Prepare Ye The Way For Antichrist
by Thomas A. Droleskey
There are few things that can fatigue an already fatigued man more than the mere thought of having to write yet another about how Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and his conciliar "bishops" are preparing the way for the coming of Antichrist. As a list of recent articles was provided in Revolutions Have Consequences, part two, I simply want to use this brief article to call to the attention of the few remaining readers of this site (you can check the web rankings for yourselves if you want to do so) a few recent developments illustrate yet again how the adversary is using the counterfeit church of conciliarism to gather up the chickens into the hen house of the One World Ecumenical Church. I promise not to take up too much of your time, especially since this brief article is being written the night before we must embark on another nearly two hundred mile roundtrip drive to take Sharon to see her atlas chiropractor so that some relief can be given to her continued case of sciatica. Please continue to pray for her.
Growing the One World Ecumenical Church by Amalgamation
One of many ways by which Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has been growing the One World Ecumenical Church is by amalgamating different groups together without demanding any abjuration of past errors. This is perfectly reasonably to the false "pontiff's" mind as he has not abjured of his past errors that are the foundation of his current apostasies and blasphemies and sacrileges. Ratzinger/Benedict believes that certain Protestant "theologians" who deny the Sacred Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ "continue believing in a Christian manner" (see
Cardinal Ratzinger). One who can assert this falsehood, you see, is not going to bother too terribly much with forcing others to abjure errors as what matters most to Ratzinger/Benedict is the very appearance of "unity" without doctrinal agreement that was condemned vigorously by Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.
Although there are many instances of individuals being received into the counterfeit church of conciliarism without making any abjuration of error whatsoever (see, for example,
Not Such a Triumph After All), Ratzinger/Benedict has used four groups as the principal models of making the falsehood of the "new ecclesiology" for what can be called "unity devoid of the Catholic Faith."
This is what Ratzinger/Benedict has been attempting to forge with the Orthodox, especially by means of
The Ravenna Document's assertion of Ratzinger's own false view of how the "Petrine ministry" was exercised and understood in the First Millennium, but also by refusing to demand that the Orthodox accept dogmatic pronouncements made by Holy Mother Church under the infallible guidance of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, in the Second Millennium. "Little" matters such as the doctrines on Original Sin, Purgatory, Papal Infallibility the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary as defined by the authority of the Catholic Church, the indissolubility of marriage, and the prohibition of all forms of contraception, to name just a few, can be pretty much just swept under the rug for the sake of the bear hug of ecumaniacal "unity." (See
Ratzinger/Benedict also has been attempting to use the example of the disaffected "Anglo-Catholics" of the "worldwide Anglican Communion" to demonstrate how "open" the counterfeit church of conciliarism is to the "traditions" of Protestantism, including liturgical books deemed heretical by Pope Saint Pius V in Regnans in Excelsis, March 5, 1570. Abjuration of error? Ah, not necessary for the Orthodox or for the Anglicans. (See
Defaming The English Martyrs,
Apostasy: A Model of Reconciliation, and
Still Defaming The English Martyrs.)
One of the most insidious examples of Ratzinger/Benedict's quest for "unity devoid of the Catholic Faith" involves his monstrous sellout of the underground Catholics in Red China, long suffering souls who have placed their hope in the "pope" after decades of persecution only to find themselves having been told, in effect, to shut up and join up with the Communist rump church, the so-called Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association. Ratzinger/Benedict has stated in so many words that what he asserts in the Catholic Church has no interest in undermining the structures of the Red Chinese government, meaning that he is not only perfectly willing to accept the legitimacy of that government (as opposed to accepting the actual fact of its existence without conceding its nonexistent legitimacy) but to urge the long suffering Catholics of the underground to cooperate with the Communist authorities in full violation of Pope Pius XI's specific prohibition stated in Divini Redemptoris, March 19, 1937, against any such cooperation. (See
A Betrayal Worthy of the Antichrist and
Red China: Workshop for the New Ecclesiology. There is also an article on the anti-sedevacantist Tradition in Action website that deals with this continuing betrayal of the underground Catholics in Red China by Ratzinger/Benedict. See
Pope Benedict + CPA = Prison for Fr. Wang.)
