Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us
                                February 8, 2013


Preparing To Spend All Eternity With His Allegorical Figure

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is preparing to spend all eternity with a figure he considers merely allegorical, the one who whispers "sweet nothing" into his itching ears, the one who has been inspiring his lifelong warfare against every aspect of Catholic Faith, Worship and Morals since he was a seminarian in Regensburg, Germany in the late-1940s prior to his priestly ordination on June 29, 1951, the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul.

Who is the "allegorical" figure that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is preparing to spend all eternity with barring a miraculous conversion before he dies? Well, I will let him speak for himself:

In the first chapters of Genesis, "there are two significant images: the garden with the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the serpent. The garden tells us that the reality that God has placed the human being within is not a savage forest, but a place that protects, nourishes, and sustains. Humanity must recognize the world, not as property to plunder and exploit, but as a gift from the Creator ... to cultivate and care for respectfully, following its rhythms and logic, in accordance with God's plan. The serpent is a figure derived from oriental fertility cults that fascinated Israel and that were a constant temptation to forsake the mysterious covenant with God." (HUMAN INTELLIGENCE CAN FIND KEY TO UNDERSTANDING THE WORLD IN SACRED SCRIPTURE.)


Just an allegorical figure, eh, Benedict?

Go tell that to the very Mother of God who crushed the head of that allegorical figure that you dare to say was "derived from oriental fertility cults that fascinated Israel."

Go tell that to God the Holy Ghost, Who inspired Moses to write The Book of Genesis.

One must remember that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is a Modernist to the very core of his being. His view of all dogmatic truth, warped by the murky, twisted mind of the late Father Hans von Balthasar, whose Hegelianism helped to give birth to the hideous "Communion and Liberation" "movement" that the false "pontiff" praised yet again a few months ago (see The Rimini Cocktail), dismisses as anachronistic all condemnations of the propositions he advances even into the latter part of the ninth decade of his life.

I will never tire of reminding you of Ratzinger/Benedict's contempt for the infallible teaching authority of the Catholic Church:

"In theses 10-12, the difficult problem of the relationship between language and thought is debated, which in post-conciliar discussions was the immediate departure point of the dispute.

The identity of the Christian substance as such, the Christian 'thing' was not directly ... censured, but it was pointed out that no formula, no matter how valid and indispensable it may have been in its time, can fully express the thought mentioned in it and declare it unequivocally forever, since language is constantly in movement and the content of its meaning changes. (Fr. Ratzinger: Dogmatic formulas must always change.)

The text [of the document Instruction on the Theologian's Ecclesial Vocation] also presents the various types of bonds that rise from the different degrees of magisterial teaching. It affirms - perhaps for the first time with this clarity - that there are decisions of the magisterium that cannot be the last word on the matter as such, but are, in a substantial fixation of the problem, above all an expression of pastoral prudence, a kind of provisional disposition. The nucleus remains valid, but the particulars, which the circumstances of the times influenced, may need further correction.

In this regard, one may think of the declarations of Popes in the last century [19th century] about religious liberty, as well as the anti-Modernist decisions at the beginning of this century, above all, the decisions of the Biblical Commission of the time [on evolutionism]. As a cry of alarm in the face of hasty and superficial adaptations, they will remain fully justified. A personage such as Johann Baptist Metz said, for example, that the Church's anti-Modernist decisions render the great service of preserving her from falling into the liberal-bourgeois world. But in the details of the determinations they contain, they became obsolete after having fulfilled their pastoral mission at their proper time.

(Joseph Ratzinger, "Instruction on the Theologian's Ecclesial Vocation," published with the title "Rinnovato dialogo fra Magistero e Teologia," in L'Osservatore Romano, June 27, 1990, p. 6, cited at Card. Ratzinger: The teachings of the Popes against Modernism are obsolete)

It is precisely in this combination of continuity and discontinuity at different levels that the very nature of true reform consists. In this process of innovation in continuity we must learn to understand more practically than before that the Church's decisions on contingent matters - for example, certain practical forms of liberalism or a free interpretation of the Bible - should necessarily be contingent themselves, precisely because they refer to a specific reality that is changeable in itself. It was necessary to learn to recognize that in these decisions it is only the principles that express the permanent aspect, since they remain as an undercurrent, motivating decisions from within.

