Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us
                May 23, 2011

Peeking Into the Old Conciliar Fowler's Lair

Part One

by Thomas A. Droleskey

The past four articles on this site, As the Conciliar Fowler Lays More Snares, part one, As the Conciliar Fowler Lays More Snares, part two, As the Conciliar Fowler Lays More Snares, part three and As the Conciliar Fowler Lays More Snares, part four, have dealt with the plans that the false "pontiff," Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, has for those who have been tripping all over themselves in the past four years in fits of ceaseless joy over  the issuance of Summorum Pontificum on July 7, 2007. Ratzinger/Benedict intends to institute a "reform of the reform" to "merge" elements of the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition with those of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service into a "single," "unified" liturgy. Traditionally-minded Catholics who are attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism will have to make their peace with this as they take their place alongside the disparate amalgam of groups and "movements" ("Catholic" Charismatic Renewal, Opus Dei, Focolare, Cursillo, the Sant'Egidio Community, the Shalom Catholic Community, the Chemin Neuf Community, the International Community of Faith and Light, Regnum Christi, Communion and Liberation, the Emmanuel Community, the Seguimi Lay Group of Human-Christian Promotion, and. among many, many others, the Neocatechumenal Way) to be found within this false church's nooks and crannies.

Those past four articles on this site gave only a brief glimpse into the variety of doctrinal and liturgical aberrations that exist in the lair that has been built and maintained by that old conciliar fowler from Germany. Many other articles have focused on other doctrinal and liturgical aberrations in much more depth, yes, even to the point of redundancy,  although, as has been pointed out over and over again, it is only because that old conciliar fowler has been and continues to be relentless in his efforts to propagandize in behalf of his revolutionary precepts that there has been so much repetition on this site. People forget, especially in this "information age," and it is always useful to reemphasize points made any number of times in the past. My college teaching days are probably behind me forever now.  I will always subscribe, however, to the insight of Saint Thomas Aquinas that guided my college teaching career: repeticio est mater studiorum: repeition is the mother of all learning.

Thus it is that there will be much repetition of old themes in this brief article.

It is arguably the case that at least part of the doctrinal and liturgical revolutions was driven by men who were engaged in lives of unrepentant sin. Let me make a full distinctions before I elaborate on this point.

As I have noted many times before, each of us is a sinner. Each of us has much for which to make reparation to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary before we die. Some of us have much more for which to make reparation than others (my hand is raised quite high right now). It is, however, one thing to sin and be sorry as one seeks out Absolution from a true bishop or a true priest in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance. It is even one thing to struggle against various sins and weaknesses for many years. It is quite another to persist in sin unrepentantly, worse yet to justify it under cover of the civil law and, worst of all, to use the color of what appears to be the Catholic Church to rationalize away one's persistence in what are, subjectively speaking, Mortal Sins.

We must remember that the Protestant Revolution against the Divine Plan that God Himself instituted to effect man's return to Him through the Catholic Church started, at least proximately speaking, admitting its antecedent roots with the Greek Schism of 1054 and the heresies of John Wycliffe in England in the Fourteenth Century and Jan Hus of Bohemia on the Fifteenth Century, when Father Martin Luther, O.S.A., projected his own unwillingness to cooperate with Sanctifying Grace to reform his life. Father Luther was a lecher and a drunk. However, he also suffered from what is known as "scrupulosity," a spiritual condition that caused him to never "feel" forgiven in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance, especially since he continued sinning in most scandalous ways. Thus it is that Luther invented an entire false theology to justify himself in his persistence what are, objectively speaking, Mortal Sins, claiming heretically that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ did create a visible, hierarchical society, the Catholic Church, upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope, and that individual men are therefore "justified" by the "confession of faith" in Him as their Saviour, meaning of course, that, given the lack of a sacramental means to forgive sins, they were "forgiven" by Our Lord directly even though they persisted in their wanton ways without any intention of amending their lives.

Martin Luther's false theology was based on the erroneous proposition that the human being has been totally corrupted by Original Sin. The human being, according to Luther, is nothing more than a "dung heap covered by a few snowflakes of grace." This means that we will sin no matter our best efforts to resist temptations. The best that we can do is to make a "profession of faith" in our hearts and our our lips in the "Name of the Lord Jesus" are we are, more or less, assured of our salvation. There is almost no sin that one can commit that "revokes" this "profession of faith," which makes one "justified" in the sight of God and is the path to salvation.

Luther himself put the matter this way:

Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly.... as long as we are here [in this world] we have to sin.... No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day."( Let Your Sins Be Strong: A Letter from Martin Luther to Philip Melancthon. number 99, August 1, 1521)


Such a heretical view of sin and its effects on the soul--and on the entire Church Militant here on the face of this earth--is nothing other than an open invitation to sin, heedless of the ways in which each Actual Sin, whether Mortal or Venial, darkens the intellect, weakens the will and disorders our already disorderly passions more and more. Such a heretical view of sin and its effects on the soul--and on the entire Church Militant here on the face of this earth--denies the simple truth that Mortal Sin does indeed deprive one of the state of Justification, that is, of Sanctifying Grace, making one a mortal enemy of God until he has been reconciled to Him in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance, which was instituted by Our Lord Himself when He spoke these words to the Apostles on Easter Sunday after His Resurrection from the dead:

He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained. (John 20: 21-23.)