The coup de grace, however, for Ratzinger/Benedict's master plan of building a "church" devoid of doctrine would be delivered if Bishop Bernard Fellay, the Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X, enters into an "agreement" with conciliar authorities that will be, despite all of the smoke and mirrors that have been used to "dress up" the absurdity of what have been called the "doctrinal discussions" between representatives of the Society of Saint Pius X and those of the conciliar church's so-called Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, almost exactly what was offered to the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre on May 5, 1988.
The price for this "reconciliation" will be a public acceptance of the "doctrinal integrity" of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service and an acceptance of the "Second" Vatican Council and the "magisterium" of the conciliar "popes," especially as reflected in the so-called Catechism of the Catholic Church that is nothing of the sort, while there is a continuation of what has characterized the Society's approach to the multiple offenses given to the honor and glory and majesty of God by Ratzinger/Benedict in the past five years" the same kind of silence that is kept by the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter, the Institute of Christ the King, Sovereign Priest, and other communities within the fantasy world created by Summorum Pontificum. And as for those who might contend that "things" would have been different if the "doctrinal discussions" were about doctrine and not politics, it is useful to remind the readers of this site that true popes never need to convert to the Faith.
Mocking Pope Saint Pius X Once Again
Never bashful about attempting to coerce perjury from various saints to make them appear to be witnesses in behalf of the falsehoods of conciliarism, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has gone so far yet again to mock Pope Saint Pius X, who fought the very errors that Ratzinger/Benedict has been promoting throughout the course of the fifty-nine years of his priestly life, a witness in behalf of the "reforms" of the "Second" Vatican Council, doing so before our last canonized pope's "feast day" in the conciliar structures (August 21; it is September 3 in the Catholic Church, of course). Ratzinger/Benedict's comments (www.zenit.org/article-30087?l=english), offered on Wednesday, August 18, 2010, deconstruct the entire meaning of Pope Saint Pius X's pontificate, overlooking entirely the latter's condemnation of Ratzinger/Benedict's notion of dogmatic truth (see
Ratzinger's War Against Catholicism) and overlooking as well Pope Saint Pius X's direct, forthright manner in addressing the founder of international Zionism, Theodore Herzl on January 25, 1904 (see
Modernism's Eternal Foe, Our Eternal Friend).
Permit me to point out just a few other contrasts between Pope Saint Pius X and the false "pontiff," Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, that were included in a recent article on this site that I see no need of rephrasing any other way than I had done when that article was published about a month ago now:
Behold the "pope" [Ratzinger/Benedict] who believes in the "reconciliation" of what he thinks is the Catholic Church with the "new principles" of that "new era" that was inaugurated in 1789, the "pope" who dares to praise in Portugal, a once Catholic country who owes a lot to a brave soldier, Blessed
Nuno Álvares Pereira, who become a humble Carmelite doorkeeper following his valorous service to King John I of Portugal and to his beloved country, the very same law of separation of Church and State that was condemned by Pope Saint Pius X in no uncertain terms:
From a wise vision of life and of the world, the just ordering of society follows. Situated within history, the Church is open to cooperating with anyone who does not marginalize or reduce to the private sphere the essential consideration of the human meaning of life. The point at issue is not an ethical confrontation between a secular and a religious system, so much as a question about the meaning that we give to our freedom. What matters is the value attributed to the problem of meaning and its implication in public life. By separating Church and State, the Republican revolution which took place 100 years ago in Portugal, opened up a new area of freedom for the Church, to which the two concordats of 1940 and 2004 would give shape, in cultural settings and ecclesial perspectives profoundly marked by rapid change. For the most part, the sufferings caused by these transformations have been faced with courage. Living amid a plurality of value systems and ethical outlooks requires a journey to the core of one’s being and to the nucleus of Christianity so as to reinforce the quality of one’s witness to the point of sanctity, and to find mission paths that lead even to the radical choice of martyrdom. (Official Reception at Lisbon Portela International Airport, Tuesday, May 11, 2010.)
