And no legitimate pontiff can give us bad doctrine or defective worship. He cannot express in his capacity as a private theologian, no less publicly or in exhortations or encyclical letters that are published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, things contrary to the defined, irreformable teaching of the Catholic Church.


To refuse to condemn the blasphemous, heretical words and actions of the conciliar "popes" is to call to mind once again the unstinting words of Pope Saint Leo the Great in his Epistle to Anastasius:


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 )

Once again, let us turn to Pope Saint Pius X, who warned us as Patriarch of Venice about men such as Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis and Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and their band of fellow Modernist revolutionaries:



"How necessary it is to stir up again the spirit of faith, at a time when there is a growth of that malignant fever which would discredit everything and deny every dogma of revealed religion! How necessary it is at this present time when people are trying to dismiss the mysteries of our faith, when people are claiming to explain them--while Christ has demanded the submission of the intellect--when they are casting doubt on the most established prophecies, when they are denying the most manifest miracles, whey they are rejecting the sacraments, deriding pious practices, and discrediting the magisterium of the Church and her ministers!

Cardinal Sarto, clearly, had in mind not only the rationalists outside the Church, but also those who, inside the Church, were beginning to dismiss her dogmas because of their own historical presuppositions and their erroneous philosophies. Even if the name Modernism does not appear in this pastoral letter [dated May 21, 1895], Cardinal Sarto had identified its initial symptoms, as he had in Mantua. It was during this period, moreover, that he began to take notice of the works of [notorious Modernist] Alfred Loisy, "forcefully reproving the affirmations contrary to the faith," which they contained, as a witness in the beatification process tells us."  (Yves Chiron, Saint Pius X: Restorer of the Church. Translated by Graham Harrison. Angelus Press, 2002, p. 95.)

With Pope Saint Pius X, we reject those who reject and mock the integrity of the Holy Faith no matter how many times a putative "pope" does and says things that have been condemned repeatedly by Holy Mother Church.

We must always cling to the spiritual weapons given us by Our Lady to fight the forces of the world, the flesh and the devil, the forces, that is, of Modernity in the world and Modernism in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, especially by praying as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits.

Our Lady will help us to be ever ready to defend the honor and the glory of the Blessed Trinity to Whom she is Daughter, Mother, and Spouse. She will lead us to be ever mindful of making reparation for our own many sins by offering our daily penances to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through her own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, ever desirous of spending time with her at Holy Mass and in front of her Divine Son's Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament as a foretaste of the Heavenly glories that will await us if we die in a state of Sanctifying Grace as members of the Catholic Church.

The possession of the glory of the Beatific Vision in Heaven is our goal. And that goal cannot be achieved by a participation in or even silence about the apostasies, blasphemies and sacrileges of conciliarism.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us now and the hour of our death Amen

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

Our Lady, Mother of God,, 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.

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Appendix A

Mr. James Larson's Analysis of the Ratzinger Rehabilitation of Father Antonio Rosmini


On 1 July, 2001, the CDF issued a NOTE on the Force of the Doctrinal Decrees Concerning the Thought and Work of Fr. Antonio Rosmini Serbati. The Note was signed by Cardinal Ratzinger and confirmed by Pope John Paul II. Its decision reads as follows:

"The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, following an in-depth examination of the two doctrinal Decrees, promulgated in the 19th century, and taking into account the results emerging from historiography and from the scientific and theoretical research of the last ten years has reached the following conclusion: The motives for doctrinal and prudential concern and difficulty that determined the promulgation of the Decree Post obitum [issued by the Holy Office and confirmed by Pope Leo XIII on 14 Dec, 1887] with the condemnation of the "40 Propositions" taken from the works of Anthony Rosmini can now be considered superseded. This is so because the meaning of the propositions, as understood and condemned by the Decree, does not belong to the authentic position of Rosmini, but to conclusions that may possibly have been drawn from the reading of his works."

We shall be quoting further from this document, but let us now turn to some of the condemned propositions (they are to be found in Denzinger 1891ff.). Please keep in mind that, despite the impression which may be give by the last sentence in the above quote, all of the following are taken from Rosmini’s works. They are his words, and not conclusions which someone else has drawn from reading these works. We will begin with some of those which deal with the relationship between God and His creation: between Infinite Being and finite being. Again, I ask for perseverance. Heterodox philosophers are not known for the clarity of their propositions. I can assure the reader, however, that after a short period of suffering and possible vertigo, clarity shall return:

#4 "Indeterminate being, which without doubt is known to all intelligences, is that divine thing which is manifest to man in nature."

#6 "In the being which prescinds from creatures and from God, which is indeterminate being, and in God, not indeterminate but absolute being, the essence is the same."

#12 "There is no finite reality, but God causes it to exist by adding limitation to infinite reality. – Initial being becomes the essence of every real being. – Being which actuates finite natures, and is joined with them, is cut off by God."

