Thomas A. Droleskey
Although the viewership of this website is infinitesimally small, notes do arrive now and again from those seeking to "correct" my alleged "defection" from the Catholic Faith.
One such note was received recently from a person who said that the [First] Vatican Council proclaimed that the Catholic Church cannot teach error. This is, of course, quite right. Although I thanked the writer for doing his duty as he saw fit to discharge it, I did note the following to him by way of a concluding thought as I have not time whatsoever to engage in colloquies, especially since such exchanges prove nothing to anyone, providing just one example of how the "popes" of the conciliar church have taught error:
The Catholic Church cannot teach error. Pope Saint Pius X taught us that
the popes have never ceased condemning the separation of Church and
State. Benedict XVI praises separation of Church and State. Yes, indeed,
you are quite right.
Obviously, this is is just one example out of many. examples of the contrast between Catholicism and its counterfeit ape, conciliarism. Many other such examples can be found in a plethora of articles on this site, including the following from this calendar year alone: Another Year of the Same Conciliar Apostasy, part one, Another Year of the Same Conciliar Apostasy, part two, Another Year of the Same Conciliar Apostasy, part three, Bearing "Fruits" From Hell Itself, part one, Bearing "Fruits" From Hell Itself, part 2, Not Interested in Assisi III, Impressed With His Own Originality, Accepting "Popes" As Unreliable Teachers, Obeying The Commands of a False Church, Boilerplate Ratzinger, "Cardinals" Burke and Canizares, Meet The Council of Trent, Vesakh, Not Miller, Time at the Vatican, Saint Vincent Ferrer and Anti-Saint Vincent Ferrers, Celebrating Apostasy and Dereliction of Duty, To Be Loved by the Jews, As We Continue To Blaspheme Christ the King and His True Church, Coloring Everything He Says and Does, part one, Coloring Everything He Says and Does, part two, Perhaps Judas Was the First to Sing "A Kiss is Just a Kiss", Enjoy the Party, George, Enjoy the Party, Anticlimactic "Beatification" for an Antipope, Open Letter to Pretended Catholic Scholars, Scholarship in Conciliarism's Land of Oz, 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).
For the sake of easy reference, however, here are just a few examples so that the very few readers who remain on this site can refresh their memories in the event that they get fan mail from friends and relatives who accuse them of having left the Catholic Church.
Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's Warfare Against the Nature of Dogmatic Truth
Alas, it is, as has been explicated on this site
endlessly, conciliarism's attack on the nature of dogmatic truth that
has served as a corrupt fountainhead, if you will, of each of the the
false teachings of its counterfeit church that are enshrined in the
Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service, which continues to serve as a vessel to transmit those false teachings so as to assault the sensus Catholicus of baptized Catholics to such an extent that they can come to believe
that everything in the life of the Catholic Church is subject to
"updating" and "revision" with the passage of time.
This has been and continues to be one of the lifelong
goals of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, whose attacks on the nature of
dogmatic truth stand in direct contradiction to the teaching of the
Catholic Church and are in defiance of the laws of logic itself.
Ratzinger/Benedict's statements about the nature of dogmatic truth are
the antithesis of propositions condemned in The Oath Against Modernism,
September 1, 1910, that the monks of Christ the King Abbey were required
to take and to uphold to the point of their deaths:
1971: "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
(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.)
For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward
- not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence,
- but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.
Hence, too, that meaning of the
sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by
holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this
sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.
God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever be in opposition to truth.
The appearance of this kind of specious contradiction is chiefly due to the fact that either: the dogmas of faith are
not understood and explained in accordance with the mind of the church,
or unsound views are mistaken for the conclusions of reason.
Therefore we define that every assertion contrary to the truth of enlightened faith is totally false. . . .
3. If anyone says that it is possible that
at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be
assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from
that which the church has understood and understands: let him be
And so in the performance of our supreme pastoral
office, we beseech for the love of Jesus Christ and we command, by the
authority of him who is also our God and saviour, all faithful
Christians, especially those in authority or who have the duty of
teaching, that they contribute their zeal and labour to the warding off
and elimination of these errors from the church and to the spreading of
the light of the pure faith.