Behold the fruit of conciliarism's "reconciliation" with the modern world. "New area of freedom for the Church"? Take a look at these prophetic words of Pope Saint Pius X that condemned the very law of separation in Portugal and a reader with any sense of honesty will come to understand that apostasy does indeed have fatal consequences for men and for their nations:
2. Whilst the new rulers of Portugal were affording such numerous and awful examples of the abuse of power, you know with what patience and moderation this Apostolic See has acted towards them. We thought that We ought most carefully to avoid any action that could even have the appearance of hostility to the Republic. For We clung to the hope that its rulers would one day take saner counsels and would at length repair, by some new agreement, the injuries inflicted on the Church. In this, however, We have been altogether disappointed, for they have now crowned their evil work by the promulgation of a vicious and pernicious Decree for the Separation of Church and State. But now the duty imposed upon Us by our Apostolic charge will not allow Us to remain passive and silent when so serious a wound has been inflicted upon the rights and dignity of the Catholic religion. Therefore do We now address you, Venerable Brethren, in this letter and denounce to all Christendom the heinousness of this deed.
3. At the outset, the absurd and monstrous character of the decree of which We speak is plain from the fact that it proclaims and enacts that the Republic shall have no religion, as if men individually and any association or nation did not depend upon Him who is the Maker and Preserver of all things; and then from the fact that it liberates Portugal from the observance of the Catholic religion, that religion, We say, which has ever been that nation's greatest safeguard and glory, and has been professed almost unanimously by its people. So let us take it that it has been their pleasure to sever that close alliance between Church and State, confirmed though it was by the solemn faith of treaties. Once this divorce was effected, it would at least have been logical to pay no further attention to the Church, and to leave her the enjoyment of the common liberty and rights which belong to every citizen and every respectable community of peoples. Quite otherwise, however, have things fallen out. This decree bears indeed the name of Separation, but it enacts in reality the reduction of the Church to utter want by the spoliation of her property, and to servitude to the State by oppression in all that touches her sacred power and spirit. (Pope Saint Pius X, Iamdudum, May 24, 1911; please see also see my discussion of the 1940 and 2004 Concordats in
Mocking Pope Saint Pius X and Our Lady of Fatima.)
Pope Saint Pius X, summarizing the consistent, perennial, immutable teaching of the Catholic Church that was defended so ably and eloquently by pope after pope in the Nineteenth Century, explained that, as the great kings of Christendom, such as the one whose feast we celebrated yesterday, Saint Henry the Emperor, knew so very well, the civil state has a positive obligation to recognize the Catholic Church as its true religion and to pursue the common temporal good in light of man's Last End (the possession of the glory of the Beatific Vision of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost for all eternity in Heaven), helping to fostering those conditions in society by which men can better sanctify and thus save their souls as members of the Catholic Church:
That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him. Besides, this thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits the action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during this life only, which is but the proximate object of political societies; and it occupies itself in no fashion (on the plea that this is foreign to it) with their ultimate object which is man's eternal happiness after this short life shall have run its course. But as the present order of things is temporary and subordinated to the conquest of man's supreme and absolute welfare, it follows that the civil power must not only place no obstacle in the way of this conquest, but must aid us in effecting it. The same thesis also upsets the order providentially established by God in the world, which demands a harmonious agreement between the two societies. Both of them, the civil and the religious society, although each exercises in its own sphere its authority over them. It follows necessarily that there are many things belonging to them in common in which both societies must have relations with one another. Remove the agreement between Church and State, and the result will be that from these common matters will spring the seeds of disputes which will become acute on both sides; it will become more difficult to see where the truth lies, and great confusion is certain to arise. Finally, this thesis inflicts great injury on society itself, for it cannot either prosper or last long when due place is not left for religion, which is the supreme rule and the sovereign mistress in all questions touching the rights and the duties of men. Hence the Roman Pontiffs have never ceased, as circumstances required, to refute and condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State. (Pope Saint Pius X, Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906.)
The conciliar "pontiffs" have not only refused to condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State. They have dared to support, promote and praise this separation of Church and State even pope after pope had condemned it as in violation of the doctrine of the Catholic Church.
Some would say, "Oh, well, things change. There is the hermeneutic of continuity and discontinuity, after all." Dream on. Truth never changes. While it might be true, as I have noted in article after article on this site, that Holy Mother Church will have to make certain concessions and accommodations to the actual reality of her situation in a given country in order to continue her work of sanctifying and instructing her prodigy, she nevertheless has never ceased to exhort her children to know her Social Teaching and to exhort them to pray for the conversion of their nations.
