Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us
                December 9, 2010

Red China: As Red As Ever

by Thomas A. Droleskey

There are times when it is simply not necessary to write an entirely new article on given subject. This is one of those times.

It was a little over eighteen months ago that I wrote Red China: Workshop for the New Ecclesiology, which dealt with a Compendium that had been issued Ratzinger/Benedict's June 30, 2007, Letter to Bishops, Priests, Consecrated Persons and Lay Faithful of Red China more "comprehensible." It is, of course, laughable that an official letter issued by the conciliar "pope" is in need of being made more "comprehensible," which means that the letter itself is full of confusion and ambiguity reflective of the Hegelian world of contradiction and paradox in which the false "pontiff" has ever lived and worked.

As is the case with much else in Ratzinger/Benedict's writing, his Letter to Bishops, Priests, Consecrated Persons and Lay Faithful of Red China is premised upon a view of the world that is simply delusional as it conflicts with the actual facts. Ratzinger/Benedict is a master of projecting his own conciliar desires for the world upon others, clueless, it appears, to the truth that the Church's enemies (whether they be adherents of the Talmud or Mohammedans or Communists or Freemasons, et al.) are not interested even in their Modernist version of Catholicism.

Consider this passage from Ratzinger/Benedict's Letter to Bishops, Priests, Consecrated Persons and Lay Faithful of Red China to illustrate this point:

Considering in the first place some positive developments of the situation of the Church in China, and in the second place the increased opportunities and greater ease in communication, and finally the requests sent to Rome by various Bishops and priests, I hereby revoke all the faculties previously granted in order to address particular pastoral necessities that emerged in truly difficult times.

Let the same be applied to all directives of a pastoral nature, past and recent. The doctrinal principles that inspired them now find a new application in the directives contained herein. (Letter to Bishops, Priests, Consecrated Persons and Lay Faithful of Red China, June 30, 2007.


Positive developments?

Here, behold the "positive developments" that exist only in the positivistic mind of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI:

Rome (AsiaNews) - AsiaNews sources are reporting that the official bishop of Hengshui was forcibly removed from his residence by police and taken to an isolated location. The police had besieged the prelate’s house for hours, struggling against believers and priests who had formed a wall in an attempt to defend the freedom of their bishop.

Another bishop of Cangzhou, has disappeared and the police threatened the diocese: either he hands himself in to police custody or they will issue an arrest warrant throughout China identifying him as a "dangerous wanted criminal."

In a format reminiscent of the period of the Cultural Revolution, these events took place today.

Everything is due to the forthcoming meeting of the representatives of Chinese Catholics, which the Patriotic Association wants to force official Chinese bishops to attend to elect the presidents of the PA and the Council of Bishops, the Pope defines both bodies as against the Catholic faith, because they aim to create a Church independent of Rome.

To ensure even a meager participation, the PA has put under house arrest some of the bishops who participated in the illicit ordination of Chengde, on 20 November. On that occasion, eight bishops were kidnapped and forced to attend the ceremony, condemned by the Holy See as "a serious violation of religious freedom."

Since the illicit ordination, Mgr. Hengshui Feng Xinmao had been kept in isolation, banned from seeing any faithful, under constant police supervision. Days ago a very elderly priest of his diocese died, and the bishop asked to at least be allowed to celebrate the funeral. After much resistance from the police, and his threat to carry out a hunger strike, he was granted permission. At the end of the funeral the faithful and the priests surrounded him and brought him to the episcopate, from where he had been missing for nearly a month and set up a watch to make sure he would not be placed in isolation again. The police besieged the bishop's house, and after several hours managed to take the bishop back to prison.

The other episode involves Mgr. Li Lianggui, bishop of Cangzhou. After the illicit ordination, the bishop disappeared, perhaps because he didn’t want to be forced to take part in the meeting of representatives of Chinese Catholics. The police, after having searched throughout the diocese, threatened all the faithful either he hands himself into police custody or they will issue an arrest warrant throughout China identifying him as a "dangerous wanted criminal.  (The return of the Cultural Revolution: Chinese bishops imprisoned or hunted like criminals.)

Beijing (AsiaNews) – The eighth National Assembly of Catholic Representatives in China began in Beijing on Tuesday afternoon at the Friendship Hotel, in the city’s Haidian district. Its high-sounding goal is “to support patriotism and independent Church principles, resist outside forces and unite all clergy and Catholics to walk the path of socialist society.”

In Chinese Communist terminology, “independence” means autonomy and separation from Rome. “Outside forces” refer to the Vatican and the Holy See, which exercising their Ecclesial ministry, are guilty of “undue colonial influence” on the Chinese Church, this according to the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association (CCPA).

CCPA vice president Liu Bainian chaired the assembly’s opening session. Bishop Fang Xinyao of Linyi (Shandong) delivered the opening address; Bishop Ma Yinglin of Kunming (Yunnan) read a report on the association’s activities; Bishop Zhan Silu of Mindong (Fujian) explained the revisions to the constitutions of the CCPA and the Bishops’ Conference. Both Ma and Zhan were unlawfully ordained in 2006 and 2000 respectively.