#18 "The love by which God loves Himself even in creatures, and which is the reason why He determines Himself to create, constitutes a moral necessity…."

#19 "The Word is that unseen material, from which, as it is said in wisdom 11:18, all things of the universe were created."

Despite some characteristic "fuzziness" and convoluted phrasing, there is no doubt that we are here dealing with clear statements of pantheism. There is simply no way that anyone can say that finite reality comes to exist through a limiting of infinite reality, and that the essence of the being which is in God and the being which is in creatures are the same, without this constituting pantheism.

Nor is there any way that one can say that the love which "determines" God to create constitutes a moral necessity, without violating the non-dependence of God or the absolute gratuitousness of His relationship to creatures. Finally, it is impossible that these statements, considering their objective content, could be placed in any larger "system" or context which would clear them of their heretical content.

Rosmini’s Erroneous System

The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia renders a very good explanation of the Rosminian system of ontology (the philosophical study of the nature of being). Rosmini postulates three types of being: Absolute, ideal, and real. Absolute Being is identical with God’s Nature and outside of man’s immediate experience. The other two types of being are within man’s experience, and are named ideal being and real being.

Ideal being is universal, simple, immutable, eternal, and indeterminate. Real being is determinate, contingent, temporal, and almost infinitely manifold and varied. Real being is, in fact, what we experience in all the varied, individual things of our world. What makes the Rosmini system fuzzy and difficult to understand is his concept of "ideal being." The Catholic Encyclopedia explains:

"Ideal being [in the Rosmini system] is not God, but we may call it, says Rosmini, an appurtenance of God, and even Divine, for its characteristics are not those of created finite things, and its ultimate source must be in God."

All creation, according to Rosmini, is therefore a creation "out of" God (or "from the Word" as proposition #19 above would have it). It is a "limiting" of that unlimited "ideal being" (also called "initial" being) which is "in" God. This is pure pantheism, and a clear denial of creation ex nihilo.

On the other side of the Rosmini coin, all our perceptions of real things involve a direct knowledge and contact with "ideal being" which is an "appurtenance" of God, is in God, and therefore may be called Divine. This constitutes the heresy of "ontologism", the belief that human intelligence has a direct intuitive knowledge of God or "the Divine" in its knowledge of created things.

Further Heresies

Rosmini’s errors were certainly not limited to ontology or cosmoslogy. The following constitutes a Trinitarian and Christological heresy:

#26 (in part): "The Word, insofar as it is the loved object, and insofar as it is the Word, that is the object subsisting in itself, known by itself, is the person of the Holy Spirit."

It is difficult for us to imagine a seminary-trained priest of the 19th century proclaiming that Christ is the Holy Spirit. To do so is simply to deny the real distinctions between the Three Divine Persons which is integral to belief in the Trinity.

Another Christological heresy:

#27: "In the humanity of Christ the human will was so taken up by the Holy Spirit in order to cling to objective Being, that is to the Word, that it (the will) gave over the rule of man wholly to Him, and assumed the Word personally, thus uniting with itself human nature. Hence, the human will ceased to be personal in man, and, although person is in other men, it remained nature in Christ."

This would appear to be simply a repetition of the Monothelite heresy of the seventh century, which taught that the union of the Divine and human natures in the one Divine Person of Christ only involved the possession and activity of one will – the Divine. Under such an erroneous "Christology" the obedience of Christ to the Cross would have meant nothing – His human nature being only an "un-willing" victim of the Divine Will.

We conclude with his Eucharistic heresies:

#1919: "We think that the following conjecture is by no means at variance with Catholic doctrine, which alone is truth: In the Eucharistic sacrament the substance of bread and wine becomes the true flesh and true blood of Christ, when Christ makes it the terminus of His sentient principle, and vivifies it with His life; almost in that way by which bread and wine truly are transubstantiated into our flesh and blood, because they become the terminus of our sentient principle."

#1921: "In the sacrament of the Eucharist by the power of words the body and blood of Christ are present only in that measure which corresponds (a quell tanto) to the substance of the bread and wine, which are transubstantiated; the rest of the body of Christ is there through concomitance."

We should note, before going on, that Rosmini uses the word "transubstantiated" in a manner that does not correspond with Catholic doctrine. In no way is he speaking of that conversion of the entire substance of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, which conversion the Council of Trent defines as Transubstantiation. His use of the word is therefore a matter of blatant intellectual deception. . . .

There is absolutely no question that the propositions which we have examined (and others as well) are not reconcilable with Catholic doctrine. What, therefore, can it possibly mean when the CDF Note makes the following statement?