Others would say, "Benedict doesn't have to believe this. He is the 'pope,' you know. He can do what he want. What other popes have said is in the past. We live in the present. The Church has to move with the times, which change from one era to the next." Dream on:
Many believe in or claim that they believe in and hold fast to Catholic doctrine on such questions as social authority, the right of owning private property, on the relations between capital and labor, on the rights of the laboring man, on the relations between Church and State, religion and country, on the relations between the different social classes, on international relations, on the rights of the Holy See and the prerogatives of the Roman Pontiff and the Episcopate, on the social rights of Jesus Christ, Who is the Creator, Redeemer, and Lord not only of individuals but of nations. In spite of these protestations, they speak, write, and, what is more, act as if it were not necessary any longer to follow, or that they did not remain still in full force, the teachings and solemn pronouncements which may be found in so many documents of the Holy See, and particularly in those written by Leo XIII, Pius X, and Benedict XV.
There is a species of moral, legal, and social modernism which We condemn, no less decidedly than We condemn theological modernism.
It is necessary ever to keep in mind these teachings and pronouncements which We have made; it is no less necessary to reawaken that spirit of faith, of supernatural love, and of Christian discipline which alone can bring to these principles correct understanding, and can lead to their observance. This is particularly important in the case of youth, and especially those who aspire to the priesthood, so that in the almost universal confusion in which we live they at least, as the Apostle writes, will not be "tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive." (Ephesians iv, 14) (Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922.)
No amount of argumentation or documentation is going to convince those who do not want to see the evidence of the apostasies of the moment. We can provide others with information. No amount of discussion or colloquy is going to get anywhere, save for some very rare and exceptional circumstances. We need to pray more, especially more Rosaries. We need to make more sacrifices. We need to live more penitentially as we deny ourselves voluntarily certain legitimate pleasures as we offer these penances with love and joy to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary in reparation for our sins and those of the whole world. And must bear ourselves charitably to all others in this time of apostasy and betrayal, recognizing that we must will the good of all others, the ultimate expression of which is the salvation of their immortal souls, even though we will at times disagree strongly with them and might even have to suffer some period of earthly estrangement from them.
All that matters in the end is that we save our souls, and we are not going to do that by appearing self-righteously omniscient to others or by pestering them to death with endless e-mails about this or that "new" development in the conciliar church. These articles are written, for example, knowing full well that very few people read them. I do not send out "RSS" alerts as to their publication. I do not e-mail them out far and wide to bedevil those who I know disagree with me and are not ready to take another look at the canonical and doctrinal principles that support the teaching that those who defect from the Faith in even one thing privately, no less what they assert publicly or attempt to "bind" upon all Catholics in the world, cannot hold ecclesiastical office within the Catholic Church legitimately. These articles are there for people who want to read them. Some read them and walk away in utter disgust. A few might them of value. This is all I can do. Everything else must be given to the throne of the Most Blessed Trinity through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary without regard for earthly results.
Although there will always be those who cling to the myths that the conciliarism just needs to be "understood" properly and that the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service does not offend God, those who have come to reject that which simply cannot from God or His Holy Church have not "invented" the doctrine that those who defect privately on even one point of the Catholic Faith have expelled themselves from the Catholic Church and thus deprived themselves of any right to hold offices within her legitimately. Although one can attempt to argue, in spite all evidence to the contrary, that the conciliar"popes" have not knowingly and pertinaciously adhered to any heresy, even conciliar canonist admitted in February of 2005 that the See of Peter would be vacant in the case of heresy.
It is true that the canonical doctrine states that the see would be vacant in the case of heresy. ... But in regard to all else, I think what is applicable is what judgment regulates human acts. And the act of will, namely a resignation or capacity to govern or not govern, is a human act. (Cardinal Says Pope Could Govern Even If Unable to Speak, Zenit, February 8, 2005.)