In his Letter to Chinese Catholics, Benedict XVI said that the CCPA and the Bishops’ Conference as well as the Assembly of Catholic Representatives are organisations whose purpose is “irreconcilable” with the Catholic faith. For this reason, the Vatican back in March told Chinese prelates not to attend the event.

For the past four years, the Assembly has had to be postponed because official bishops had refused to participate, following directives from the Holy See.

According to China’s State Administration for Religious Affairs (SARA), 341 people from 31 provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities are "nominated or invited members" at the assembly. They include 64 bishops, 162 priests, 24 nuns and 91 laypeople. It is unclear whether the number 64 refers to bishops invited or actually present.

As AsiaNews has already reported, a number of bishops have gone into hiding or called in sick to avoid being dragged to Beijing. Others have been forcibly taken by government officials. Some, knowing that they could not refuse, came on their own but have refused to concelebrate Masses because of the presence of excommunicated bishops.

Zhu Weiqun of the United Front’s Work Department, Wang Zuo’an, SARA chief, and Jiang Yongjian, SARA vice director were present at the opening ceremony. In his speech, Wang praised the Communist Party and government for the respect they show to the Catholic religion and the interests of Chinese Catholics. Leaders of Protestant, Buddhist, Taoist and Muslim organizations were also present.

In Hong Kong, members of the Catholic Justice and Peace Commission staged a protest outside China’s Liaison Office. Demonstrators stressed that the three-day assembly violates Catholic Canon Law and undermines the freedom and normal operation of the Catholic Church.

They also noted that Chinese authorities had to use violence and pressure to coerce bishops and lay people into coming, holding some in isolation or taking them into custody, violating the religious freedom and rights of Chinese Catholics.

The commission called for the release of detained clergymen, including Baoding’s Bishop Su Zhimin, Father Lu Genjun, Father Ma Wuyong and Father Liu Honggeng, as well as Bishop Shi Enxiang of Yixian.  (Chinese patriotic assembly gets underway to build Church independent of the Vatican.)


Ah, but didn't Ratzinger/Benedict encourage Catholics in the underground church in Red China to "cooperate" with the Communist authorities. Yes, he certainly did:


The history of the Church teaches us, then, that authentic communion is not expressed without arduous efforts at reconciliation . Indeed, the purification of memory, the pardoning of wrong-doers, the forgetting of injustices suffered and the loving restoration to serenity of troubled hearts, all to be accomplished in the name of Jesus crucified and risen, can require moving beyond personal positions or viewpoints, born of painful or difficult experiences. These are urgent steps that must be taken if the bonds of communion between the faithful and the Pastors of the Church in China are to grow and be made visible. (Letter to Bishops, Priests, Consecrated Persons and Lay Faithful of Red China)


As I noted eighteen months ago now, in other words, Ratzinger/Benedict is telling the members of the underground Church in Red China that it is up to them to make "visible" a "communion" with the "pastors"of the rump church that supports the Communist regime's "population control" policies. "Communion" depends upon them being willing to forgive past--and present!--injustices as well as to forget the inconvenient truth that the most of the leaders of the rump church defect from several of the Church's defined teachings on Faith and Morals, placing them totally outside of the pale of the Catholic Church, as Pope Leo XIII noted in Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896.

Ratzinger/Benedict is telling the long-suffering Catholics in the underground Church in Red China that their suffering is appreciated and noted. It is time, however, to "move on" and purify "memories" so that a "reconciliation" based on a deliberate and calculated overlooking of defections from Faith and Morals on the part of the rump church in China can take place, leaving to a later date--perhaps--"discussions" on the more "delicate" matters that might seem to the Communist authorities to be an "interference" in their "internal affairs." Just be quiet, therefore, don't complain about the government's "population control policies," be good citizens and be content that you have the sacraments and are in "communion" with your fellow Chinese Catholics.

An unfair reading of Ratzinger/Benedict's June 30, 2007 letter. Read this footnote from the recently released Compendium and decide for yourselves:

We can see that the Holy Father is talking about a spiritual reconciliation, which can and must take place now, even before a structural merger of official and unofficial Catholic communities takes place. As a matter of fact, the Holy Father seems to make a distinction between “a spiritual reconciliation” and “a structural merger”. He recognizes that the reconciliation is like a journey that “cannot be accomplished overnight” (6.6): however, he emphasizes that the steps to be taken on the way are necessary and urgent, and cannot therefore be postponed because - or on the pretext that - they are difficult since they require the overcoming of personal positions or views. Times and ways may vary according to local situations, but the commitment to reconciliation cannot be abandoned. This path of reconciliation, furthermore, cannot be limited to the spiritual realm of prayer alone but must also be expressed through practical steps of effective ecclesial communion (exchange of experiences, sharing of pastoral projects, common initiatives, etc.). Finally, it should not be forgotten that all without exception are invited to engage in these steps: Bishops, priests, religious and lay faithful. It is by means of practical steps that spiritual reconciliation, including visible reconciliation, will gradually occur, which will culminate one day in the complete structural unity of every diocesan community around its one Bishop and of every diocesan community with each other and with the universal Church. In this context, it is licit and fitting to encourage clergy and lay faithful to make gestures of forgiveness and reconciliation in this direction. (Footnote 2, Compendium, pp. 8-9.)


