Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us
                 August 22, 2011

Relativizing Our Lady's Rosary and Her Fatima Message

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has proclaimed himself as an enemy of what he calls the "dictatorship of relativism" in the world today. How can one who is one of relativism's best friends and propagators on earth consider himself its enemy?

Well, as has been noted on this site quite a lot in the past five years, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's penchant for self-contradiction is evident even to some sedeplenists (that is, those who believe that the papal seat is held legitimately at this time by Benedict XVI):

In Cardinal Ratzinger’s Values in a Time of Upheaval, he muddies up his phrase [the dictatorship of relativism]; indeed, he reverses his position. He says, “The modem concept of democracy seems indissolubly linked to that of relativism.” Well, well! But then he backtracks: “This means that a basic element of truth, namely, ethical truth, is indispensable to democracy.” But then he backtracks again: “We do not want the State to impose one particular idea of the good on us. ... Truth is controversial, and the attempt to impose on all persons what one part of the citizenry holds to be true looks like enslavement of people’s consciences.” And he says this on the same page!

Yes, we know: Some of our readers feel that the Pope is above all criticism; he cannot make a mistake, even in his previous writings. But what he has written here is contradictory and inscrutable.

Ratzinger says, “The relativists ...[are] flirting with totalitarianism even though they seek to establish the primacy of freedom ...” Huh?

So, what is he saying? “The State is not itself the source of truth and morality.... Accordingly, the State must receive from outside itself the essential measure of knowledge and truth with regard to that which is good. ... The Church remains outside’ the State. ... The Church must exert itself with all its vigor so that in it there may shine forth moral truth ...”

Then he says, “Conscience is the highest norm [italics in original] and ... and one must follow it even against authority. When authority - in this case the Church’s Magisterium - speaks on matters of morality, it supplies the material that helps the conscience form its own judgment, but ultimately it is only conscience that has the last word.”

So the Church’s Magisterium will not “exert itself with all its vigor,” because “conscience has the last word.” Indeed, Ratzinger says that “one must follow the erring conscience.” Does the Church support relativism too? Pope John Paul II said in his Encyclical Veritatis Splendor, “Conscience is not an infallible judge” (n. 62; italics in original).

What happened to a rightly formed conscience? The Catechism says, “Personal conscience and reason should not be set in opposition to the moral law or the Magisterium of the Church” (n. 2039), and “One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience” (n. 1793). (A Contradictory Definition of Relativism. See also: Cardinal Ratzinger's Subjectivism.)


Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI does not realize that he contradicts himself almost incessantly. He has, for instance, explained in different allocutions and addresses that "the" key to world peace is "religious liberty" and that "the" key to world peace is "coexistence" among religions and that "the" key to world peace is to "respect creation" and that "the" key to world peace is to reject the "dictatorship of relativism." Well, which "key" is it? Even he does not seem to be sure.

To reiterate points that have been made many times in the past, few things more relativistic and self-contradictory than Ratzinger/Benedict's own "New Theology," which is premised upon the belief that truth can contain within itself the seeds of its own internal contradictions, something that was believed by the false "pontiff's own mentor, the late Father Hans Urs von Balthasar (see The Inflated Reputation of Hans Urs von Balthasar), whose writing was a gigantic mass of Hegelian contradictions.

At the root of Ratzinger/Benedict's own personal brand of relativism  is his rejection of the Scholasticism of Saint Thomas Aquinas, which is founded on clarity of thought and logic. Ratzinger himself has told us in his own autobiography that he found the writing of the Angelic Doctor to be too "crystal clear" for his own liking. This says a lot about the conciliarist mindset as those who reject the method of one of the greatest sons of Saint Dominic de Guzman, O.P., Saint Thomas Aquinas, are never free from the suspicion of error and heresy, something that Pope Leo XIII made clear 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.)


It is no wonder, therefore, that confusion and chaos reign supreme throughout the counterfeit church of conciliarism as "conservative" conciliarists are sometimes very much at odds with "progressive" conciliarists as to whose interpretation of the "Second" Vatican Council is legitimate (see Contradictors Contradicting Each Other as They Contradict the Faith). Ratzinger/Benedict himself wants to settle the matter by his philosophically absurd and dogmatically condemned "hermeneutic of continuity and discontinuity," which is a slogan that he has devised to make more marketable his own adherence to a concept that has been anathematized by Holy Mother Church (see the appendix below for a reminder of this).

Ratzinger/Benedict sees "good" in error. His whole philosophical and theological system of thought and expression, whether written or verbal, is based on one error after another. And it is his own erroneous philosophical and theological system that gave rise to an entire false church of error, the counterfeit church of conciliarism, of which he is now the head after over twenty-three years of being its chief ideologue (a position in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that was held between 1965 and 2002 by the Second Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Suslov, who was a dear friend of Leonid Brezhnev, who was the dictator of the Soviet Union between October 14, 1964, and the time of his death on November 10, 1982, just a little over nine months after Suslov's own death on January 25, 1982).

It is thus truly laughable to Ratzinger/Benedict refer to "relativism" during his four day stay in Madrid, Spain, for "World Youth Day 2011 as his own exhortation to the young Catholics in attendance at the event to follow Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is based on a relativistic view of His Sacred Deposit of Faith. Anyone who believes that this is an unfair or "rash" characterization of the conciliar "pontiff's" work ought to review his own words and deeds (see, for example, Can Anyone Spell A-P-O-S-T-A-S-Y? There is hardly any aspect of the Catholic Faith that the false "pope" has not sought to revise or "correct" according to his absurd hermeneutic.