Admittedly, "Cardinal" Pompedda, who was the head of the counterfeit church of concilairism's Apostolic Signatura from 1997 to 2004, did not admit the canonical-doctrinal truth of sedevacantism applied during the "pontificate" of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II. Unlike what many traditionally-minded Catholics have heard from the theologians of the Society of Saint Pius X, however, Pompedda was intellectually honest enough to admit that sedevacantism is indeed a part of the canonical doctrine of the Catholic Church. Only a handful of Catholics, priests and laity alike, accepted this doctrine and recognized that it applied in our circumstances in the aftermath of the "Second" Vatican Council. I was not one of them.
The Catholic Church cannot be stained by any taint of error, as pope after pope has taught us:
As for the rest, We greatly deplore the fact that, where the ravings of human reason extend, there is somebody who studies new things and strives to know more than is necessary, against the advice of the apostle. There you will find someone who is overconfident in seeking the truth outside the Catholic Church, in which it can be found without even a light tarnish of error. Therefore, the Church is called, and is indeed, a pillar and foundation of truth. You correctly understand, venerable brothers, that We speak here also of that erroneous philosophical system which was recently brought in and is clearly to be condemned. This system, which comes from the contemptible and unrestrained desire for innovation, does not seek truth where it stands in the received and holy apostolic inheritance. Rather, other empty doctrines, futile and uncertain doctrines not approved by the Church, are adopted. Only the most conceited men wrongly think that these teachings can sustain and support that truth. (Pope Gregory XVI, Singulari Nos, May 25, 1834.)
Just as Christianity cannot penetrate into the soul without making it better, so it cannot enter into public life without establishing order. With the idea of a God Who governs all, Who is infinitely Wise, Good, and Just, the idea of duty seizes upon the consciences of men. It assuages sorrow, it calms hatred, it engenders heroes. If it has transformed pagan society--and that transformation was a veritable resurrection--for barbarism disappeared in proportion as Christianity extended its sway, so, after the terrible shocks which unbelief has given to the world in our days, it will be able to put that world again on the true road, and bring back to order the States and peoples of modern times. But the return of Christianity will not be efficacious and complete if it does not restore the world to a sincere love of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. In the Catholic Church Christianity is Incarnate. It identifies Itself with that perfect, spiritual, and, in its own order, sovereign society, which is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ and which has for Its visible head the Roman Pontiff, successor of the Prince of the Apostles. It is the continuation of the mission of the Savior, the daughter and the heiress of His Redemption. It has preached the Gospel, and has defended it at the price of Its blood, and strong in the Divine assistance and of that immortality which has been promised it, It makes no terms with error but remains faithful to the commands which it has received, to carry the doctrine of Jesus Christ to the uttermost limits of the world and to the end of time, and to protect it in its inviolable integrity. Legitimate dispenser of the teachings of the Gospel it does not reveal itself only as the consoler and Redeemer of souls, but It is still more the internal source of justice and charity, and the propagator as well as the guardian of true liberty, and of that equality which alone is possible here below. In applying the doctrine of its Divine Founder, It maintains a wise equilibrium and marks the true limits between the rights and privileges of society. The equality which it proclaims does not destroy the distinction between the different social classes. It keeps them intact, as nature itself demands, in order to oppose the anarchy of reason emancipated from Faith, and abandoned to its own devices. The liberty which it gives in no wise conflicts with the rights of truth, because those rights are superior to the demands of liberty. Not does it infringe upon the rights of justice, because those rights are superior to the claims of mere numbers or power. Nor does it assail the rights of God because they are superior to the rights of humanity. (Pope Leo XIII, A Review of His Pontificate, March 19, 1902.)
For the teaching authority of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men, and which is daily exercised through the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops who are in communion with him, has also the office of defining, when it sees fit, any truth with solemn rites and decrees, whenever this is necessary either to oppose the errors or the attacks of heretics, or more clearly and in greater detail to stamp the minds of the faithful with the articles of sacred doctrine which have been explained. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)
Please note that Pope Gregory XVI wrote that the truth can be found in the Catholic Church without "even a slight tarnish of error."
Please note that Pope Leo XIII stressed that the Catholic Church "makes no terms with error but remains faithful to the command which it has received, to carry the doctrine of Jesus Christ to the uttermost limits of the world and to the end of time, and to protect it in its inviolable integrity."