But since it is not enough to avoid the
contamination of heresy unless those errors are carefully shunned which
approach it in greater or less degree, we warn all of their duty to
observe the constitutions and decrees in which such wrong opinions,
though not expressly mentioned in this document, have been banned and
forbidden by this holy see. (Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session III,
Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Chapter 4, On Faith and
Reason, April 24, 1870. SESSION 3 : 24 April 1.)
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. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907.)
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; see also Nothing Stable, Nothing Secure.)
The Catholic Church cannot teach error? Quite right. Quite right indeed.
Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI versus Popes Pius IX and XI on False Ecumenism
We all know there are numerous models of unity and
you know that the Catholic Church also has as her goal the full visible
unity of the disciples of Christ, as defined by the Second Vatican
Ecumenical Council in its various Documents (cf. Lumen Gentium, nn. 8, 13; Unitatis Redintegratio,
nn. 2, 4, etc.). This unity, we are convinced, indeed subsists in the
Catholic Church, without the possibility of ever being lost (cf. Unitatis Redintegratio, n. 4); the Church in fact has not totally disappeared from the world.
On the other hand, this unity does not mean
what could be called ecumenism of the return: that is, to deny and to
reject one's own faith history. Absolutely not!
It does not mean uniformity in all expressions of
theology and spirituality, in liturgical forms and in discipline. Unity
in multiplicity, and multiplicity in unity: in my Homily for the Solemnity of Sts Peter and Paul on 29 June last,
I insisted that full unity and true catholicity in the original sense
of the word go together. As a necessary condition for the achievement of
this coexistence, the commitment to unity must be constantly purified and renewed; it must constantly grow and mature. (Ecumenical meeting at the Archbishopric of Cologne English.)
It is for this reason that
so many who do not share 'the communion and the truth of the Catholic
Church' must make use of the occasion of the Council, by the means of
the Catholic Church, which received in Her bosom their ancestors,
proposes [further] demonstration of profound unity and of firm vital
force; hear the requirements [demands] of her heart, they must
engage themselves to leave this state that does not guarantee for them
the security of salvation. She does not hesitate to raise to the Lord of
mercy most fervent prayers to tear down of the walls of division, to
dissipate the haze of errors, and lead them back within holy Mother
Church, where their Ancestors found salutary pastures of life; where, in
an exclusive way, is conserved and transmitted whole the doctrine of
Jesus Christ and wherein is dispensed the mysteries of heavenly grace.
It is therefore by force of the right of Our
supreme Apostolic ministry, entrusted to us by the same Christ the Lord,
which, having to carry out with [supreme] participation all the duties
of the good Shepherd and to follow and embrace with paternal love all
the men of the world, we send this Letter of Ours to all the Christians
from whom We are separated, with which we exhort them warmly and beseech
them with insistence to hasten to return to the one fold of Christ; we
desire in fact from the depths of the heart their salvation in Christ
Jesus, and we fear having to render an account one day to Him, Our
Judge, if, through some possibility, we have not pointed out and
prepared the way for them to attain eternal salvation. In all Our
prayers and supplications, with thankfulness, day and night we never
omit to ask for them, with humble insistence, from the eternal Shepherd
of souls the abundance of goods and heavenly graces. And since, if also,
we fulfill in the earth the office of vicar, with all our heart we
await with open arms the return of the wayward sons to the Catholic
Church, in order to receive them with infinite fondness into the house
of the Heavenly Father and to enrich them with its inexhaustible
treasures. By our greatest wish for the return to the truth and
the communion with the Catholic Church, upon which depends not only the
salvation of all of them, but above all also of the whole Christian
society: the entire world in fact cannot enjoy true peace if it is not
of one fold and one shepherd. (Pope Pius IX, Iam Vos Omnes, September 13, 1868.)