"The motives for doctrinal and prudential concern and difficulty that determined the promulgation of the Decree Post obitum with the condemnation of the "40 Propositions"…can now be considered superseded. This is so because the meaning of the propositions, as understood and condemned by the Decree, does not belong to the authentic position of Rosmini, but to conclusions that may possibly have been drawn from the reading of his works."

All the propositions condemned are admittedly taken from Rosmini’s own statements and works. We have the words of the Catholic Encyclopedia that these teachings are indeed part of the "Rosmini system". Further, there exists a publishing group called Rosmini House in Durham, UK, dedicated to the publishing of Rosmini’s teachings. A study of these teachings to be found on their website [www.rosmini-in-english.org] certainly confirms that they are an integral part of his system of thought.

We have every right, therefore, to question the validity of the CDF statement that the obvious meanings of many of these propositions do not belong to "the position of Rosmini."

The most astounding thing about the CDF document is that immediately after making the above statement, we then read the following assertion:

"At the same time the objective validity of the Decree Post obitum referring to the previously condemned propositions, remains for whoever reads them, outside of the Rosminian system, in an idealist, ontologist point of view and with a meaning contrary to Catholic faith and doctrine."

In other words (according to the reasoning of the CDF document): What Rosmini said, he did not really say. But what Rosmini said that he did not really say is condemned outside of what he really said if interpreted in the obvious sense which he obviously meant but which is not really a part of what he said.

All of this would seem to be Orwellian Newspeak at its worst. When confronted with such apparent confusion and violations of simple intelligence we must certainly seek the deeper reasons, which I believe are profoundly disturbing.

Heart of the Matter

In past issues of CO I have dealt with the reality and concept of being, and the war that is being conducted against it. In Thomistic ontology, the flaming swords which guard the gate to being, and therefore to all reality, are the Principle of Contradiction and the Principle of the Excluded Middle. These are the logical principles inscribed in our hearts and minds by God which are the foundations of all our perception of reality. These principles simply say that a thing either is or it is not, that a thing cannot both be and not be, and that we do not have a third alternative – something, as it were, in the middle between being and non-being. To dismiss either of these two metaphorical angels guarding the door of being is to swing wide open the doors of Hell, and to surrender ourselves to intellectual insanity – with moral and emotional insanity a short distance down the road.

For any orthodox Catholic, these Principles of Being are intimately tied to the inerrancy of the Magisterium and the necessary conviction that, because the Magisterium is a true expression of God’s unchangeable being and truth, something cannot at one moment be taught as essential truth, and at some future time be taught as false. Or its corollary: that something cannot at one time be condemned as error, and subsequently be taught as free from error. Satan’s strategic plan against all Catholics must therefore include the attempt to make us believe that the Church’s Magisterium has violated this principle of reality, and that we must therefore accept the fact that the Magisterium can and has contradicted itself in its fundamental nature as guardian of the truth.

There is no question but that the CDF rehabilitation of Rosmini has given the definite impression that this is exactly what has been done by the Magisterium (even though, as we have seen, it has not actually been done since it leaves intact the condemnation of these propositions if they are interpreted in what we have shown to be their obvious "idealist, ontologist" – in other words, pantheistic – point of view).

The CDF attributes the 19th century condemnation of these 40 Propositions of Rosmini primarily to the renewal of Thomism promoted by Pope Leo XIII. According to the Note, this subjection of all studies to Thomistic philosophy and theology was a provisional or temporary policy adopted by the Church "to oppose the risk of an eclectic philosophical approach." And further, "The adoption of Thomism created the premises for a negative judgement of a philosophical and speculative position, like that of Rosmini, because it differed in its language and conceptual framework from the philosophical and theological elaboration of St. Thomas Aquinas."

We have now reached the heart of the problem. What is at stake here is Thomism, and all that it teaches us about God, man, and the nature of being. I fully believe that the real reason behind the Rosmini rehabilitation is the agenda to implement alternatives to Thomistic philosophy and theology. And as I have said in previous writings, the central point of contention in this war against Thomism, and against both the being of God and man, is the doctrine of Transubstantiation.

Embarrassed by an ontological teaching concerning being, substance, and accidents – a teaching which directly contradicts the reductive philosophy of modern analytical science – these men are intent on establishing an alternative to Thomistic ontology, and to the doctrine of Transubstantiation which "incarnates" this philosophy into Catholic doctrine and belief. The Holy Spirit indeed does prevent any magisterial document from outright contradiction of the defined doctrine of Transubstantiation (or any other doctrine), but It does not necessarily protect us from the confusion generated by non-doctrinal elements in documents such as this Note, even though they be issued by the teaching office of the Church. (ROSMINI'S REHABILITATION AND THE RATZINGER AGENDA: When To Be Is Not To Be)