Human beings who persist in lives of unrepentant Mortal Sin are more and more prone to justify their sins, if not celebrate them publicly, lashing out in anger at anyone who attempts to admonish them in the exercise of the Spiritual Works of Mercy. This is the path to personal ruin, possibly for all eternity, and for social ruin. Pope Leo XIII, writing in Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885, pointed this out very clearly:

A similar state of things would certainly have continued had the agreement of the two powers been lasting. More important results even might have been justly looked for, had obedience waited upon the authority, teaching, and counsels of the Church, and had this submission been specially marked by greater and more unswerving loyalty. For that should be regarded in the light of an ever-changeless law which Ivo of Chartres wrote to Pope Paschal II: "When kingdom and priesthood are at one, in complete accord, the world is well ruled, and the Church flourishes, and brings forth abundant fruit. But when they are at variance, not only smaller interests prosper not, but even things of greatest moment fall into deplorable decay."

But that harmful and deplorable passion for innovation which was aroused in the sixteenth century threw first of all into confusion the Christian religion, and next, by natural sequence, invaded the precincts of philosophy, whence it spread amongst all classes of society. From this source, as from a fountain-head, burst forth all those later tenets of unbridled license which, in the midst of the terrible upheavals of the last century, were wildly conceived and boldly proclaimed as the principles and foundation of that new conception of law which was not merely previously unknown, but was at variance on many points with not only the Christian, but even the natural law. (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1885.)


Pope Leo XIII made a similar point in Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900:

As with individuals, so with nations. These, too, must necessarily tend to ruin if they go astray from "The Way." The Son of God, the Creator and Redeemer of mankind, is King and Lord of the earth, and holds supreme dominion over men, both individually and collectively. "And He gave Him power, and glory, and a kingdom: and all peoples, tribes, and tongues shall serve Him" (Daniel vii., 14). "I am appointed King by Him . . . I will give Thee the Gentiles for Thy inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for Thy possession" (Psalm ii., 6, 8). Therefore the law of Christ ought to prevail in human society and be the guide and teacher of public as well as of private life. Since this is so by divine decree, and no man may with impunity contravene it, it is an evil thing for the common weal wherever Christianity does not hold the place that belongs to it. When Jesus Christ is absent, human reason fails, being bereft of its chief protection and light, and the very end is lost sight of, for which, under God's providence, human society has been built up. This end is the obtaining by the members of society of natural good through the aid of civil unity, though always in harmony with the perfect and eternal good which is above nature. But when men's minds are clouded, both rulers and ruled go astray, for they have no safe line to follow nor end to aim at.


Revolutions tend to mimic one another as each is inspired by the original revolutionary, the devil himself. And thus it is that the liturgical revolution of conciliarism, the rotten fruit of the hijacking of Dom Prosper Gueranger's Liturgical Movement by Modernists intent on using the Sacred Liturgy as a means to enshrine and promote false ecumenism, were just as much rebels against the Divine Constitution of Holy Mother Church as was the lecherous drunkard named Martin Luther. Pride and lust and intemperance were at the heart of Luther's rebellion. Pride was certainly at the heart of the doctrinal and liturgical rebellion that led to the "Second" Vatican Council and its wretched aftermath, the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service, whose composition and implementation was certainly influenced by men who disregarded the binding precepts of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments, including those who were engaged in sins of unnatural vice, resulting in a Latin editio typica that has very few references to personal sin or heresy or error or to a God Who judges, no less the possibility of eternal damnation. This is no accident. This is no accident at all.

There were six liberal Protestant "observers" who served on Annibale Bugnini's Consilium, the committed that planned the revolutionary Novus Ordo service. Although defenders of the Novus Ordo claim that these "observers" did not influence the proceedings of the Consilium the reverse is true. Father Romano Tommasi, the pseudonym of a conciliar presbyter from a Midwestern archdiocese, has demonstrated in The Latin Mass: A Journal of Catholic Culture, that it was from his own personal examination of the correspondence sent by some of these Protestants to friends at the time of their service on the Consilium that the definitive proof was found to demonstrate that they made their "observations" during coffee breaks in the proceedings. Those "observations" were then read into the record of the Consilium's proceedings by its bishop-members as though those comments were theirs, not those of the Protestant "observers."

This same point was also demonstrated by the late Michael Davies:

64. In private correspondence with Michael Davies, this author was provided with a copy of a letter from Canon Pawley, one of the Protestant observers, which confirmed that all of the "observers" were given the proposed new liturgical texts for their review and comment, and that their opinion was sought in the afternoon drafting sessions of Bugnini's Consilium. (News and Views.)


Michael Davies' Liturgical Time Bombs amplified this point with great clarity:

The cover of this issue of Documentation Catholique was devoted to a picture of Pope Paul VI posing with the six Protestant Observers who had been invited to participate in the work of the Consilium. This photograph proved to be a source of astonishment and even scandal to large numbers of the faithful who had had no idea that Protestants had played any part in the compilation of the new Catholic rites. It resulted in public controversy in a number of countries, which was followed by official denials that the Observers had, in fact, played any part in the compilation of the new rites. These denials have since been cited by apologists for the official reform as "refutations" of the allegation that Protestant Observers had taken an active part in the compilation of the new rites. There is, however, a considerable difference between a denial and a refutation, and these particular denials are totally gratuitous and contradict the available evidence.

In the July/August 1974 issue of Notitiae, official journal of the Consilium, Archbishop Bugnini (its secretary) claimed that the Observers confined their role simply to observing (pp. 249/50).

Here are his exact words:

What role did the "Observers" play in the Consilium? Nothing more than that of "Observers". First of all, they only took part in the study meetings. In the second place, they behaved with impeccable discretion. They never intervened in the discussions and never asked to speak.

On 25 February 1976 the Director of the Vatican Press Office gave the following reply to a question by the journalist Georges Huber as to whether the Protestant Observers had participated in the elaboration of the new Mass:

The Protestant Observers did not participate in the elaboration of the texts of the new Missal.
This denial was printed in La Documentation Catholique on 4 July 1976.