This footnote reflects entirely Joseph Ratzinger's abject rejection of the "ecumenism of the return." Ratzinger/Benedict believes that people are gradually "absorbed" into the Church by means of "perfecting" their "communion" with other Christians. This is heretical. This is condemned by the authority of the Catholic Church. Yet it is of the essence of Ratzinger/Benedict's theology, which is reflected so completely in his June 30, 2007, Letter to Bishops, Priests, Consecrated Persons and Lay Faithful of Red China and in the Compendium released on May 24, 2009.

After all, it is "reconciliation" and "love" that matters the most, although Catholics understand that true love of God can never sanction anything that is offensive to Him, making, therefore, Ratzinger's appeal for a "reconciliation" with authorities of a rump church who support (or are silent about) government polices contrary to Faith and Morals nothing other than an exercise in pure subjectivism.

Ratzinger/Benedict's subjectivism is further displayed when he vitiates his earlier affirmation of Papal Primacy when excusing Catholics who seek out the sacraments from "pastors" who are not in "communion" with the Roman Pontiff, who he believes himself to be:

In not a few situations, then, you have faced the problem of concelebration of the Eucharist. In this regard, I remind you that this presupposes, as conditions, profession of the same faith and hierarchical communion with the Pope and with the universal Church. Therefore it is licit to concelebrate with Bishops and with priests who are in communion with the Pope, even if they are recognized by the civil authorities and maintain a relationship with entities desired by the State and extraneous to the structure of the Church, provided – as was said earlier (cf. section 7 above, paragraph 8) – that this recognition and this relationship do not entail the denial of unrenounceable principles of the faith and of ecclesiastical communion.

The lay faithful too, who are animated by a sincere love for Christ and for the Church, must not hesitate to participate in the Eucharist celebrated by Bishops and by priests who are in full communion with the Successor of Peter and are recognized by the civil authorities. The same applies for all the other sacraments.

Concerning Bishops whose consecrations took place without the pontifical mandate yet respecting the Catholic rite of episcopal ordination, the resulting problems must always be resolved in the light of the principles of Catholic doctrine. Their ordination – as I have already said (cf. section 8 above, paragraph 12) – is illegitimate but valid, just as priestly ordinations conferred by them are valid, and sacraments administered by such Bishops and priests are likewise valid. Therefore the faithful, taking this into account, where the eucharistic celebration and the other sacraments are concerned, must, within the limits of the possible, seek Bishops and priests who are in communion with the Pope: nevertheless, where this cannot be achieved without grave inconvenience, they may, for the sake of their spiritual good, turn also to those who are not in communion with the Pope.  (Letter to Bishops, Priests, Consecrated Persons and Lay Faithful of Red China. )


Never mind the fact that the rump church in Red China is a tool of the government. Never mind that there might be some "differences" between the teachings of the rump church in Red China and the Catholic Church. These differences do not matter to Ratzinger/Benedict unless they involve a "denial of unrenounceable principles of the faith and of ecclesiastical communion," although there is not one article of the Faith that is "renounceable." For if it is permissible to participate in the liturgical services of heretics who defect from the Catholic Faith, then Pope Saint Pius V was himself wrong when he told Catholics, many of whom did not look forward to heavy fines or the confiscation of their properties or imprisonment or martyrdom--or all of those things, in England not to assist at the liturgies of the heretical and schismatic Anglican Church.

Or, my friends, is that what Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is saying? Is he saying, as he made reference to in his Explanatory Letter on "Summorum Pontificum, that he is doing now what others did not do in the past, that is, being willing to "bend" a little bit on some points in order to effect a "reconciliation" which comes at the price of truth itself? What an affront to the witness of the martyrs over the history of the Church, including the martyrs of the underground Church in Red China in the past sixty years, who refused to make one compromise with error or heresy or any interference at all on the part of the civil state with the life and mission of the Catholic Church.

Then again, of course, the counterfeit church of conciliarism is "rife" with members in "good standing" who support some of the very evils promoted by the Communist regime in Red China. Others are in "good standing" despite supporting the promotion of perversity under cover of the civil law. Thus it is that the late Edward Moore Kennedy and John F. Kerry and Mario Matthew Cuomo and Andrew Cuomo and Nancy Patricia D'Alesandro Pelosi and David Paterson and Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., and Arnold Schwarzenegger and Richard Durbin and Thomas Harkin and Jim Doyle and Kathleen Sebelius and Jennifer Granholm and Christopher Dodd, et al., can retain their "good standing" despite their open support for baby-killing and perversity under cover of the civil law.

"Father" John Jenkins, C.S.C.,, is considered to be a "fit" president of an allegedly Catholic University, the University of Notre Dame, after bestowing an award upon a man, Barack Hussein Obama, who is at war with God by means of supporting--and issuing Executive Orders permitting--the slaughter of the preborn under cover of the civil law.

Former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Tony Blair was "received" into the counterfeit church of conciliarism without renouncing his support for baby-killing under cover of the civil law.

Conciliar "bishops," are permitted to renounce that are supposed to part of the "official" doctrines of the Catholic Church that have been maintained by the counterfeit church of conciliarism. Robert Zollitsch maintains his own "good standing" despite having denied that Our Lord died in atonement for our sins.