Appendix B

From the Catholic Encyclopedia on Father Peter Faber

Born 13 April, 1506, at Villaret, Savoy; died 1 Aug., 1546, in Rome. As a child he tended his father's sheep during the week, and on Sunday he taught catechism to other children. The instinctive knowledge of his vocation as an apostle inspired him with a desire to study. At first he was entrusted to the care of a priest at Thônes, and then to a neighbouring school. Although without any defininte plans for the future, he resolved to go to Paris. His parents consented to the separation, and in 1525 Peter arrived in Paris. Here he acquired the learning he desired, and found quite unexpectedly his real vocation. He was admitted gratuitously to the college of Sainte-Barbe, and shared the lodging of a student from Navarre, Francis Xavier, the future saint, in a tower which still existed in 1850. They became intimately attached to each other, receiving on the same day in 1530 the degree of master of arts. At the university he also met St. Ignatius of Loyola and became one of his associates. He was ordained in 1534, and received at Montmartre, on 15 August of the same year, the vows of Ignatius and his five companions. To these first six volunteers, three others were to attach themselves. Ignatius appointed them all to meet at Venice, and charged Faber to conduct them there. Leaving Paris 15 Nov., 1536, Faber and his companions rejoined Ignatius at Venice in Jan., 1537. Ignatius then thought of going to evangelize the Holy Land, but God had destined him for a vaster field of action.

After Ignatius, Faber was the one whom Xavier and his companions esteemed the most eminent. He merited this esteem by his profound knowledge, his gentle sanctity, and his influence over souls. Faber now repaired to Rome, and after some months of preaching and teaching, the pope sent him to Parma and Piacenza, where he brought about a revival of Christian piety. Recalled to Rome, Faber was sent to Germany to uphold Catholicism at the Diet of Worms. In reality the diets which the Protestants were enabled to hold through the weakness of Charles accomplished no good. From the Diet of Worms, convoked in 1540, he was called to that of Ratisbon in 1541. Faber was startled by the ruin which Protestantism had caused in Germany, and by the state of decadence presented by Catholicism; and he saw that the remedy did not lie in discussions with the heretics, but in the reform of the faithful — above all, of the clergy. For ten months, at Speyer, at Ratisbon, and at Mainz, he conducted himself with gentleness and success. It was above all by the Spiritual that he accomplished most of his conversions. Princes, prelates, and priests revealed their consciences to him, and people were astounded by the efficacy of an apostolate accomplished so rapidly. Recalled to Spain by St. Ignatius, Faber tore himself away from the field where he had already gathered such a harvest, and won Savoy, which has never ceased to venerate him as a saint; but he had hardly been in Spain six months when by order of the pope he was again sent to Germany. This time for nineteen months Faber was to work for the reform of Speyer, Mainz, and Cologne — a thankless task. However, he gained the ecclesiastics little by little, changed their hearts, and discovered in the young many vocations. That he decided the vocation of Bl. Peter Canisius is in itself sufficient to justify his being called the Apostle of Germany. The Archbishop of Cologne, Herman of Wied, was already won over by the heresy which he was later publicly to embrace. It was also at Cologne that Faber especially exercised his zeal. After spending some months at Louvain, in 1543, where he implanted the seeds of numerous vocations among the young, he returned to Cologne, and there it may be said that he extirpated all heresy. But he was forced by obedience to leave Germany in August, 1544, going at first to Portugal, later to Spain. At the court of Lisbon and that of Valladolid, Faber was an angel of God. He was called to the principal cities of Spain, and everywhere inculcated fervour and fostered vocations. Let it suffice to mention that of Francis Borgia, which he, more than anyone else, was the means of strengthening. Faber, at forty, was wasted by his incessant labours and his unceasing journeys always made on foot. The pope, however, thought of sending him to the Council of Trent as theologian of the Holy See; John III wanted him to be made Patriarch of Ethiopia. Called to Rome, Faber, weakened by fever, arrived there 17 July, 1546, to die in the arms of St. Ignatius, the first of the following August. Those who had known him already invoked him as a saint. Saint Francis de Sales, whose character recalled that of Faber's, never spoke of him except as a saint. He was beatified, 5 September, 1872; his feast is kept on 8 August. (CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Peter Faber.)

Droleskey Afterword: Blessed Father Peter Faber was not an exemplar of "dialogue." He sought to extirpate heresy. Realizing that "discussions" with Protestants were useless, he sought to reform the lives of Catholics. Jorge Mario Bergoglio is guilty of manipulating the work of Blessed Father Faber to suit his own ideological agenda. Just another lie from a liar who does the work of the Prince of Darkness and the Master of Lies.

Even though Father Faber's sanctity was well-known during his lifetime and immediately thereafter, this alone is not a cause of canonization. The Catholic Church has high and exacting standards for canonization. The "popes" of conciliarism simply seek to "canonize" whoever they desire with regard to true sanctity or authentic miracles. Once again, just another difference between Catholicism and conciliarism.




© Copyright 2013, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.