Please note that that Pope Pius XI explained that the Catholic Church brings forth her teaching "with ease and security to the knowledge of men."
Anyone who says that this has been done by the counterfeit church of concilairism, which has made its "reconciliation" with the false principles of Modernity that leave no room for the confessionally Catholic civil state and the Social Reign of Christ the King, is not thinking too clearly (and that is as about as charitably as I can put the matter). If the conciliar church has brought forth its teaching "with ease and security to the knowledge of men," why, as noted earlier in this article, is there such disagreement even between the "progressive" conciliarists and "conservative" conciliarists concerning the proper "interpretation" of the "Second" Vatican Council and its aftermath? Or does this depend upon what one means by "ease and security"?
Fathers Francisco and Dominic Radecki, CMRI, explained in Tumultuous Times that the Catholic Church can never give us "novelties" of any kind, no less those that have been institutionalized by the counterfeit church of conciliarism:
A legitimate pope cannot contradict or deny what was first taught by Christ to His Church. An essential change in belief constitutes the establishment of a new religion.
The attribute of infallibility was given to the popes in order that the revealed doctrines and teaching of Christ would remain forever intact and unchanged. It is contrary to faith and reason to blindly follow an alleged pope who attempts to destroy the Catholic Faith--for there have been 41 documented antipopes. Papal infallibility means that the Holy Ghost guides and preserves the Catholic Church from error through the succession of legitimate popes who have ruled the Church through the centuries. All Catholics, including Christ's Vicar on earth, the pope, must accept all the doctrinal pronouncements of past popes. These infallible teachings form a vital link between Christ and St. Peter and his successors.
If a pope did not accept and believe this entire body of formulated teachings (the Deposit of Faith), he could not himself be a Catholic. He would cease to belong to Christ's Church. If he no longer belongs to the Catholic Church, he cannot be her Head. (Fathers Francisco and Dominic Radecki, CMRI, Tumultuous Times, p. 274.)
"Do not be misled by various and passing doctrines. In the Catholic Church Herself we must be careful to hold what has been believed everywhere, always and by all; for that alone is truly and properly Catholic." (Saint Vincent of Lerins, quoted in Tumultuous Times by Frs. Francisco and Dominic Radecki, CMRI, p. 279.)
Accepting the truth of our situation makes us not one whit better than anyone else. Indeed, there are some sedevacantists who are so oblivious to the human sense in their dealing with others on a one-on-one basis that they make themselves to appear to be "so right that they are wrong," to paraphrase the best teacher I ever had, a professor at Saint John's University who convinced me to pursue a college teaching career in the summer of 1972, meaning that they simply do not know when to let well enough be and simply let souls find the truth on their own as they respond to the graces sent to them by Our Lady.
Each of us has enough sins of our own to make reparation for without heaping more hot coals upon us by casting stones at those who may be as firm in their rejecting what we tell them as many of us were for decades when we heard these same truths from the mouths of others who were truly concerned about our spiritual well-being. We must pray for each other other in this time of apostasy and betrayal, trusting in the care of our dear Blessed Mother to help us and others negotiate the troubling waters that conciliarism has produced.
May we simply trust in Our Lady as did the great saint, Saint Louis IX, King of France, whose feast day we celebrate today, so that the errors of the day, including the false ecumenism that she meant us to protect us from by means of her Brown Scapular, will be vanquished once and for all as our daily Rosaries help to plant a few seeds for the triumph of her Immaculate Heart and the restoration of the Church Militant on earth and of the Social Reign of Christ the King that the likes of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI reject so utterly.
We must continue to pray and fast and make sacrifices as we seek to console the good God and to make reparation for our sins to Him through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, praying fervently to remain steadfast in the Catholic Faith and not to be snookered into being amalgamated into the One World Ecumenical Church without discipline or doctrine that was condemned by Pope Saint Pius X in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910:
We fear that worse is to come: the end result of this developing promiscuousness, the beneficiary of this cosmopolitan social action, can only be a Democracy which will be neither Catholic, nor Protestant, nor Jewish. It will be a religion (for Sillonism, so the leaders have said, is a religion) more universal than the Catholic Church, uniting all men become brothers and comrades at last in the "Kingdom of God". - "We do not work for the Church, we work for mankind."