There is, you see, quite a bit of logic involved in requesting the Catholics of the underground church in Red China to join up with the rump church that promotes some of the very evils that are support by "Catholics" in the counterfeit church of conciliarism without forfeiting their place in the One World Church of Ecumenism born of the new ecclesiology.

There is thus no support for the contention made in the AsiaNews spin-doctored reporting that the developments now occurring in Red China run contrary to the spirit of Ratzinger/Benedict's June 30, 2007, Letter to Bishops, Priests, Consecrated Persons and Lay Faithful of Red China. Indeed, what is occurring at the present time in Red China is the direct result of Ratzinger/Benedict's attempted appeasement of the murderous Communist thugs who are the illicit rulers of the people of China, men and women who have no interest in ceding any ground to the conciliar Vatican. These tyrants have been emboldened by Ratzinger/Benedict's appeasement, just as those who are unrepentant supporters of the lavender agenda in the conciliar structures have been emboldened by the false "pontiff's" comments about prophylactics to continue their promotion of evil as they break down whatever resistance is left to them by portraying themselves as agents of "tolerance" and "love" and "compassion" and "diversity."


In appeasing the Red Chinese leaders as he has, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has had to ignore Pope Pius XI's absolute prohibition against any and all cooperation with Communist regimes whatsoever:

See to it, Venerable Brethren, that the Faithful do not allow themselves to be deceived! Communism is intrinsically wrong, and no one who would save Christian civilization may collaborate with it in any undertaking whatsoever. Those who permit themselves to be deceived into lending their aid towards the triumph of Communism in their own country, will be the first to fall victims of their error. And the greater the antiquity and grandeur of the Christian civilization in the regions where Communism successfully penetrates, so much more devastating will be the hatred displayed by the godless. (Pope Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris, March 19, 1937.)


Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, believing in conciliarism's tolerant attitude about errors and the necessity of entering into "dialogue" with those who hold them so that we can "understand" them better, is one of the most deceived men on the face of this earth. His "new ecclesiology," an essential building block of the "DNA" of conciliarism, is from Hell itself.

Renouncing the Social Reign of Christ the King and the Conversion of Red China

Let me conclude this brief article with the exact words written eighteen months ago:

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who believes in the separation of Church and State that was called a "thesis absolutely false" by Pope Saint Pius X in Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906, renounced all claims to the conversion of Red China and thus of the Social Reign of Christ the King when he wrote the following in his Letter to Bishops, Priests, Consecrated Persons and Lay Faithful of Red China:

As far as relations between the political community and the Church in China are concerned, it is worth calling to mind the enlightening teaching of the Second Vatican Council, which states: "The Church, by reason of her role and competence, is not identified with any political community nor is she tied to any political system. She is at once the sign and the safeguard of the transcendental dimension of the human person". And the Council continues: "The political community and the Church are autonomous and independent of each other in their own fields. They are both at the service of the personal and social vocation of the same individuals, though under different titles. Their service will be more efficient and beneficial to all if both institutions develop better cooperation according to the circumstances of place and time"

Likewise, therefore, the Catholic Church which is in China does not have a mission to change the structure or administration of the State; rather, her mission is to proclaim Christ to men and women, as the Saviour of the world, basing herself – in carrying out her proper apostolate – on the power of God. As I recalled in my Encyclical Deus Caritas Est, "The Church cannot and must not take upon herself the political battle to bring about the most just society possible. She cannot and must not replace the State. Yet at the same time she cannot and must not remain on the sidelines in the fight for justice. She has to play her part through rational argument and she has to reawaken the spiritual energy without which justice, which always demands sacrifice, cannot prevail and prosper. A just society must be the achievement of politics, not of the Church. Yet the promotion of justice through efforts to bring about openness of mind and will to the demands of the common good is something which concerns the Church deeply.


Apostasy. The Catholic Church has a mission from her Divine Founder and Invisible Head to convert all men and all nations to the true Faith. The just society is the result of the growth of the Faith in a country, not of politics.

Ratzinger/Benedict categorizes the murderous regime in Red China as nothing other than another kind of "structure" or "administration" of a civil state. It is nothing of the sort. It is an illegitimate regime that seized power by brute force, shedding the blood of millions upon millions of innocent human beings in the process, and it has maintained itself in power by those same means, enabled in the past thirty-seven years by one American presidential administration after another and by large multinational corporations who have exploited the availability of cheap labor in Red China to manufacture substandard merchandise and to produce a food supply that is, in many instances, replete with toxins that have actually killed people.

The government of the "People"s Republic of China is not based on "neutral" principles of garden-variety naturalism, not that those "ordinary" principles of naturalism are not offensive to God and harmful to social order, of course. The government of Red China is based on a specific and categorical rejection of God by an insistence upon the primacy of the civil state over its citizens. It is an evil regime from beginning to end, and it must be the duty of each Catholic in China to pray for an end ot the reign of Communist terror there and to the conversion of this land to the true Faith.