On the other hand, not so permanent are the practical forms that depend on the historical situation and are therefore subject to change. (Christmas greetings to the Members of the Roman Curia and Prelature, December 22, 2005.)


This is how Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI dismisses out of hand anything about Catholic doctrine he does not "like," thus creating a devil's brew of a mixture of truth and error that the last non-diplomat to have been a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter, Pope Saint Pius X, warned against just three years after his arrival in the Diocese of Mantua, Italy, following his appointment to that see by Pope Leo XIII:

The first pastoral visitation called for comprehensive solutions and new orientations. This was the subject of a diocesan synod. It was announced on February 16, 1887, in a pastoral letter. The bishop wrote that the aim of the synod would be to "draw up, after mature and deliberate reflection, a resume of diocesan statutes and establish suitable rules to meet new situations, new evils and new challenges--rules which earlier synod could not have imagined." It has been observed that this pastoral letter is also "a veritable declaration of holy war against errors of a nascent modernism," even if the word Modernism was not yet used. In fact, Msgr. Sarto was here opposing those who, "setting themselves up as masters, assert that the Church must always adapt herself to the demands of the times, and that it has become impossible to keep the primitive integrity of her laws." The Bishop of Mantua denounced this "modern Christianity which has forgotten the ancient folly of the Cross [and where] the dogmas of the faith must be adapted to the requirements of the new philosophy...." Here we see that the anti-Modernist battle waged by Pius X arises from a very ancient concern for the faith.  (Yves Chiron, Saint Pius X: Restorer of the Church. Translated by Graham Harrison. Angelus Press, 2002, p. 67.)


Yes, it was in early-1887, over twenty and one-half years before he wrote Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907, that the Bishop Giuseppe Sarto saw the effects of a nascent modernism among the clergy and the people of the Diocese of Mantua. Bishop Sarto made no compromise of any kind with error. He denounced it firmly as the Bishop of Mantua and as the Cardinal Archbishop and Patriarch of Venice before succeeding Pope Leo XIII as the Supreme Pastor and Sovereign Pontiff on August 4, 1903, the Feast of Saint Dominic de Guzman.

Giuseppe Cardinal Sarto was no less firm when he became the Patriarch of Venice in 1893. He expressed himself concerning the dangers of men such as Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI even before he could take canonical possession of his patriarchal see in 1894 as a result of a dispute with civil authorities:

Three days later, on the Feast of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin, Cardinal Sarto addressed his first pastoral letter to the clergy of Venice; the letter was also addressed to the clergy of Mantua as a kind of pastoral last testament. Since he had many weeks to prepare it, it was not an occasional writing but a long exhortation, as well as a warning against Catholic liberalism which seemed, to the Patriarch of Venice, to be spreading more and  more at the heart of the Church. In it, the new Patriarch of Venice called priests to be united in fidelity to the Holy See: "...the Bishop alone is the guardian and interpreter of the Sovereign Pontiff's commands, and the priests must be intimately united to the Bishop..." This unity is more indispensable than ever, because, in our days, the Church "practically at every moment has to fight to defend her liberty, her dignity and her rights." The Church's enemies are "the baneful sects" and "rotten materialism," but they would not have so much success if "certain people, under the cover of the glorious name of Catholic, did not come to their aid." These "liberal Catholics" (cattolici-liberali) "dream of a kind of peace, or rather, a conciliation between light and darkness": they stigmatize "all Catholics who think differently from them as 'the clerical party,'" and they say that "in all things that concern the State, the civil authority ought to have the pre-eminence over the authority of the Church" and "under the pretext of liberty they permit the license of irreligion and insult." These liberal Catholics, wrote Cardinal Sarto again, "always preach charity and prudence, as if it were charitable to let the wolf devour the lam, and as if it were a virtue to cultivate this prudence of the flesh, which God has condemned, as it is written: I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the prudence of the prudent I will thwart (1 Cor 1:19)." Liberal Catholics are "wolves in sheep's clothing; it is more important than anything else that murky designs should be exposed to the light and denounced." (Yves Chiron, Saint Pius X: Restorer of the Church. Translated by Graham Harrison. Angelus Press, 2002, pp. 87-88.)