And now, overwhelmed with the deepest sadness, We ask Ourselves, Venerable Brethren, what has become of the Catholicism of the Sillon? Alas! this organization which formerly afforded such promising expectations, this limpid and impetuous stream, has been harnessed in its course by the modern enemies of the Church, and is now no more than a miserable affluent of the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would bring back to the world (if such a Church could overcome) the reign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak, and of all those who toil and suffer.
It is no accident that Ratzinger/Benedict did not mention Notre Charge Apostolique just three days after its the one hundredth anniversary of its issuance. It is no accident that he did not mention The Oath Against Modernism, whose one hundredth anniversary of issuance is one week from today, September 1, 2010. It is no accident that Ratzinger/Benedict did not mention any of the specific condemnations issued by the Pontifical Biblical Commission under Pope Saint Pius X that he believes served a purpose at the time of their issuance but have since become "obsolete."
None of this is any accident at all, which is why "Pope" Benedict XVI wants to portray Pope Saint Pius X as a reformer in the mode of the conciliar "popes" when he was seeking to preserve the integrity of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition while at the same time showing genuine pastoral zeal for the youth by lowering the age for the reception of First Holy Communion and by encouraging the frequent reception of Holy Communion.
Pope Saint Pius X wanted young people to receive the sacraments at an early age to protect them from the errors of the day as their souls were fortified by the worthy reception of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, which is the same reason he encouraged even daily reception of Holy Communion by all Catholics. He did not want Catholics polluted by the world, with whose errors Pope Saint Pius X desired to make no "reconciliation" whatsoever.
Pope Saint Pius X wanted to make the way clear for the reception of Real Presence of Our Lord into the souls of Catholics, not prepare the way for the coming of Antichrist by dismissing doctrine according to false concepts of "love" and "charity" that he plainly condemned throughout the course of pontificate.
Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.
Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!
Our Lady of the Rosary, 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.
Saint Louis IX, King of France, pray for us.
See also: A Litany of Saints
A Compendium of the Errors of the Society of Saint Pius X, compiled in 2009 by Mr. Michael Creighton (and reprinted with his permission, granted in 2009)
To briefly enumerate some of the problems in the SSPX, they are:
1 A rejection of the of the ordinary magisterium (Vatican I; Session III - Dz1792) which must be divinely revealed. For instance Paul VI claimed that the new mass and Vatican II were his “Supreme Ordinary Magisterium” and John Paul II promulgated his catechism which contains heresies and errors in Fide Depositum by his “apostolic authority” as “the sure norm of faith and doctrine” and bound everyone by saying who believes what was contained therein is in “ecclesial communion”, that is in the Church.
2 A rejection of the divinely revealed teaching expressed in Vatican I , Session IV, that the faith of Peter [the Pope] cannot fail. Three ancient councils are quoted to support this claim. (2nd Lyons, 4th Constantinople & Florence). Pope Paul IV’s bull Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio teaches the same in the negative sense of this definition.
3 A distortion of canon law opposed to virtually all the canonists of the Church prior to Vatican II which tell us a heretical pope ipso facto loses his office by the operation of the law itself and without any declaration. This is expressed in Canon 188.4 which deals with the divine law and footnotes Pope Paul IV’s bull, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio. The SSPX pretends that sections of the code on penalties somehow apply to the pope which flatly contradicted by the law itself. The SSPX pretends that jurisdiction remains in force when the code clearly says jurisdiction is lost and only ‘acts’ of jurisdiction are declared valid until the person is found out (canons 2264-2265). This is simply to protect the faithful from invalid sacraments, not to help heretics retain office and destroy the Church. Charisms of the office, unlike indelible sacraments, require real jurisdiction. The SSPX pretends that penalties of the censure of ipso facto excommunication cannot apply to cardinals since it reserved to Holy See (canon 2227). This is another fabrication since the law does not refer to automatic (latae sententiae) penalties but only to penalties in which a competent judge is needed to inflict or declare penalties on offenders. Therefore it only refers to condemnatory and declaratory sentences but not automatic sentences. To say that ipso facto does not mean what it says is also condemned by Pope Pius VI in Auctorem Fidei.