So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this
Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the
assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can
only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of
Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have
unhappily left it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is
visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its
Author, exactly the same as He instituted it. . . . Let,
therefore, the separated children draw nigh to the Apostolic See, set up
in the City which Peter and Paul, the Princes of the Apostles,
consecrated by their blood; to that See, We repeat, which is 'the root
and womb whence the Church of God springs,' not with the
intention and the hope that 'the Church of the living God, the pillar
and ground of the truth' will cast aside the integrity of the faith and
tolerate their errors, but, on the contrary, that they themselves submit
to its teaching and government. Would that it were Our happy
lot to do that which so many of Our predecessors could not, to embrace
with fatherly affection those children, whose unhappy separation from Us
We now bewail. Would that God our Savior, "Who will have all men to be
saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth," would hear us when We
humbly beg that He would deign to recall all who stray to the unity of
the Church! In this most important undertaking We ask and wish that
others should ask the prayers of Blessed Mary the Virgin, Mother of
divine grace, victorious over all heresies and Help of Christians, that
She may implore for Us the speedy coming of the much hoped-for day, when
all men shall hear the voice of Her divine Son, and shall be 'careful
to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.'" (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928; see also Not An Ecumenist Among Them.)
The Catholic Church cannot teach error? Quite right. Quite right indeed.
Contrasting Joseph Ratzinger's False Religion of Conciliarism, to which
no one owes "obedience," and the True Religion, Catholicism, to which
each of us owes obedience to the point of of death
First, Ratzinger/Benedict blasphemes God repeatedly by entering into places of false worship (an action that is proscribed by the Canon Law of the Catholic Church, a proscription that has injunctions dating back to Apostolic times; see The Laws of God Forbidding All Communication in Religion With Those of a False Religion)
and esteeming them as "sacred" and as "jewels" that "stand out on the
face of the earth. Millions of saints gave up their lives rather than
even to give the appearance of such blasphemy and apostasy. His actions
in this regard have been on full display during his pilgrimage to Jordan
and Israel (see Archbishop Who?, Accustomed to Apostasy, Knights of Conciliarism, How Catholics Act and Speak in Jerusalem, and Words and Actions of Antichrist). These violations against the First Commandment have been open and blatant.
Ratzinger/Benedict has gone into four different synagogues and has been treated as an inferior by his Talmudic hosts.
Ratzinger/Benedict has gone into several mosques (and
delivered an address outside of a third in Jordan, which he called a
"jewel" and a "splendid" place of "worship"), taking off his shoes on
both occasions and once turning in the direction of Mecca and assuming
the Mohammedan "prayer" position.
Ratzinger/Benedict has personally esteemed the symbols of five false religions with his own priestly hands. (See for yourself, April 17, 2008 - 6:15 p.m. - Interreligious Gathering.)
Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ would have done none of those
things. Each of those things are hideous in His sight. No one can do
those things and remain a member of the Catholic Church in good
standing, no less hold ecclesiastical office within her ranks
Indeed, Saint Benedict of Nursia, to whom Fathers Sebastian and
Michael have appealed as an example of obedience to the Church,
destroyed the temple of Apollo that was on Monte Cassino. He did not
"worship" with the pagans there. He did not "esteem" the temple. He
destroyed it with his own hands. The "pope" to whom Fathers Sebastian
and Michael wish to submit wrote in God and the World that there were in the past certain "Christian hotheads and fanatics who destroyed temples, who were unable
to see paganism as anything more than idolatry that had to be radically
In contrast to Benedict XVI, our last true pope thus far, Pope Pius XII, praised the work of Saint Benedict on Monte Cassino when he destroyed the false
idol and the temple where it was place and given diabolical worship:
Then it was that this holy man saw that the time, ordained by God's
providence, had come for him to found a family of religious men and to
mold them to the perfection of the Gospels. He began under most
favorable auspices. "For in those parts he had gathered together a great
many in the service of God, so that by the assistance of Our Lord Jesus
Christ he built there 12 monasteries, in each of which he put 12 monks
with their Superiors, and retained a few with himself whom he thought to
But while things started very favorably, as We said,
and yielded rich and salutary results, promising still greater in the
future, Our saint with the greatest grief of soul, saw a storm breaking
over the growing harvest, which an envious spirit had provoked and
desires of earthly gain had stirred up. Since Benedict was prompted by
divine and not human counsel, and feared lest the envy which had been
aroused mainly against himself should wrongfully recoil on his
followers, "he let envy take its course, and after he had disposed of