Who said in 1982 that the text of Gaudium et Spes represented what he thought was the Catholic Church's "official reconciliation" with the principles of that "new era" inaugurated in 1789 with the French Revolution?

Let us be content to say here that the text serves as a countersyllabus and, as such, represents on the part of the Church, an attempt at an official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789. (Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, p. 382.)


What happened in 1789? Wasn't there some kind of anti-Theistic revolution in France, the elder daughter of the Church? What did Pope Leo XIII write about such reconciling with the principles of the revolution just a year before he promoted the Bishop of Mantua, Giuseppe Melchiorre Sarto, to be the Patriarch of Venice?

Every familiarity should be avoided, not only with those impious libertines who openly promote the character of the sect, but also with those who hide under the mask of universal tolerance, respect for all religions, and the craving to reconcile the maxims of the Gospel with those of the revolution. These men seek to reconcile Christ and Belial, the Church of God and the state without God. (Pope Leo XIII, Custodi Di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892.)


As I noted two days ago in Crushed By The Weight Of Error, part two, it is our solemn duty before God to denounce error and expose the murky designs of Ratzinger/Benedict and his band of conciliar revolutionaries. From placing us "outside of the Church," as some of those lost in the fog of a self-serving denial that they use sanctimoniously to condemn us and our firm, unequivocal defense of the truth and our refusal to have any association with spiritual robber barons who are the very embodiment of everything condemned by Giuseppe Melchiorre Sarto before and after he became Pope Pius X, our denunciation of the errors of conciliarism, each of which have been condemned by our true popes, must continue until the day we die if we die before God restores His Holy Church as a result of the Triumph of the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Blessed Virgin Mary.

It was as Supreme Pontiff that Pope Saint Pius X condemned the very Modernist methodology, labeled today as the "hermeneutic of continuity," that Ratzinger/Benedict uses to attack nearly every aspect of the Holy Faith and to reduce to the level of a mere "allegory" the account of Adam and Eve's Fall from Grace in the Garden of Eden:

Hence it is quite impossible [the Modernists assert] to maintain that they [dogmatic statements] absolutely contain the truth: for, in so far as they are symbols, they are the images of truth, and so must be adapted to the religious sense in its relation to man; and as instruments, they are the vehicles of truth, and must therefore in their turn be adapted to man in his relation to the religious sense. But the object of the religious sense, as something contained in the absolute, possesses an infinite variety of aspects, of which now one, now another, may present itself. In like manner he who believes can avail himself of varying conditions. Consequently, the formulas which we call dogma must be subject to these vicissitudes, and are, therefore, liable to change. Thus the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of dogma. Here we have an immense structure of sophisms which ruin and wreck all religion.

It is thus, Venerable Brethren, that for the Modernists, whether as authors or propagandists, there is to be nothing stable, nothing immutable in the Church. Nor, indeed, are they without forerunners in their doctrines, for it was of these that Our predecessor Pius IX wrote: 'These enemies of divine revelation extol human progress to the skies, and with rash and sacrilegious daring would have it introduced into the Catholic religion as if this religion were not the work of God but of man, or some kind of philosophical discovery susceptible of perfection by human efforts.' On the subject of revelation and dogma in particular, the doctrine of the Modernists offers nothing new. We find it condemned in the Syllabus of Pius IX, where it is enunciated in these terms: ''Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the progress of human reason'; and condemned still more solemnly in the Vatican Council: ''The doctrine of the faith which God has revealed has not been proposed to human intelligences to be perfected by them as if it were a philosophical system, but as a divine deposit entrusted to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence also that sense of the sacred dogmas is to be perpetually retained which our Holy Mother the Church has once declared, nor is this sense ever to be abandoned on plea or pretext of a more profound comprehension of the truth.' Nor is the development of our knowledge, even concerning the faith, barred by this pronouncement; on the contrary, it is supported and maintained. For the same Council continues: 'Let intelligence and science and wisdom, therefore, increase and progress abundantly and vigorously in individuals, and in the mass, in the believer and in the whole Church, throughout the ages and the centuries -- but only in its own kind, that is, according to the same dogma, the same sense, the same acceptation.' (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907.)