The Catholic Church does not use "force" to effect such conversions. She uses the graces won for us on the wood of the Holy Cross by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and that flow into our hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces, to effect such conversions, aided by the blood of the martyrs who refused to compromise one little bit with evil regimes. The Catholic Church seeks the establishment of the Social Reign of Christ the King all nations as each civil government in the world recognizes her as the true religion and as its rulers stand ready to yield to her maternal intervention, exercised judiciously and rarely only after the exhausting of her Indirect Power of teaching and preaching and exhortation, when the good of souls demands such intervention.

Quite opposed to the apostate spirit of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, Pope Saint Pius X wrote the following in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910:

But, on the contrary, by ignoring the laws governing human nature and by breaking the bounds within which they operate, the human person is lead, not toward progress, but towards death. This, nevertheless, is what they want to do with human society; they dream of changing its natural and traditional foundations; they dream of a Future City built on different principles, and they dare to proclaim these more fruitful and more beneficial than the principles upon which the present Christian City rests.

No, Venerable Brethren, We must repeat with the utmost energy in these times of social and intellectual anarchy when everyone takes it upon himself to teach as a teacher and lawmaker - the City cannot be built otherwise than as God has built it; society cannot be setup unless the Church lays the foundations and supervises the work; no, civilization is not something yet to be found, nor is the New City to be built on hazy notions; it has been in existence and still is: it is Christian civilization, it is the Catholic City. It has only to be set up and restored continually against the unremitting attacks of insane dreamers, rebels and miscreants. Omnia instaurare in Christo.


Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI does not believe this. He is an apostate.

Caught In the Diabolical Grip of Two Revolutions

The Catholics who remained faithful to the Church in the years following the Maoist Revolution that took control of mainland China October 1, 1949, longed to cling to the Successor of Saint Peter, the Vicar of Christ on earth. Struggling to survive in the midst of terrible persecutions and to practice their Faith as faithfully as they could, Catholics in the underground Church in Red China looked to the Holy Father, Pope Pius XII, for support and consolation and encouragement in the midst of the terrible sufferings that were being visited upon them. They, like most other Catholics in the world,. believed that the men who "succeeded" Pope Pius XII were true and legitimate Successors of Saint Peter, which is why they accepted the conciliar changes.

After all, the devil's men in Peking (now rendered Beijing in English) told Catholics in Red China them that they could not adhere to the Vicar of Christ. These Catholics wanted to demonstrate their loyalty to the men whom they believed to be the Supreme Pastors during their respective false "pontificates." They went along with the changes without realizing that they had been trapped by the devil into believing that the changes he effected as a result of the "Second" Vatican Council and its "popes" thereafter were from God Himself, who is immutable, and that it was necessary to oppose his, the devil's agents in Red China by going along with the conciliar revolution against the Catholic Faith in the name of "loyalty" to the Church.

Catholics in the underground Church in Red China have been struggling to survive. They have not had access to the information that most of us in other parts of the world have been able to access. We must pray to Our Lady, the Queen of the Apostles, that the truth of our ecclesiastical situation will be made manifest to the Catholics in Red China so that they can recognize that Ratzinger/Benedict is not a true Successor of Saint Peter, simply another kind of revolutionary, one who has made war against Catholicism throughout his priesthood, as demonstrated earlier in this article. We need to pray as well that these Catholics will be the beneficiaries of the Triumph of Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart sooner rather than later.

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

The final victory belongs to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. We must pray to her so that we can be instruments, unworthy though we may be, of planting the seeds for the restoration of Holy Mother Church and of the Social Reign of Christ the King so that everyone in the whole will exclaim with hearts consecrated to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary:

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

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 Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?



Selling Out to Communists Over and Over Again

The counterfeit church of conciliarism has sold out to Communists over and over again, continuing in a much more overt manner a form of "diplomacy" that had its roots in the Vatican's Secretariat of State as early as the pontificate of Pope Saint Pius XI and continued during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII, especially by means of the machinations of one Monsignor Giovanni Battista Montini, the future antipope Paul VI. A very good history of this legacy of compromise--and of a refusal to fulfill Our Lady's Fatima Message can be find in an English language reprint of a Si, Si, No, No article, "The Blindness of Catholics and the Social Kingship of Christ."

The counterfeit church of conciliarism wasted no time in turning a policy of failed diplomacy into one of outright surrender to the forces of Soviet Communism.

Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII, long a friend of Italian Communists and Socialists assisted by another friend of the Communists and Socialists, the Archbishop of Milan, the aforementioned Giovanni Montini, agreed to exchange absolute silence about evil of Communism at the "Second" Vatican Council in exchange for the presence of "observers" from the Russian Orthodox Church:

In preparation for the Council, Catholic bishops around the world were polled by mail by the Office of the Secretariat to learn their opinions on topics to be considered at the Council. Communism topped the list.

However, as documented in the previous chapter, at the instigation of Cardinal Montini, two months before the opening of the Council, Pope John XXIII approved the signing of the Metz Accord with Moscow officials, whereby the Soviets would permit two representatives from the Russian State Church to attend the Council in exchange for absolute and total silence at the Council on the subject of Communism/Marxism.