In contrast with this Mgr. W.W. Baum (now Cardinal Baum), an ardent ecumenist, made the following statement in a personal interview with the Detroit News on 27 June 1967:

They are not simply there as observers, but as consultants as well, and they participate fully in the discussions on Catholic liturgical renewal. It wouldn't mean much if they just listened, but they contributed. (My emphasis).

In order to place this statement in its correct context it must be made clear that, at the time he made it, Mgr. Baum was executive director of the American Catholic Bishops' Commission on Ecumenical Affairs, and the first Catholic spokesman ever invited to address the General Synod of the United Church of Christ, an American Protestant denomination. During his address he revealed to the delegates that Protestant scholars "have had a voice" in the revision of the Catholic liturgy. As a follow-up to this revelation, Harold Acharhem, Religious Correspondent of the Detroit News, obtained the interview with Mgr. Baum from which I have quoted.

The account given by Cardinal Baum, and the denials issued by Archbishop Bugnini and the Vatican Press Office are clearly contradictory. In order to discover the truth I wrote to one of the Observers, Canon Ronald Jasper. Before giving his reply it is necessary to explain the manner in which the Consilium did its work. Firstly, there were the study sessions during which the practical details of the reform were worked out, discussed and modified. Then there were the formal (plenary) meetings during which the draft rites which had been compiled in the study sessions were debated and voted upon. In my letter to Canon Jasper I explained that I was working on a series of books on the liturgical reform and that I particularly wished to know whether the Observers had had a voice in the new rites of Mass and Ordination. In his reply, dated 10 February 1977, he explained that the Observers received all the documents from the drafters of the new rite in the same way as did other members of the Consilium. They were then present at the debates when they were presented by the experts and debated by the Consilium, but the Observers were not allowed to join in the debate.

In the afternoon, however, they always had an informal meeting with the periti who had prepared the draft services, and at these meetings they were certainly allowed to comment and criticize and make suggestions. It was then for the periti to decide whether any of their points were worth taking up when the general debates in the Consilium were resumed. But, explained Canon Jasper in conclusion, these informal meetings were a complete free-for-all, and there was a very frank exchange of views.

Exactly the same process took place during the course of Vatican II. The Protestant Observers, while not allowed to speak in the plenary sessions, were able to take an active part in the informal discussions where the real work of drafting the documents was done. Their influence is visible in the finalized documents themselves, and evidence of it is provided in
Chapter IX of Pope John's Council. In addition to this evidence, the following testimonies are extremely relevant.

Archdeacon Pawley, an Anglican Observer, reveals that  in the course of the Council itself the fullest courtesies and opportunities for communication and exchange were allowed to the Observers at every stage, and traces of the process can be recognised in the documents themselves.

Robert McAfee Brown, a Presbyterian Observer, remarks that:

Particularly during the discussion on ecumenism, it was apparent that many bishops wanted to know what Protestant reactions were to statements in the schema about Protestantism, and wanted to elicit Protestant opinions on how the schema could be improved. Thus, although we had no direct "voice" on the Council floor, we did indeed have an indirect voice through the many contacts that were possible with the Fathers and their indispensable strong right arms, the periti.

Dr. McMee Brown also reveals that there were occasions when the Observers were able to have a direct voice on the Council floor. "Is there anything you Observers want said on the Council floor about De Oecumenismo?" one bishop asked. The Observers then put their views in writing, to be incorporated into written interventions made on their behalf by bishops.

Thus, although it could be argued that officially the Observers played no part in drafting the conciliar documents, as they could neither vote nor speak in the debates, it is clear that they were able to influence the final format of these documents. This is precisely what took place with the formulation of the new liturgical rites by the post-conciliar Consilium.
(Michael Davies, Liturgical Time Bombs; emphases provided in the quoted text.)


Each of these Protestant "observers" were, of course, rebels in that they did not belong to the Catholic Church and endorsed propositions that have been anathematized by her, basing their entire ecclesiology and sacramental and moral theology, such as it is, on the relativism and rationalism that is Protestantism, a wholly owned subsidiary of the devil himself. These men had made their "peace" with divorce and remarriage and contraception. As each was a "liberal," it is reasonable to assume that some of them supported the surgical execution of innocent preborn children just as they supported the chemical assassination of children by means of abortifacient pills and devices. Without question, however, each believed that the marriage was not indissoluble and that God had not sovereignty over the sanctity and fecundity of that which is proper to marriage. In other words, the Consilium accepted the advice of men who promoted things that were and will always remain sinful in the objective order of things. The Novus Ordo service, therefore, was designed to be "more appealing" to men who did not want their malformed consciences to be singed by any kind of "harsh words" (heresy, error, judgment, damnation) that might be an impediment to, as they saw it, the "good peace" of the souls of "believers" and the necessity of making "ecumenical" progress.

That which is sinful can never be the foundation of anything that is good, no less a purported liturgical rite of the Catholic Church.

The liberal Protestant observers who served on the Consilium had ideas that tickled the ears and suited the fancy of the the bishop-members and of the priests who served those bishops in capacities of support, research and advice. One of those who served a very important role in the Consilium was none other than the doctrinal, liturgically and morally corrupt Rembert George Weakland, O.S.B, the now disgraced former conciliar "archbishop" of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, who remains yet in perfectly good standing in the conciliar structures despite his open support of "gay relationships."