Pope Saint Pius X specifically condemned Ratzinger/Benedict's entire life's work in the The Oath Against Modernism that he issued on September 1, 1910:

Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical' misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. . . .

Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.

I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God. (The Oath Against Modernism, September 1, 1910.)


The Oath Against Modernism is indeed a witness against Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's belief that it has been "necessary to learn" that past decisions of Holy Mother Church contain elements that are subject to change.

It is impossible to reconcile the Catholic Church's definition of the unchanging nature of dogmatic truth with Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's lifelong belief that certain elements of dogmatic pronouncements and papal statements become "obsolete" with the passage of time.

It is impossible to reconcile the Catholic Church's condemnation of the separation of Church and State with Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's full-throated endorsement of this thesis that was termed absolutely false by Pope Saint Pius X in Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906.

It is impossible to reconcile Pope Saint Pius X's condemnation of the separation of Church and State in Portugal with Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's praise of it despite the harm that it has caused to the country Our Lady favored with apparitions that Ratzinger/Benedict does not believe had any physical dimensions to them at all:


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.)

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; see also Mocking Pope Saint Pius X and Our Lady of Fatima and Mocking Pope Saint Pius X and Our Lady of Fatima.)

Pope Saint Pius X said that those who held to the condemned propositions of Modernism and/or treated lightly of the condemnations issued by the Pontifical Biblical Commission had suffered exommunication latae sententiae:

8. They are free from all blame who treat lightly the condemnations passed by the Sacred Congregation of the Index or by the Roman Congregations. (Proposition condemned by Pope Saint Pius X, Lamentabili Sane, July 3, 1907.)

In his encyclical letter "Providentissimus Deus," given on November 18, 1893, our predecessor, Leo XIII, of immortal memory, after describing the dignity of Sacred Scripture and commending the study of it, set forth the laws which govern the proper study of the Holy Bible; and having proclaimed the divinity of these books against the errors and calumnies of the rationalists, he at the same time defended them against the false teachings of what is known as the higher criticism, which, as the Pontiff most wisely wrote, are clearly nothing but the commentaries of rationalism derived from a misuse of philology and kindred studies. Our predecessor, too, seeing that the danger was constantly on the increase and wishing to prevent the propagation of rash and erroneous views, by his apostolic letters "Vigilantes studiique memores," given on October 30, 1902, established a Pontifical Council or Commission on Biblical matters, composed of several Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church distinguished for their learning and wisdom, to which Commission were added as consulters a number of men in sacred orders chosen from among the learned in theology and in the Holy Bible, of various nationalities and differing in their methods and views concerning exegetical studies. In so doing the Pontiff had in mind as an advantage most adapted for the promotion of study and for the time in which we live that in this Commission there should be the fullest freedom for proposing, examining and judging all opinions whatsoever, and that the Cardinals of the Commission were not to reach any definite decision, as described in the said apostolic letters, before they had examined the arguments in favor and against the question to be decided, omitting nothing which might serve to show in the clearest light the true and genuine state of the Biblical questions under discussion. Only after all this had been done were the decisions reached to be submitted for the approval of the Supreme Pontiff and then promulgated.

After mature examination and the most diligent deliberations the Pontifical Biblical Commission has happily given certain decisions of a very useful kind for the proper promotion and direction on safe lines of Biblical studies. But we observe that some persons, unduly prone to opinions and methods tainted by pernicious novelties and excessively devoted to the principle of false liberty, which is really immoderate license and in sacred studies proves itself to be a most insidious and a fruitful source of the worst evils against the purity of the faith, have not received and do not receive these decisions with the proper obedience.