4 The SSPX holds a form of the Gallican heresy that falsely proposes a council can depose a true pope. This was already tried by the Council of Basle and just as history condemned those schismatics, so it will condemn your Lordship. This belief also denies canon 1556 “The First See is Judged by no one.” This of course means in a juridical sense of judgment, not remaining blind to apostasy, heresy and crime which automatically takes effect.
5 The SSPX denies the visible Church must manifest the Catholic faith. They claim that somehow these men who teach heresy can’t know truth. This is notion has been condemned by Vatican I, Session III, Chapter 2. It is also condemned by canon 16 of the 1917 code of canon law. Clearly LaSalette has been fulfilled. Rome is the seat of anti-Christ & the Church is eclipsed. Clearly, our Lords words to Sr. Lucy at Rianjo in 1931 have come to pass. His “Ministers [Popes] have followed the kings of France into misfortune”.
6 The SSPX reject every doctor of the Church and every Church father who are unanimous in stating a heretic ipso facto is outside the Church and therefore cannot possess jurisdiction & pretends that is only their opinion when St. Robert states “... it is proven, with arguments from authority and from reason, that the manifest heretic is ipso facto deposed.” The authority he refers to is the magisterium of the Church, not his own opinion.
7 Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis is misinterpreted by the SSPX to validly elect a heretic to office against the divine law. A public heretic cannot be a cardinal because he automatically loses his office. This decree only refers to cardinals and hence it does not apply to ex-cardinals who automatically lost their offices because they had publicly defected from the Catholic faith. The cardinals mentioned in this decree who have been excommunicated are still Catholic and still cardinals; hence their excommunication does not cause them to become non-Catholics and lose their offices, as does excommunication for heresy and public defection from the Catholic faith. This is what the Church used to call a minor excommunication. All post 1945 canonists concur that Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis does not remove ipso facto excommunication: Eduardus F. Regatillo (1956), Matthaeus Conte a Coronata (1950), Serapius Iragui (1959), A. Vermeersch - I. Creusen (1949), Udalricus Beste (1946) teach that a pope or cardinal or bishop who becomes a public heretic automatically loses his office and a public heretic cannot legally or validly obtain an office. Even supposing this papal statement could apply to non-Catholics (heretics), Pope Pius XII goes on to say “at other times they [the censures] are to remain in vigor.” Does this mean the Pope intends that a notorious heretic will take office and then immediately lose his office? It is an absurd conclusion, hence we must respect the interpretation of the Church in her canonists.
Errors/Heresies typical of an SSPX chapel attendees & priests:
1) We are free to reject rites promulgated by the Church. [Condemned by Trent Session VII, Canon XIII/Vatican I, Session II]
2) The Pope can’t be trusted to make judgments on faith and morals. We have to sift what is Catholic. [Condemned by Vatican I, Session IV, Chapter III.]
3) We are free to reject or accept ordinary magisterial teachings from a pope since they can be in error. This rejection may include either the conciliar ‘popes’ when teach heresy or the pre-conciliar popes in order to justify the validity of the conciliar popes jurisdiction, sacraments, etc [Condemned by Vatican I (Dz1792)/Satis Cognitum #15 of Leo XIII]
4) The Kantian doctrine of unknowability of reality. We can’t know what is heresy, therefore we can’t judge. [Condemned by Vatican I, Session III, Chapter 2: On Revelation, Jn7:24].
5) The faith of the Pope can fail. Frequently this is expressed as “we work for” or “we pray for the Popes conversion to the Catholic faith”. [condemned by Vatican I and at least 3 earlier councils mentioned above].
6) Universal salvation, ecumenism, religious liberty, validity of the Old Covenant, etc. can be interpreted in a Catholic sense. [Condemned by every saint, every doctor of the Church and every Pope who comments on such issues; for instance Pope Eugene IV (Cantate Domino – Council of Florence)
7) Contraries can be true. [Hegelian doctrine against Thomistic Philosophy]. If these positions appear to be contradictory, they are.
When I [Michael Creighton] point out these positions are against the Faith, frequently the Hegelian doctrine is employed by those in attendance at the SSPX chapel.