Let me reprise a pertinent section from Weak In Mind, Weakest Yet In Faith, which was published on May 25, 2009:

One of the "liturgical experts" who played a major role in bringing the revolutionary Novus Ordo service into being was a Benedictine priest named Father Rembert G. Weakland, O.S.B.:


Rembert G. Weakland was a key confidant of the pope [Giovanni Montini/Paul VI] in January 1968 as one of the most profound changes in Roman Catholic Church history was about to take place. The Second Vatican Council had adopted a document on sacred liturgy, but Paul VI had to implement it — and in doing so, replace the 400-year-old Tridentine Mass.

Resistant Vatican officials were pressuring him. He didn't want a schism. To resolve doubts, the Pope tried three versions of the new Mass. Five people, mainly bishops and cardinals, attended each. Only two were at every session — Weakland, then the abbot primate or worldwide head of the Benedictine order of monks and priests, and the late Annibale Bugnini, then a monsignor and secretary of the Vatican liturgical commission. Weakland termed the sessions "decisive." (Archbishop Weakland's Legacy)


Apart from the misinformation that the Novus Ordo service "replaced the 400-year-old Tridentine Mass, implying that the Immemorial Mass of Tradition was not known prior to Pope Saint Pius V's Papal Bull Quo Primum, July 19, 1570, this brief passage establishes for readers of this commentary the well-documented fact that Weakland, who is weak in mind and weakest yet in the Catholic Faith, had a major hand in creating a "liturgy" whose basic spirit, defined by Paragraph Fifteen of the General Instruction to the Roman Missal (G.I.R.M.), is based on the belief that acts of "outward penance" belong to another age in the history of the Church." Such a false spirit, of course, is most necessary to reaffirm men such as Weakland who do not understand the horror of personal sin and thus believe that there is no need to do penance for it, a belief that must be expressed in the liturgy itself. A new religion needed its "new order" service as the Mass of the Roman Rite and conciliarism are mutually irreconcilable.

Bugnini and Weakland and the other conciliar revolutionaries understood during the years (1967 to 1969) that the Consilium was doing its dirty and intellectually dishonest work of "reforming" the Mass that most the only contact that most Catholics had with the Faith was by means of their attendance at Sunday Mass. To change the way what purported to be Mass was offered would, they knew, "teach" the faithful who remained in the conciliar structures to accept the conciliar ethos as but a "natural" and entirely "necessary" "progression" to "correct" the "dryness" of the "old liturgy" and the "preconciliar faith."

Pope Pius XI, writing in Quas Primas, December 11, 1925, understood full well that the ceremonies of the Church spoke more forcefully to the people than any of her documents as only the most educated of the faithful read those documents:

For people are instructed in the truths of faith, and brought to appreciate the inner joys of religion far more effectually by the annual celebration of our sacred mysteries than by any official pronouncement of the teaching of the Church. Such pronouncements usually reach only a few and the more learned among the faithful; feasts reach them all; the former speak but once, the latter speak every year - in fact, forever. The church's teaching affects the mind primarily; her feasts affect both mind and heart, and have a salutary effect upon the whole of man's nature. Man is composed of body and soul, and he needs these external festivities so that the sacred rites, in all their beauty and variety, may stimulate him to drink more deeply of the fountain of God's teaching, that he may make it a part of himself, and use it with profit for his spiritual life.


The conciliar revolutionaries knew that most Catholics would not be influenced by the documents of the "Second" Vatican Council or even the "encyclical" letters that might be issued by the conciliar "pontiffs." They did know, however, that most Catholics would, out of a sense of "obedience" to the "pope" and their "bishops" and their "pastors," accept the "fruit" of their liturgical revolution and thus have their sensus Catholicus replaced by an acceptance of the conciliar ethos as a result of being immersed in it week after week, if not day after day, by means of the Novus Ordo service. This is what has led to a situation where most Catholics are so accustomed to apostasy that they cannot even recognize sacrilege and apostasy when it stares them in the face as the man they believe is the "pope" calls mosques as "sacred" places and refuses to seek the conversion of the Jews (and who lets his own curial official stand uncorrected when they assert publicly that the Catholic Church has "no mission from God to do so).

Rembert G. Weakland has been much in the news in the past few weeks since his "confession," hardly a surprise or a shock, that he identifies himself as one who is "inclined" to the commission of perverse sins against nature and against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments, a "confession" to which I made a brief reference in Having No Regard for the Horror of Sin ten days ago now.

There is no need to descend yet again into the sordid details of the now disgraced former conciliar "archbishop"of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, who engaged in a mighty reign of terror upon anyone attached to the structures in his archdiocese between 1977 and 2002 and who, whether priest or consecrated religious or a member of the laity, had the "misfortune" of adhering to the Catholic Faith purely without an iota of dissent and who the equal "misfortune" of daring to criticize, no less reject, his own revolutionary liturgical service, the Novus Ordo.

One of those who felt the wrath of the progressivist pervert Weakland was the late Father Hugh Wish, who offered the Immemorial Mass of Tradition at Saint Lawrence Church in Milwaukee even after the introduction of the Novus Ordo, was "suspended" by Weakland after Father Wish took early retirement, continuing thereafter to offer the true Mass in different venues in Milwaukee, rather than to distribute what he thought to be Holy Communion in the hand in the Novus Ordo when this sacrilege was introduced de jure (after years of its existence de facto in many parishes in conciliar captivity) in the United States of America on November 20, 1977.