Wherefore we find it necessary to declare and to expressly prescribe, and by this our act we do declare and decree that all are bound in conscience to submit to the decisions of the Biblical Commission relating to doctrine, which have been given in the past and which shall be given in the future, in the same way as to the decrees of the Roman congregations approved by the Pontiff; nor can all those escape the note of disobedience or temerity, and consequently of grave sin, who in speech or writing contradict such decisions, and this besides the scandal they give and the other reasons for which they may be responsible before God for other temerities and errors which generally go with such contradictions.

Moreover, in order to check the daily increasing audacity of many modernists who are endeavoring by all kinds of sophistry and devices to detract from the force and efficacy not only of the decree "Lamentabili sane exitu" (the so-called Syllabus), issued by our order by the Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition on July 3 of the present year, but also of our encyclical letters "Pascendi dominici gregis" given on September 8 of this same year, we do by our apostolic authority repeat and confirm both that decree of the Supreme Sacred Congregation and those encyclical letters of ours, adding the penalty of excommunication against their contradictors, and this we declare and decree that should anybody, which may God forbid, be so rash as to defend any one of the propositions, opinions or teachings condemned in these documents he falls, ipso facto, under the censure contained under the chapter "Docentes" of the constitution "Apostolicae Sedis," which is the first among the excommunications latae sententiae, simply reserved to the Roman Pontiff. This excommunication is to be understood as salvis poenis, which may be incurred by those who have violated in any way the said documents, as propagators and defenders of heresies, when their propositions, opinions and teachings are heretical, as has happened more than once in the case of the adversaries of both these documents, especially when they advocate the errors of the modernists that is, the synthesis of all heresies.

Wherefore we again and most earnestly exhort the ordinaries of the dioceses and the heads of religious congregations to use the utmost vigilance over teachers, and first of all in the seminaries; and should they find any of them imbued with the errors of the modernists and eager for what is new and noxious, or lacking in docility to the prescriptions of the Apostolic See, in whatsoever way published, let them absolutely forbid the teaching office to such; so, too, let them exclude from sacred orders those young men who give the very faintest reason for doubt that they favor condemned doctrines and pernicious novelties. We exhort them also to take diligent care to put an end to those books and other writings, now growing exceedingly numerous, which contain opinions or tendencies of the kind condemned in the encyclical letters and decree above mentioned; let them see to it that these publications are removed from Catholic publishing houses, and especially from the hands of students and the clergy. By doing this they will at the same time be promoting real and solid education, which should always be a subject of the greatest solicitude for those who exercise sacred authority.

All these things we will and order to be sanctioned and established by our apostolic authority, aught to the contrary notwithstanding. (Pope Saint Pius X, Praestantia Scripturae, November 18, 1907.)


Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI excommunicated long ago excommunicated himself from the Catholic Church by being a propagator and defender of heresies, especially as he has advocated "the errors of the modernists that is, the synthesis of all heresies." Why is it so difficult for anyone to understand to accept this simple fact and to act upon it with courage rather than taking refuge in what Bishop Giuseppe Melchiorre Sarto said to the clergy of Mantua, Italy, was a "prudence of the flesh" (a desire to "play it safe" in order to avoid suffering the loss of "respectability") condemned by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ Himself?

We separate ourselves from the conciliarists because they offend God by defecting from the Faith, starting with their rejection of the nature of dogmatic truth and their making complex what it is: the knowledge of Him that He has deposited in Holy Mother Church. We must understand, however, that offenses against the moral order (see Corrupt Chickens Come Home To Roost In Roger's Nest Of Apostates, Conciliar Mud Wrestling and Crushed By The Weight Of Error, part one)

are no less of a concern to God than offenses against doctrine. Offenses against the moral order, many of which have been committed by the conciliar "bishops" and their chancery factotums and their insurance companies are not "little things," unless, as I have noted in other commentaries in recent weeks, that the loss of the Faith in a single soul is a "little thing" and that the clergy responsible for indemnifying the loss of just one soul do not show themselves to be enemies of the Cross of the Divine Redeemer as a result.