the oratories and other buildings -- leaving in them a competent number
of brethren with superiors -- he took with him a few monks and went to
another place". Trusting in God and relying on His ever present help, he
went south and arrived at a fort "called Cassino situated on the side
of a high mountain . . .; on this stood an old temple where Apollo was
worshipped by the foolish country people, according to the custom of the
ancient heathens. Around it likewise grew groves, in which even till
that time the mad multitude of infidels used to offer their idolatrous
sacrifices. The man of God coming to that place broke the idol,
overthrew the altar, burned the groves, and of the temple of Apollo made
a chapel of St. Martin. Where the profane altar had stood he built a
chapel of St. John; and by continual preaching he converted many of the
Cassino, as all know, was the chief dwelling place
and the main theater of the Holy Patriarch's virtue and sanctity. From
the summit of this mountain, while practically on all sides ignorance
and the darkness of vice kept trying to overshadow and envelop
everything, a new light shone, kindled by the teaching and civilization
of old and further enriched by the precepts of Christianity; it
illumined the wandering peoples and nations, recalled them to truth and
directed them along the right path. Thus indeed it may be rightly
asserted that the holy monastery built there was a haven and shelter of
highest learning and of all the virtues, and in those very troubled
times was, "as it were, a pillar of the Church and a bulwark of the
faith". (Pope Pius XII, Fulgens Radiatur, March 21, 1947; see also A Tale of Two Benedicts.)
correct? "Pope" Benedict XVI or Saint
Benedict of Nursia?
Second, Ratzinger/Benedict embraces
conciliarism's definition of "religious liberty" as he praises the
nonexistent ability of false religions to "contribute" to the
"betterment" of nations and the world. Condemned by
Pope Pius VI, Brief Quod aliquantum, March 10, 1791, Religious Liberty, a “Monstrous Right, Pope Pius VII in Post Tam Diuturnas, April 29, 1814, Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832, by Pope Pius IX in Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864, and by Pope Leo XIII in Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885, and Libertas,
June 20, 1888. He did so yesterday, May 14, 2009, in Nazareth when
meeting with representatives of "other religions" in an Auditorium that
is part of the Shrine of the Annunciation there:
At the heart of all religious traditions is the conviction
that peace itself is a gift from God, yet it cannot be achieved without
human endeavor. Lasting peace flows from the recognition that
the world is ultimately not our own, but rather the horizon within which
we are invited to participate in God’s love and cooperate in guiding
the world and history under his inspiration. We cannot do whatever we
please with the world; rather, we are called to conform our choices to
the subtle yet nonetheless perceptible laws inscribed by the Creator
upon the universe and pattern our actions after the divine goodness that
pervades the created realm.
Galilee, a land known for its religious and ethnic diversity, is
home to a people who know well the efforts required to live in
harmonious coexistence. Our different religious traditions have a
powerful potential to promote a culture of peace, especially through
teaching and preaching the deeper spiritual values of our common
humanity. By molding the hearts of the young, we mold the future of
humanity itself. Christians readily join Jews, Muslims, Druze, and
people of other religions in wishing to safeguard children from
fanaticism and violence while preparing them to be builders of a better
Ratzinger/Benedict's respect for the ability of false religions" to
contribute to a better world has been condemned repeatedly by the
Catholic Church, including by Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832:
This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and
erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be
maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs,
though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that
some advantage accrues to religion from it. "But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error,"
as Augustine was wont to say. When all restraints are removed by which
men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already
inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly "the bottomless pit"
is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and
out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence
comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred
things and holy laws -- in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the
state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that
cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of
this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free
speech, and desire for novelty.
This respect for false religions is the work
of Antichrist. It has been a hallmark of the entirety of Joseph
Third, Ratzinger/Benedict endorses the "separation of Church and State," a thesis called absolutely false by Pope Saint Pius X in Vehementer Nos,
February 11, 1906, and rejects the obligation of the civil state to
recognize the Catholic Church as its official religion and to pursue the
common temporal good in light of man's Last End, an obligation
reiterated by pope after pope following the rise of the religiously
indifferentist civil state of Modernity. Consider just one example:
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.)