With the exceptions of Cardinal Montini, who instructed Pope John to enter into negotiations with the Soviets, Cardinal Eugene Tisserant, who signed the Accord, and Bishop Jan Willebrands, who made the final contacts with the representatives of the Russian State Church, the Church Fathers at the Council were ignorant of the existence and nature of the Metz Agreement and the horrendous betrayal that it represented. (Mrs. Randy Engel, The Rite of Sodomy, pp. 1135-1136)

Why didn’t the last Ecumenical Council condemn Communism? A secret accord made at Metz supplies an answer. 

Those who pass by the convent of the Little Sisters of the Poor in Borny - on the outskirts of the French city of Metz - never imagine that something of transcendental importance occurred in the residence of Fr. Lagarde, the convent’s chaplain. In a hall of this religious residence in August 1962 - two months before Vatican Council II opened - a secret meeting of the greatest importance between two high-ranking personalities took place.

One dignitary was a Cardinal of the Curia, Eugène Tisserant, representing Pope John XXIII; the other was metropolitan Nikodin, who spoke in the name of the Russian Schismatic Church.

This encounter had consequences that changed the direction of Council, which was already prepared to open. In effect, the meeting at Metz determined a change in the trajectory of the very History of the Church in the 20th century.

What was the matter of such great importance that was resolved at his meeting? Based on the documents that are known today, there it was established that Communism would not be condemned by Vatican Council II. In 1962, The Vatican and the Schismatic Russian Church came to an agreement. According to its terms, the Russian “Orthodox Church” agreed to send observers to Vatican II under the condition that no condemnation whatsoever of communism should be made there (1). 1. Ulysses Floridi, Moscou et le Vatican, Paris: France-Empire, Paris, 1979, pp. 147-48; Romano Amerio, Iota Unum, K.C., MO: Sarto House, 1996, pp. 75-76; Ricardo de la Cierva, Oscura rebelion en la Iglesia, Barcelona: Plaza & Janes, 1987, pp. 580-81. And why were the consequences of such a pact so far-reaching and important?

Because in the 20th century a principal enemy of the Catholic Church was Communism. As such, until Vatican II it had been condemned numerous times by the Magisterium. Moreover, in the early ’60s a new condemnation would have been quite damaging, since Communism was passing through a serious crisis, both internally and externally. On one hand, it was losing credibility inside the USSR since the people were becoming increasingly discontent with the horrendous administrative results of 45 years of Communist demagogy. On the other hand, outside the USSR Communism had not been able to persuade the workers and poor of free countries to take up its banner. In fact, up until that time it had never won a free election. Therefore, the leaders of international Communism decided that it was time to begin to change the appearances of the regime in order to retain the power they had and to experiment with new methods of conquest. So in the ‘60s President Nikita Khrushchev suddenly began to smile and talk about dialogue (2). 2. Plinio Correa de Oliveira, Unperceived Ideological Transshipment and Dialogue, New York: Crusade for a Christian Civilization, 1982, pp. 8-15. This would have been a particularly inopportune moment for the Pope or the Council to issue a formal condemnation, which could have either seriously damaged or possibly even destroyed the Communist regime.

A half secret act

Speaking about the liberty at Vatican II to deal with diverse topics, Professor Romano Amerio revealed some previously unpublished facts. “The salient and half secret point that should be noted,” he stated, “is the restriction on the Council’s liberty to which John XXIII had agreed a few months earlier, in making an accord with the Orthodox Church by which the patriarchate of Moscow accepted the papal invitation to send observers to the Council, while the Pope for his part guaranteed the Council would refrain from condemning Communism. The negotiations took place at Metz in August 1962, and all the details of time and place were given at a press conference by Mgr. Paul Joseph Schmitt, the Bishop of that Diocese [newspaper Le Lorrain, 2/9/63]. The negotiations ended in an agreement signed by metropolitan Nikodim for the Orthodox Church and Cardinal Tisserant, the Dean of the Sacred College of Cardinals, for the Holy See.    

“News of the agreement was given in the France Nouvelle, the central bulletin of the French communist party in the edition of January 16-22, 1963 in these terms: ‘Because the world socialist system is showing its superiority in an uncontestable fashion, and is strong through the support of hundreds and hundreds of millions of men, the Church can no longer be content with a crude anti-communism. As part of its dialogue with the Russian Orthodox Church, it has even promised there will be no direct attack on the Communist system at the Council.’ On the Catholic side, the daily La Croix of February 15, 1963 gave notice of the agreement, concluding: “‘As a consequence of this conversation, Msgr. Nikodim agreed that someone should go to Moscow carrying an invitation, on condition that guarantees were given concerning the apolitical attitude of the Council.’