Although there are those who tell us that we should "stay and fight" in once Catholic parishes that are now in the hands of apostates (or their enablers who refuse to speak out against them), we must recognize that offenses against the doctrines of the Faith and offenses against the moral order are never the foundations upon which God will choose to restore His Holy Church. Catholic truth is as black and white as truth in the doctrinal realm. Conciliarism consists of its very nature in a rejection of various parts of the Catholic Faith, and it is this rejection that leads in turn to the same sort of despair and hopelessness in the souls of so many men now as existed at the time before the First Coming of Our Lord at His Incarnation and, nine months later, His Nativity.

Let the words of the then Patriarch of Venice disturb the consciences of those who are unwilling to admit that Joseph Ratzinger expelled himself from the Catholic Church long ago by his private belief in and public endorsement of one condemned proposition after another just as surely as the likes of the late Edward Moore Kennedy and the very much alive Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., et al., expelled themselves from the bosom of Holy Mother Church by their support of the chemical and surgical assassination of the innocent  preborn (see What's Good For Teddy Is Good For Benny), those who dare to tell others to "have nothing to do" with Catholics who understand Ratzinger/Benedict to be an enemy of Christ the King and of thus of the souls for whom He shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross, those who believe that they can remain silent in the face of grave evils endorsed by the man they consider to be "the pope:"

Liberal Catholics are "wolves in sheep's clothing; it is more important than anything else that murky designs should be exposed to the light and denounced." (Yves Chiron, Saint Pius X: Restorer of the Church. Translated by Graham Harrison. Angelus Press, 2002, p. 88.)


Mindful of the fact that our own sins have worsened the state of the Church Militant on earth and of the world-at-large, let us be content during these last days of our liturgical year to prepare to intensify our penitential practices  but five days with the beginning of Lent on Ash Wednesday, February 13, 2013, trying as best we can to pray as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit.

We must remember that Our Lord was hated by the august King Herod the Great when news of His Nativity reached Herod. We must remember that Our Lord had to be taken by his dear foster-father, Saint Joseph, the Patron of the Universal Church and the Protector of the Faithful, and His Most Blessed Mother to live in exile in Egypt. We must remember that Our Lord lived most of His life hidden from the world performing the arduous work of a carpenter, working with the very wood of trees that were created through Him, the very wood of trees upon which He would redeem us, thus re-creating us unto children of God by adoption.

These truths, which are part of the Deposit of Faith, are important to remember at all times because the crosses of the present moment, no matter their source, are fashioned to us from the very hand of God Himself to be the means of our participating in Our Lord's Easter victory over the power of sin and eternal death. It matters not what anyone thinks of us for refusing to accept the conciliarists as representatives of the Catholic Church or for refusing to associate with those who believe act in a de facto manner as the authority of the Church while looking the other way at grave abuses of the moral order and indemnifying wrong-doers time and time again. All that matters is that we carry our cross as the consecrated slaves of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, looking for no other consolation than that which is given to the souls of the elect upon the Particular Judgment and that is ratified for all to see at General Judgment of the Living and the Dead:

Well done, good and faithful servant, because thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will place thee over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. (Matthew 25: 21.)


May Our Lady help us in these final days before Lent 2013 to prepare for a good practice of prayer, penance and mortification prior to Easter Sunday on March 31, 2013,  fifty-one days from now, as we spend in prayer before His Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament and as we l to pray for the good of all men, including Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who is on track to spend all eternity with his "allegorical" figure if he does not repent of his heresies, blasphemies and sacrileges before he died, and those others who offend God in matters of Faith, Worship and Morals and the conversion of those who seek to minimize and excuse them, so that they can embrace the Catholic Faith, the one and only path to happiness here on earth in preparation for the eternal joys of Heaven itself.

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior and Balthasar, pray for us.

Saint John of Matha, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints







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