Ratzinger/Benedict thus mocked
Pope Saint Pius X, who had condemned the very separation of Church and
State in Portugal that Ratzinger had praised for working in a once
Catholic land where it is now legal to kill babies and for those engaged
in perverse acts against nature to "marry:"
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.)
Ratzinger/Benedict, therefore, falls into the category of a social modernist described by Pope Pius XI in Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922 (see: The Binding Nature of Catholic Social Teaching).
Fourth, Joseph Ratzinger has long rejected the
official philosophy of the Catholic Church, the Scholasticism of Saint
Thomas Aquinas, in favor of the condemned precepts of the so-called "New
Theology, the subject of an article, The Memories of a Destructive Mind: Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger's Milestones,
on a Society of Saint Pius X website that may well "disappear"--along
with other "damaging" citations that will have to be removed as part of
the conciliar process of "purification of memory"--once a formal
"regularization" takes place. (See also: Attempting to Coerce Perjury.) This rejection of Scholasticism is, as Pope Saint Pius X noted in Pascendi Dominici Gregis,
a cornerstone of Modernism and is a mockery of the decrees of numerous
popes reaffirming the work of Saint Thomas Aquinas as the sure guarantee
against error. (See Ratzinger's War Against Catholicism.)
Pope Leo XIII summarized the decrees of these popes as follows in Aeterni Patris, August 4, 1879:
But, furthermore, Our predecessors in the Roman
pontificate have celebrated the wisdom of Thomas Aquinas by exceptional
tributes of praise and the most ample testimonials. Clement VI in the
bull 'In Ordine;' Nicholas V in his brief to the friars of the Order of
Preachers, 1451; Benedict XIII in the bull 'Pretiosus,' and others bear
witness that the universal Church borrows luster from his admirable
teaching; while St. Pius V declares in the bull 'Mirabilis' that
heresies, confounded and convicted by the same teaching, were
dissipated, and the whole world daily freed from fatal errors; others,
such as Clement XII in the bull 'Verbo Dei,' affirm that most fruitful
blessings have spread abroad from his writings over the whole Church,
and that he is worthy of the honor which is bestowed on the greatest
Doctors of the Church, on Gregory and Ambrose, Augustine and Jerome;
while others have not hesitated to propose St. Thomas for the exemplar
and master of the universities and great centers of learning whom they
may follow with unfaltering feet. On which point the words of Blessed
Urban V to the University of Toulouse are worthy of recall: 'It is our
will, which We hereby enjoin upon you, that ye follow the teaching of
Blessed Thomas as the true and Catholic doctrine and that ye labor with
all your force to profit by the same.' Innocent XII, followed the
example of Urban in the case of the University of Louvain, in the letter
in the form of a brief addressed to that university on February 6,
1694, and Benedict XIV in the letter in the form of a brief
addressed on August 26, 1752, to the Dionysian College in Granada; while
to these judgments of great Pontiffs on Thomas Aquinas comes the
crowning testimony of Innocent VI: 'is teaching above that of others,
the canonical writings alone excepted, enjoys such a precision of
language, an order of matters, a truth of conclusions, that those who
hold to it are never found swerving from the path of truth, and he who
dare assail it will always be suspected of error.'
The ecumenical councils, also, where
blossoms the flower of all earthly wisdom, have always been careful to
hold Thomas Aquinas in singular honor. In the Councils of Lyons, Vienna,
Florence, and the Vatican one might almost say that Thomas took part
and presided over the deliberations and decrees of the Fathers,
contending against the errors of the Greeks, of heretics and
rationalists, with invincible force and with the happiest results. But
the chief and special glory of Thomas, one which he has shared with none
of the Catholic Doctors, is that the Fathers of Trent made it part of
the order of conclave to lay upon the altar, together with sacred
Scripture and the decrees of the supreme Pontiffs, the 'Summa' of Thomas
Aquinas, whence to seek counsel, reason, and inspiration.