“Moscow’s condition, namely that the Council should say nothing about Communism, was not, therefore, a secret, but the isolated publication of it made no impression on general opinion, as it was not taken up by the press at large and circulated, either because of the apathetic and anaesthetized attitude to Communism common in clerical circles or because the Pope took action to impose silence in the matter. Nonetheless, the agreement had a powerful, albeit silent, effect on the course of the Council when requests for a renewal of the condemnation of Communism were rejected in order to observe this agreement to say nothing about it” (3). 3. Romano Amerio, Iota Unum, pp. 65-66. Thus the Council, which made statements on capitalism and colonialism, said nothing specific about the greatest evil of the age, Communism. While the Vatican Monsignors were smiling at the Russian Schismatic representatives, many Bishops were in prison and innumerable faithful were either persecuted or driven underground for their fidelity to the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

The Kremlin-Vatican negotiations

This important information about Vatican-Kremlin negotiations is confirmed in an article ‘The mystery of the Rome-Moscow pact’ published in the October 1989 issue of 30 Dias, which quotes statements made by the Bishop of Metz, Paul Joseph Schmitt. In a February 9, 1963 interview with the newspaper Republicain Lorrain, Mgr. Schmitt said:

“It was in our region that the ‘secret’ meeting of Cardinal Tisserant with archbishop Nikodin occurred. The exact place was the residence of Fr. Lagarde, chaplain for the Little Sister of the Poor in Borny [on the outskirts of Metz]. Here for the first time the arrival of the prelates of the Russian Church was mentioned. After this meeting, the conditions for the presence of the Russian church’s observers were established by Cardinal Willebrands, an assistant of Cardinal Bea. Archbishop Nikodin agreed that an official invitation should be sent to Moscow, with the guarantee of the apolitical character of the Council” (4). 4. 30 Dias, October 1988, pp. 55-56.


The same source also transcribed a letter of Bishop Georges Roches regarding the Pact of Metz:

“That accord was negotiated between the Kremlin and the Vatican at the highest level .… But I can assure you …. that the decision to invite Russian Orthodox observers to Vatican Council II was made personally by His Holiness John XXIII with the encouragement of Cardinal Montini, who was counselor to the Patriarch of Venice when he was Archbishop of Milan…. Cardinal Tisserant received formal orders to negotiate the accord and to make sure that it would be observed during the Council” (5). 5. Ibid. p. 57

In a book published some time after this, German theologian Fr. Bernard Häring - who was secretary-coordinator at the Council for the redaction of Gaudium et Spes - revealed the more profound reason for the ‘pigeon-holing’ of a petition that many conciliar Fathers signed asking Paul VI and the Council to condemn Communism: “When around two dozen Bishops requested a solemn condemnation of Communism,” stated Fr. Häring, “Msgr. Glorieux …. and I were blamed like scapegoats. I have no reason to deny that I did everything possible to avoid this condemnation, which rang out clearly like a political condemnation. I knew that John XXIII had promised Moscow authorities that the Council would not condemn communism in order to assure the participation of observers of the Russian Orthodox church” (6). . . .

1. Catholic doctrine has always emphatically condemned Communism. It would be possible, should it be necessary, to publish a small book composed exclusively of anti-communist pontifical documents.

2. It would have been natural, therefore, for Vatican Council II, which met in Rome from 1962 to 1965, to have confirmed these condemnations against the greatest enemy of the Church and Christian Civilization in the 20th century.

3. In addition to this, 213 Cardinals, Archbishops, and Bishop solicited Paul VI to have the Council make such a condemnation. Later, 435 Conciliar Fathers repeated the same request. The two petitions were duly delivered within the time limits established by the Internal Guidelines of the Council. Nonetheless, inexplicably, neither petition ever came up for debate. The first was not taken into consideration. As for the second, after the Council had closed, it was alleged that it had been “lost” by Mgr. Achille Glorieux, secretary of the commission that would have been entrusted with the request.

4. The Council closed without making any express censure of Communism. Why was no censure made? The matter seemed wrapped in an enigmatic fog. Only later did these significant facts on the topic appear. The point of my article is to gather and present information from several different sources for the consideration of my reader. How can the actions of the Catholic Prelates who inspired, ordered, followed and maintained the decisions of the Pact of Metz be explained? I leave the answer to my reader.  (The Council of Metz)


The future Paul VI, Monsignor Giovanni Battista Montini, directly betrayed Catholic priests sent behind the Iron Curtain by Pope Pius XII, effectively sentencing these priests to death or imprisonment:

An elderly gentleman from Paris who worked as an official interpreter for high-level clerics at the Vatican in the early 1950s told this writer that the Soviets blackmailed Montini into revealing the names of priests whom the Vatican had clandestinely sent behind the Iron Curtain to minister to Catholics in the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The Soviet secret police were on hand as soon as the priests crossed over the Russian border and the priest infiltrators were either shot or sent to the gulag.

The extent to which Pope Paul VI was subject to blackmail by the enemies of the Church will probably never be known. It may be that, in so far as the Communists and the Socialists were concerned, blackmail was entirely unnecessary given Montini's cradle to grave fascination and affinity for the Left. On the other hand, the Italian Freemasons, M16, the OSS and later the CIA and the Mafia were likely to have used blackmail and extortion against Montini beginning early in his career as a junior diplomat, then as Archbishop of Milan and finally as Pope Paul VI. (Randy Engel, The Rite of Sodomy, p.1156.)


Giovanni Montini/Paul VI engaged in a policy of Communist surrender known as Ostpolitik (East politics) wherein he appointed men as "bishops" in Communist countries behind the Iron Curtain who were friendly to, if not actual agents of, the Communist authorities in those countries. These "bishops" had a perverse "apostolic mandate," if you will, given then sub secreto by Montini: never criticize Communism or any Communist officials. In other words, be good stooges for various "people's" and "democratic" republics in exchange for promoting the false "gospel" of conciliarism.