Members of the laity across the nation who dared to criticize Weakland's multiple defections from the Faith also felt the wrath of this progressivist pervert, who once called Wanderer reporter Paul Likoudis, whose excellent journalistic work helped to expose a great deal about the nest of pervert-friendly "bishops" in the conciliar "hierarchy," as "evil." That is quite a comment from a man who said the following recently:

“If we say our God is an all-loving god,” he said, “how do you explain that at any given time probably 400 million living on the planet at one time would be gay? Are the religions of the world, as does Catholicism, saying to those hundreds of millions of people, you have to pass your whole life without any physical, genital expression of that love?” (Ex-Archbishop Speaks About Catholic Church and Homosexuality)


As is the case with so many Catholics attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, Rembert G. Weakland has no concept of the horror of personal sin. He does not understand that no one "loves" another when he does or says anything that places the salvation of that other person in jeopardy. Rembert G. Weakland is really a prototype of the average conciliar Catholic, people who mistake "sentimentality" for "love," people who have never been taught that love is an act of the will and that the highest expression of love is will the good of others, the ultimate expression of which is the salvation of their immortal souls. No one can say that he "loves" God when he breaks His Commandments unrepentantly, no less when he portrays himself as a "victim" for not being to act as sees fit even God has made it very clear in Sacred Scripture that his actions are aberrant and actually brought down fire and brimstone from Heaven to destroy the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.

It is no accident that Rembert G. Weakland, one of the many perverted "bishops" to appointed by their fellow traveler, Giovanni Montini/Paul VI (see Paul VI's Perversion: Rumor or Reality? and Evidence that Giovanni Battista Montini, the future Paul VI was a pervert; the texts found in these links are not to be read by the young or those who, understandably, want to avoid discussions of such matters), had such a hatred for any version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition, including the modernized version of that Mass promulgated by Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII, as he, as a conciliar revolutionary present at the "creation" of the abomination known as the Novus Ordo, abhorred the traditional liturgy's regular references to sin, heresy, error, and the necessity of men doing their penance for their sins as a means of appeasing a God Who will judge us at  the moment of our deaths. As is well known and will be reviewed, if ever so briefly, in this article,Weakland, over and above his own personal corruption, scandalized the Catholic faithful by his words and actions that placed into question "black and white" matters of Faith and Morals that he rejected as being so "black and white."

Weakland's abhorrence for any version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition as an "impediment" to the "fulfillment" of the conciliar revolution's liturgical goals was made clear on any number of occasions, including when he said the following:

"My hopes, however, were shattered. What totally derailed the liturgical renewal, from the point of view of this bishop in the trenches, was the decision of Pope John Paul II made I am sure, with great anguish to grant in 1984 the indult that allowed the Tridentine usage to flourish again. ... Just at the moment when the situation was beginning to settle down and the deeper and more spiritual aspects of the renewal were becoming possible, a whole new battle began, one in which the renewal itself was called into question or where everyone seemed free to project his or her personal views on how the renewal of the Council should have taken place. As well-meaning as that decision to broaden the Tridentine usage was, one cannot emphasize enough how devastating the results have been." (Rembert Weakland, quoted in America, June 7-14, 1997, as found in Archbishop Weakland's Legacy.)


This hatred of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition transcended the ideological lines that divided many of the supporters of various aspects of the conciliar liturgical revolution. Weakland remains noted in "retirement" (and he remains in perfectly "good standing" as a "retired" "archbishop" in the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism) for his questioning "black and white" matters of Faith and Morals. There were some of Weakland's contemporaries, however, who to his "right" in the conciliar structures but nevertheless shared Weakland's profound hatred for the Immemorial Mass of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church.

The late "Bishop" James S. Sullivan, who was born just two years after Weakland, in 1929, and was ordained four years after him, in 1955, was known to be more "conservative" than Weakland. "Bishop" Sullivan, who was the conciliar "ordinary" of the Diocese of Fargo from May 30, 1985, to May 30, 2002 (after having been having served as an auxiliary "bishop" in the Diocese of Lansing from September 21, 1982, to the time of his "installation" as the conciliar "bishop" of Fargo), promoting what he thought to be Eucharistic adoration and Our Lady's Fatima Message. As a true son of the conciliar revolution, however, "Bishop" Sullivan was also very supportive of Cursillo and Focolare and the "Catholic" Charismatic Renewal.

Although I had served as his director of communications between September of 1988 and August of 1989 and continued to draft various matters for him for another ten years or so, we had our break over his hatred for the Immemorial Mass of Tradition. He expressed horror to me in a phone conversation that I had with him in 1999 just before I gave a presentation on the Social Reign of Christ the King and the necessity of restoring the Immemorial Mass of Tradition in the Saint Louis, Missouri, area. Upset that "Bishop" Fabian Bruskewitz, still the conciliar "bishop" of Lincoln, Nebraska, had agreed to the building of what became Our Lady of Guadalupe Seminary in Denton, Nebraska, "Bishop" Sullivan said to me with about as much passion as he was able to muster, "That Mass was never meant to come back." As much as "Bishop" James Stephen Sullivan differed from Rembert George Weakland on various aspects of the conciliar revolution, he, "Bishop" Sullivan, was every bit as much an enemy of the Mass of Tradition as was Weakland. That conversation prompted me, then a believer that the "indult" hated by Weakland would help to "restore" the Church, to write "Open Letter to a Good Bishop" in the printed pages of Christ or Chaos.

Rembert George Weakland had a specially vested interest in promoting the Novus Ordo service as he was almost as responsible as Annibale Bugnini in bringing it to fruition. As noted earlier, he said it as the means of changing the way that Catholics saw the Faith, which he viewed as follows in an interview he once gave:

Mark Warren of Channel 2 asked Archbishop Weakland to describe for us his "brand of Catholicism". Weakland's reply was as extreme an expression of subjectivism as one is likely to hear:

"My brand of Catholicism?" he responded, "It's my brand of me."