A last triumph was reserved for this incomparable
man -- namely, to compel the homage, praise, and admiration of even the
very enemies of the Catholic name. For it has come to light that there
were not lacking among the leaders of heretical sects some who openly
declared that, if the teaching of Thomas Aquinas were only taken away,
they could easily battle with all Catholic teachers, gain the victory,
and abolish the Church. A vain hope, indeed, but no vain testimony.
(Pope Leo XIII, Aeterni Patris, August 4, 1879.)
Ratzinger/Benedict holds to a view of the Doctrine of Justification
that, in essence, hinges on the belief that the Fathers of the Council
of Trent, who met under the influence and protection of God the Holy
Ghost, were wrong (as is explained in Attempting to Coerce Perjury). See Bishop Donald Sanborn's Critical Analysis of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification.
Sixth, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has dared to disparage Pope Pius IX's The Syllabus of Errors, December 8, 1864, by referring to the texts the "Second" Vatican Council's Gaudium et Spes and Dignitatis Humanae as part of a "countersyllabus of errors:"
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.)
Pope Leo XIII, writing in Custodi di Quella Fede,
December 8, 1864, explained that there can be no "reconciliation"
between the Church and the maxims of the revolutions of Modernity:
Everyone should avoid familiarity or friendship
with anyone suspected of belonging to masonry or to affiliated groups.
Know them by their fruits and avoid them. 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.)
Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has used the cover provided him by the
"non-binding" work of the International Theological Commission and
"pontifical" councils to undermine belief in Limbo, in the unicity of
the Church, in her mission to seek to convert all men, including the
Protestants and the Orthodox, with great urgency and to convince
Catholics that we can "learn" from the "fruit" of "inter-religious
dialogue. Such documents as The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptised and the Balamand Statement and The Ravenna Document contain numerous defections from the Catholic Faith, each of which is
believed whole-heartedly by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI.
The Catholic Church cannot teach error? Quite correct. Quite correct indeed.
Summarizing the Truth in a Nutshell
A reader of this site who resides in Ireland, a man who was born in 1928, I believe, sent me a letter a few days ago that summarized the truth of our situation in this time of apostasy and betrayal very well:
Another item: This was said to be by a public office door-man in the 1980s when we were regretting the rise of vandalism in Dublin. I had said to him: "I remember when there was no vandalism in Dublin." His reply: "Ah! Yeah! But that was before Pope John abolished Religion"! Dubliners are famous for their sharp and accurate wit. Very perspicacious of that man, I think.
That kind of summarizes the whole mess, doesn't it?
The Catholic Church cannot teach error? Quite correct, which is why conciliarism is not and can never be Catholicism:
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.)
We turn, as always to Our Lady, who holds us in the crossing of her arms and in the folds of her mantle. We must, as the consecrated slaves of her Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, through her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, pray as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit, trusting that we might be able to plant a few seeds for the Triumph of that same Immaculate Heart.
We may not see until eternity, please God and by the graces He sends to us through the loving hands of His Most Blessed Mother, the fruit of the seeds we plant by means of our prayers and penances and sacrifices, given unto the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus in this month of June through the Immaculate Heart of Mary. We must remain confident, however, that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ wants to us, as unworthy as we are, to try to plant a few seeds so that more and more Catholics in the conciliar structures, both "priests" and laity alike, will recognize that it is indeed a sin to stand by He is blasphemed by Modernists, that He--and His true priesthood--are to be found in the catacombs where no concessions at all are made to conciliarism or its wolves in shepherds' clothing.
Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!
Viva Cristo Rey!
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!
Saint Joseph, Patron of Departing Souls, 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 Norbert, pray for us.
See also: A Litany of Saints
A Reprise: Mr. Michael Creighton's List of the Errors of the Society of Saint Pius X
Mr. Michael Creighton has catalogued the principle
errors of the Society of Saint Pius X and the ways in which those who
assist at Society chapels justify these errors by way of responding to
an article that appeared last year on the Tradition in Action website:
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
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 point out these positions are against the
Faith, frequently the Hegelian doctrine is employed by those in
attendance at the SSPX chapel.