It was also Montini/Paul VI who sold out the courageous Jozsef Cardinal Mindszenty, the Primate of Hungary and the Archbishop of Budapest, Josef Cardinal Mindszenty when the latter, after taking refuge in the American Embassy in Budapest for a decade following the Hungarian Revolution in October of 1956, was forced out of the American Embassy as a result of Vatican pressure and then, after being told by Montini/Paul VI that he remained as the Archbishop of Budapest, as his primatial see was declared vacant by the theologically, liturgically and morally corrupt Montini.

This scenario is described by an sedeplenist, Dr. Steve O'Brien, in a review of two motion pictures about the life of Jozsef Cardinal Mindszenty:

The Prisoner, as it happened, was wrapped too soon because Mindszenty's story, which had seemed to be fini, had scarcely begun. By 1956 Stalin was dead and Khrushchev was making some unusual noises. In October the Hungarians rose in revolt. Mindszenty had no clue of what was happening on the street; his guards told him that the rabble outside the prison was shouting for his blood. A few days later he was released and indeed a mob of locals set upon him. But instead of ripping his flesh they grabbed at the liberated hero to kiss his clothes. When he returned to Budapest the deposed Reds quivered over this ghost who would not stay buried, but in a radio broadcast he counseled against revenge. The Soviets were not so forgiving, and tanks rumbled to crush this unpleasant incident. A marked man, Mindszenty sought asylum in the American embassy as his last resort. Now a second long Purgatory had begun. Pius spoke out repeatedly against this latest example of Soviet terror but the West, heedless of its own liberation rhetoric, was deaf.

When The Prisoner was released, the Church was still the implacable foe of communism. Frail Pius stood as a Colossus against both right and left totalitarianism. When Pius departed this world there ensued a moral void in the Vatican that has never been filled. By the early 1960s both the Western governments and the Novus Ordo popes decided that accommodation with the Communists was preferable to the archaic notions of Pius and Mindszenty. John XXIII and successor Paul VI welcomed a breath of fresh air into the Church, and that odor included cooperation with the Reds. The new Ostpolitik, managed by Paul's Secretary of State Agostino Casaroli, hadn't room for Christian warriors of Mindszenty's stamp. The position of the Hungarian government was strengthened when Casaroli entered negotiations with the appalling regime of Janos Kadar. As the Cold War thawed, the freeze was put on Mindszenty. The American government made it understood that he was no longer welcome at the embassy. Worse still, Paul sent a functionary to persuade Mindszenty to leave, but only after signing a document full of stipulations that favored the Reds and essentially blaming himself for his ordeal. The confession that the Communists could not torture out of him was being forced on him by the Pope!

Driven from his native land against his wishes, Mindszenty celebrated Mass in Rome with Paul on October 23, 1971. The Pope told him, "You are and remain archbishop of Esztergom and primate of Hungary." It was the Judas kiss. For two years Mindszenty traveled, a living testament to truth, a man who had been scourged, humiliated, imprisoned and finally banished for the Church's sake. In the fall of 1973, as he prepared to publish his Memoirs, revealing the entire story to the world, he suffered the final betrayal. Paul, fearful that the truth would upset the new spirit of coexistence with the Marxists, "asked" Mindszenty to resign his office. When Mindszenty refused, Paul declared his See vacant, handing the Communists a smashing victory.

If Mindszenty's story is that of the rise and fall of the West's resistance to communism it is also the chronicle of Catholicism's self-emasculation. In the 1950s a man such as Mindszenty could be portrayed as a hero of Western culture even though both American and English history is rife with hatred toward the Church. When the political mood changed to one of coexistence and detente rather than containment, Mindszenty became an albatross to the appeasers and so the Pilates of government were desperate to wash their hands of him. Still, politicians are not expected to act on principle, and therefore the Church's role in Mindszenty's agony is far more damning.

Since movies, for good or ill, have a pervasive influence on American culture, perhaps a serious film that told Mindszenty's whole story could have some effect on the somnolent Catholics in the West. Guilty of Treason and The Prisoner are artifacts of their day. An updated film that follows the prelate through his embassy exile and his pathetic end would be a heart-wrenching drama. But knowing what we know now, the Communists, despicable as they are, would no longer be the primary villains. (Shooting the Cardinal: Film and Betrayal in the Mindszenty Case)


As we know, of course, no true pope of the Catholic Church sold out Jozsef Cardinal Mindszenty. A conciliar revolutionary did so.

Another conciliar revolutionary, one who was present at the "beginning" of the conciliar revolution and helped to chart its course, Joseph Ratzinger, has sold out the faithful Catholics of the underground Church in Red China, justifying his June 30, 2007, Letter to Bishops, Priests, Consecrated Persons and Lay Faithful of Red China partially on the assertion that "progress" was being made in that country, a proposition dealt with in the body of this commentary.

"Progress?" Behold the progress!

Pray hard. Fast more. Pray more Rosaries. We are living through a chastisement of unparalleled proportions.




© Copyright 2010, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.