This is Weakland's position in a nutshell. And therein lies his dilemma and the whole distorted Modernist view of self in which man, as Philip Trower says, becomes the "arbiter of religion". Weakland's problem then, is not merely a matter of "style" as he so frequently pretends. His problem is one of philosophy. It's his subjectivism and individualism which he can't reconcile with the Catholic tradition. From this perspective, as Trower recognizes, man comes first and God plays an ever diminishing role. Religion is not based on objective facts about God known from His creation and by Revelation. It has its origins in man's ever changing "needs". Thus Weakland's "listening sessions" on issues such as abortion, have come to replace the absolutes that emerge from Christ's commands.

Weakland told Paul Wilkes of the New Yorker that the Church still hasn't come to terms with the issue of sexuality - "the Galileo issue of the day". According to Weakland:

"... the Church is reluctant to accept the results of the human sciences; instead it harks back to the days when you could say, "This is black, This is white; This is right, This is wrong'." (Christian Order - Read - Features - August/September & October 1996)


There are countless examples of Rembert George Weakland's Modernist, subjectivist view of the Catholic Faith. (Weak In Mind, Weakest Yet In Faith.)


This open rebel, steeped in his own perverse inclinations, played a key role in the designing and then the implementation of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service. He had compatriots in chancery offices and religious communities throughout the conciliar structures. Although the new report, The Causes and Context of Clerical Abuse of Minors, prepared by the John Jay College of the City University of New York and released by the so-called United States Conference of Catholic Bishops on May 11, 2011, cited "no one cause" for the scandalous behavior of clergy, some truly ordained and some not, that received news coverage in such disparate sources as the National Catholic Reporter and The Wanderer in the 1990s that exploded into full public view with the release of thousands upon thousands of pages of documents from the files of the Archdiocese of Boston in January of 2002, it did note that there were a lot of men with tendencies to the commission of sins against nature (my description, not that of the study). The new one hundred fifty-two page study, however, steeped in the gibberish of social psychology and quantitative analysis, contains four hundred eighty-one footnotes of one naturalist after another who has not a blessed clue as to First and Last Things, less yet to the reality of what has happened in the past forty-six years since the closing of the "Second" Vatican Council and the subsequent composition and implementation of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service.

The study released by the laughably-named United States Conference of Catholic Bishops ignores the simple fact that men with tendencies toward the commission of perverse sins against nature did not just "happen" to be admitted to study for what they thought was the Catholic priesthood for various archdioceses and dioceses and religious communities. Such men were systematically recruited, shaped, molded, protected, indemnified and promoted at every turn as the same sorts of alleged "psychological experts" who prepared the new study screened out men who were deemed to be true believers of the Catholic Faith by claiming that such candidates were "rigid," "inflexible," "antisocial," filled with various phobias and personality "disorders" that made them unfit to be "flexible enough" to meet the "challenges" of a "postconciliar vocation." "Conservative" or "traditionally-minded" candidates were thus screened out of seminaries--or expelled therefrom if they got through the screening process--as they were "branded" with various stigmas.

The myopic social scientists who wrote the new study could have saved themselves a great deal of work if they simply read a book that is, given its graphic depiction of the horrible nature of the sin of perversity and the raw evidence of its promotion and protection in the conciliar structures, not to be read by a general audience (and certainly not by the young, who must be shielded from such information), but is the definitive statement as to explain the problem and to provide the background as to its remote and proximate origins. That book is Mrs. Randy Engel's Rite of Sodomy (some of which has been released as an e-book available from New Engel Publishing). Mrs. Engel's books is filled with true facts and statistics, replete with documentation. It is irrefutable. Out of the four hundred eighty-one end notes in the new John Jay College of Criminal Justice study released twelve days ago, however, there is not one single reference to Mrs. Engel's book. Not one.

Mind you, the information provided in Mrs. Engel's book, as exhaustive a piece of research as it was to compose and then publish, has been available for some time. No one else, however, had compiled it into one source.

Indeed, I knew from my own personal experience in two different seminaries of the lavender subculture that permeated the life of many seminarians and was, at least in most, instances, tolerated or ignored by administrators and faculties. Three of four men in one of those seminaries who had been installed as conciliar deacons in preparation for installation as conciliar presbyters who had been found in a scandalous  situation, shall we say, were subsequently "ordained" as supposed "priests" by their diocesan "bishops." The fourth was "laicized" against his will, subsequently dying of a particular disease that is contracted principally by unchaste behavior of a perverse manner. And as bad as the situation was in those two seminaries, it was far worse in others. Saint Mary's Seminary in Baltimore, Maryland, was well-known by its nickname, "The Pink Palace." Saint Charles Borromeo Seminary in Overbrook, Pennsylvania, had a similar reputation. So did others.

The founder of Virginia Right to Life, which has, quite thankfully, no relation to the National No-So-Right-Committee that takes no position on the chemical assassination of children by means of contraceptive pills and devices and endorses the direct, intentional killing of innocent human life in instances where it is alleged that a mother's life is endangered, Frank Kelly, who was once a very good friend of us and is still remembered daily in our prayers for all of his many kindnesses to us personally and for his stalwart defense of the truth of the infestation of the lavender brigade in the conciliar structures, showed me a sheaf of documentation in February of 1987 that had to be at least one and one-half to two inches thick. His family was hosting a Salvatorean priest, ordained in the 1950s. at the time, who told me that he had left his community because it had been overrun with, for the sake of modesty, effeminates. The priest later wound up with what is now a Motu community. And a longtime friend, another true priest who had been in the 1950s, of mine left his own community to form another within the conciliar structures because of the same problem.

Propagandizing in behalf of perversity is common throughout the conciliar structures. Such propagandizing begins even in Kindergarten, as will be explained in tomorrow's segment of this new stories, with the rot that is explicit classroom instruction in matters pertaining the Sixth and Ninth Commandments, right through Twelfth Grade. Religious education programs and theological seminars and "updating" programs are staffed in many instances by open practitioners of perversity and/or by those who are "sympathetic" to "gays" in the name of "compassion" and "tolerance" and "diversity." Countless numbers of alleged liturgies have been held to "celebrate" the "rainbow agenda," including very notoriously at Most Holy Redeemer Church in San Francisco, California, Saint Francis Xavier Church in the Borough of Manhattan in the City of New York, New York, and Saint Joan of Arc Church in Saint Paul, Minnesota. Countless also are the formerly Catholic colleges that promote this sin that cries out to Heaven for vengeance, doing so with plays and "readings" and entire courses and by permitting those who are engaged in unrepentant sins of perversity to identify themselves publicly and to form clubs and groups and associations that recruit members.

The new study prepared by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice for the United States Conference of Conciliar Non-Bishops (all right, most of the Eastern rite bishops in that conference are true bishops) ignores all of this evidence because, in the unreal world of junk social science, it cannot be "empiricized" (that is, back up with quantitative analysis or raw statistics). These authors thus ignore the fact that the conciliar structures have been made designed to be "inclusive" of "all people" regardless as to whether they have no intention of quitting lives of sin that are ruinous to them personally and to the Church Militant on earth and the world-at-large. 

The very language of the conciliar liturgy, yes, even in the Latin editio typica, is meant to reflect a "new theology" that discards any kind of emphasis on the need for outward acts of penance as belonging to a "different age in the history of the Church:"

The same awareness of the present state of the world also influenced the use of texts from very ancient tradition. It seemed that this cherished treasure would not be harmed if some phrases were changed so that the style of language would be more in accord with the language of modern theology and would faithfully reflect the actual state of the Church's discipline. Thus there have been changes of some expressions bearing on the evaluation and use of the good things of the earth and of allusions to a particular form of outward penance belonging to another age in the history of the Church. (Paragraph 15, General Instruction to the Roman Missal, 1997; please see As the Conciliar Fowler Lays More Snares, part two.)


Liturgical art, architecture and music have been influenced by the lavender agenda in so many parishes in so many archdioceses and dioceses and religious communities that are in "full communion" with Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI as to defy an accurate count. Even "conservative" websites carry news of the scandalous goings-on in Europe that have continued for decades and seem to get worse and worse over the course of time. This is only natural, of course, as that which is founded in a rebellion against Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law must degenerate more and more over the course of time. This is what happened as the revolt led by Martin Luther resulted in a corruption of morals among his own "evangelicals" that shocked him but which he could see or accept as having been caused by leading them out of the true Church and the infallible teaching and sacramental helps that she, Holy Mother Church, gave them to overcome their sins and to grow in the pursuit of personal sanctity. (See the Appendix below.)

A like manner of events have unfolded at lightning speed in our own days. Sacramentally-barren liturgical rites designed and implement, to one extent or another, by men steeped in theological error and personal vice have created. No account is taken of this in the new study. The authors of the study sponsored by the United States Conference of Conciliar Mostly Non-Bishops (how's that?) ignore the truth is staring at them in the face. Men must fall into the depths of moral depravity when they are deprived of the fullness of the Sacred Deposit of Faith and when they are deprived of the Sanctifying Graces that they need to resist sin and to recognize that no one but no one is ever free to identify himself, no less doing so proudly, as one is who is inclined to, if not actually engaged in, the commission of sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance.

Moreover, the "lavender-friendly" environment created by theological Modernists and moral relativists in the conciliar structure has been as effective in catechizing large numbers of Catholics into support "marriage" for persons of the same gender as have their efforts to propagandize in behalf of the chemical and surgical assassination of children. A new Gallup poll survey indicates that there is now a majority of Americans support such "marriage," with most of the growth in support for this outrage coming from self-identified members of the organized crime family of naturalism of the false opposite of the "left," the Democratic Party. The passage from the Gallup Poll's own narrative on the survey results speaks volumes about the success that propagandists in behalf of perversity have had in "educating" Catholics on the matter over the past few decades:

Support for legal same-sex marriage is higher among those who attend church less frequently, among Catholics than among Protestants, and among those who are unmarried. (Full Gallup Poll Results.)


While it is undoubtedly true that there are cultural forces at work to promote acceptance of the abomination of "same gender marriage," we must remember that those cultural forces were let loose, proximately speaking, as a result of the Protestant Revolution against the Social Reign of Christ the King and its subsequent degeneration into such a morass of different sects as to make possible the rise and the triumph of the naturalism advanced by the lords of Judeo-Masonry who control law, education, science, popular culture, commerce and finance. Those cultural forces have gained steam in the past forty years precisely because God has been deprived of the glory that would have been given Him by true Masses offered by true priests and because the world has been deprived of the graces that the people within it need to resist the ways of the devil as they rely upon the tender mercies of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus as devoted clients and consecrated slaves of the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Although there have been times of moral dissolution in the history of the Catholic Church, there has never been a time when priests have openly promoted sinful behavior as good. Sure, sinners we have had aplenty in the hierarchy and the priesthood and religious life ad the laity. Each of us happens to be a sinner, after all. There just has not been a time before this when men who believe themselves to be priests can endorse unspeakable crimes against children or for Catholics to write and editorial (Step Down the Aisle) in a supposedly Catholic newspaper in support of "cohabitation," praising Prince William and his new wife, the former Kate Middleton, for having done so prior to the wedding that took place in Westminster Abbey, which was stolen in 1539 from the Catholic Church during the time of King Henry VIII's own revolution and, after a brief period of restoration under Queen Mary starting in the year 1553, stolen again by the hideous murderer named Queen Elizabeth I in the year 1559. There is no precedent for this, and none of this was considered relevant or pertinent by the great "experts" who composed the smoke and mirrors contained in the new study conducted by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, and that is a crime of high proportions, at least in the view of this writer.

Also whitewashed in the new study was the modus operandi of the conciliar "bishops" and their chancery factotums. Numerous articles (including, but far from limited to, Of Worldwide Scope, Always Evading Root Causes, Swinging Clubs To Protect The Club, Surely He Jests, "Canonizing" A Man Who Protected Moral Derelicts, More Than A Matter of Legality, Audio Presentation: Scandal In a Church of Apostasy.WMA, "Fall Guys" Aren't Usually "Stand-Up Guys", Apologizing to Everyone Save For God Himself, Not Going Down With the Conciliar Ship, Touchy, Touchy, Chastisements Under Which We Must Save Our Souls, part two, and Not So "Deplorable" After All) have dealt with this modus operandi. Part two of this article will do so when it appears, probably after one or two intervening articles on other subjects. Suffice it to say for the moment that the new study not only whitewashes the role of the conciliar "bishops" and their factotums, it entirely ignores the way that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI continues to promote these men and to ignore their offenses against both Faith and Morals. Then again, a man who denies the nature of dogmatic truth and who disparages Thomism and who believes in a false ecclesiology and false ecumenism and religious liberty and separation of Church and State and who blasphemes God by esteeming the symbols of false religions and giving "joint blessings" with the "clergy" of non-Catholic religious sects can find it very easy to be blind to those amongst his "hierarchy" who are simply following his own corrupt example.

We must, of course, pray for these enemies of Christ the King and of the immortal souls for whom He shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross, recognizing that we have been enemies of Divine King and Redeemer all too frequently, which is why we must live more and more penitentially with each passing day as His consecrated slave through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of His Most Blessed Mother, Mary our Immaculate Queen, accusing ourselves frequently in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance and praying as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits. Many of us have said and done things that are truly deplorable in our lives. We must be ashamed of our own sins and ever so grateful that we have been given access in this state of apostasy and betrayal to true bishops and true priests to provide us with the sacramental helps necessary to sanctify and save our souls so that we can know the gratuitous Mercy that God Himself desires shower upon us in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance if only we approach Him on bended knees and a contrite heart with a firm purpose of amending our lives.

Obviously, we must, as always, spend time in prayer before Our Lord's Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament as we pray our daily Rosaries, using the shield of Our Lady's Brown Scapular of Mount Carmel and the weapon of her Rosary to protect us from the contagion of apostasy and betrayal that is all around us. We must also, of course, make reparation for our own many sins by offering up all of our prayers and sufferings and sacrifices and humiliations and penances and mortifications and fastings to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.

This will all pass. The triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary will be made manifest, and it will be a triumph beyond all telling.

As Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ Himself said to Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque:

"I will reign in spite of all who oppose Me." (quoted in: The Right Reverend Emile Bougaud. The Life of Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque, reprinted by TAN Books and Publishers in 1990, p. 361.)


Yes, Our Lord will indeed reign in spite of the liars and deceives in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, men who have no credibility on matters of Faith, Morals and Worship or in matters pertaining to the accusations against them as criminal thugs whose religion is amorality and their glory is indeed their shame.

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

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

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.


Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us, on this your feast day!

Saint John the Baptist, 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.

See also: A Litany of Saints

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?


The Moral Effects of Martin Luther's Revolution

(From Father Edward Cahill's The Framework of a Catholic State)


The assumption that Protestantism brought a higher and purer moral life to the nations that came under its influence does not need elaborate refutation. It is a fact of uncontroverted history that "public morality did at once deteriorate to an appalling degree wherever Protestantism was introduced. Not to mention robberies of church goods, brutal treatment meted out to the clergy, secular and regular, who remained faithful, and the horrors of so many wars of religion," we have the express testimony of [Martin] Luther himself and several other leaders of the revolt, such as [Martin] Bucer and [Philip] Melancthon, as to the evil effects of their teaching; and this testimony is confirmed by contemporaries. Luther's own avowals on this matter are numberless. Thus he writes:

"There is not one of our Evangelicals, who is not seven times worse than before he belonged to us, stealing the goods of others, lying, deceiving, eating, getting drunk, and indulging in every vice, as if he had not received the Holy Word. If we have been delivered from one spirit of evil, seven others worse than the first have come to take its place."

And again:


"Men who live under the Gospel are more uncharitable, more irascible, more greedy, more avaricious than they were before as Papists."

Even Erasmus, who had at first favoured Luther's movement, was soon disillusioned. Thus he writes:


"The New Gospel has at least the advantage of showing us a new race of men, haughty, impudent, cunning, blasphemous . . . quarrellers, seditious, furious, to whom I have, to say truth, so great an antipathy that if I knew a place in the world free of them, I would not hesitate to take refuge therein."


That these evil effects of Protestantism were not merely temporary--the accidental results of the excitement and confusion which are peculiar to a stage of transition (although they were no doubt intensified thereby)--is shown from present-day statistics. The condition of domestic morality is usually best indicated by the statistics of divorce, and of illegitimate births, and by the proportion of legitimate children to the number of marriages; while statistics of general criminality, where they can be had, would convey a fair idea of the individual and public morality in any given place. According to these tests Protestant countries are at the present day much inferior to Catholic countries in domestic and public morality. (Father Edward Cahill, S.J., The Framework of a Christian State, first published in 1932, republished by Roman Catholic Books, pp. 102-104.)


© Copyright 2011, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.