Although some have claimed that the "great restorer of Tradition," "Pope" Benedict XVI, uses different language to refer to conciliarism's view of the world than did his predecessor, Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, this is a claim that flies in the face of reality. Consider this passage from Ratzinger/Benedict's "homily" during an address he gave to "World Youth Day 2011" participants on Thursday August 18, 2011, in Madrid, Spain:


Indeed, there are many who, creating their own gods, believe they need no roots or foundations other than themselves. They take it upon themselves to decide what is true or not, what is good and evil, what is just and unjust; who should live and who can be sacrificed in the interests of other preferences; leaving each step to chance, with no clear path, letting themselves be led by the whim of each moment. These temptations are always lying in wait. It is important not to give in to them because, in reality, they lead to something so evanescent, like an existence with no horizons, a liberty without God. We, on the other hand, know well that we have been created free, in the image of God, precisely so that we might be in the forefront of the search for truth and goodness, responsible for our actions, not mere blind executives, but creative co-workers in the task of cultivating and beautifying the work of creation. God is looking for a responsible interlocutor, someone who can dialogue with him and love him. Through Christ we can truly succeed and, established in him, we give wings to our freedom. Is this not the great reason for our joy? Isn’t this the firm ground upon which to build the civilization of love and life, capable of humanizing all of us? (Welcome ceremony with young people at Plaza de Cibeles: Madrid, 18 August 2011.)


There's that phrase that Ratzinger/Benedict uses only slightly less frequently than had Wojtyla/John Paul II, "the civilization of love," adding the word "life" in there for good measure, which is only one of two occasions that "pope" got to making any allusions to the daily slaughter of the preborn taking place in Spain, thanks to a law that was signed into effect by King Juan Carlos, who was given warm words of greeting by the "pontiff" upon his arrival in Spain on Thursday, August 18, 2011, last year (see King Juan Carlos, Meet Pope Leo XIII). And what is the goal of Ratzinger/Benedict's "civilization of love and life." To humanize us all? This is the message of the Divine Redeemer, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ? To "humanize" us? The Catholic Church teaches that He came to make redeem us so that we can strive for holiness. We are called to be perfected by an earnest pursuit of sanctity by cooperating with the graces that Our Lord won for us on the wood of the Holy Cross and that flow into our hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, She who is the Mediatrix of All Graces. We are "human" enough already, thank you very much, Benedict. We need to be holier.

Perhaps the use of the phrase "civilization of love and life" is one of those "hidden signs" that the "pope" gives to those who can see through the hidden meaning of his words to convey to us that Ratzinger/Benedict is adding a different twist to the conciliar "party line" that actually signifies a "dramatic" break with his predecessor.

Guess again. Here's the phrase used in its "pure form," the "civilization of love:"



Dear friends, our society, which all too often questions the inestimable value of life, of every life, needs you: in a decisive way you help to build the civilization of love. What is more, you play a leading role in that civilization. As sons and daughters of the Church, you offer the Lord your lives, with all their ups and downs, cooperating with him and somehow becoming “part of the treasury of compassion so greatly needed by the human race” (Spe Salvi, 40) (Visit to San José Foundation for disabled youth, Madrid, 20 August 2011.)


Civilization of love?

Here's the kind of civilization that Pope Saint Pius X told us to restore as we avoid the unremitting attacks of "insane dreamers, rebels and miscreants:"



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. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)

Behold the unremitting attacks of the insane dreamer, rebel and miscreant, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who believes that his own false church's apostate view of the world can restore Europe to its "Christian roots" without seeking her reconversion to the true Faith as Generic Christianity Is Not Good Enough For God.

Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., explained in but one sentence the simple fact those steeped in error cannot have any part in the Catholic Church, meaning that Federico Lombardi's desire to put aside "differences" is of the devil, not of God:

There is a fatal instinct in error, which leads it to hate the Truth; and the true Church, by its unchangeableness, is a perpetual reproach to them that refuse to be her children. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, commentary on the life of Saint Fidelis of Sigmaringen.)


The true Church, the Catholic Church, cannot countenance falsehood and error.

Not content, however, to relativize the truths of the Holy Faith, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI also is content to relativize Our Lady to but nominal mentions now and again, ignoring entirely the necessity of all Catholics, most especially the young, to be singularly devoted to her Most Holy Rosary, which was not mentioned once in any of the fourteen addresses that he gave while in Madrid between Thursday, August 18, 2011, and yesterday, Sunday, August 21, 2011. Not one single mention of Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary. Not one single exhortation to pray the Rosary, and it did not appear from the schedule on the madrid11.com/en website for "WYD 2011" that the "pope" had been scheduled to pray Our Lady's Psalter, which, of course, is not longer a psalter in the conciliar church as it consists of an additional set of "mysteries."

This is not, however, a conciliar "novelty" of the current reigning false "pontiff." No, even the "pope" of the Rosary who destroyed its integrity by introducing the those new "mysteries," "luminous mysteries," in 2002,  Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, did not make a single, solitary reference to Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary in any of the talks that he gave at the last five "World Youth Days" of his false "pontificate" (Denver, 1993, Manila, Philippines, 1995, Lourdes, France, 1997, Rome, Italy, and Toronto, Canada, 2002), although I do seem to recall his leading it on several occasions at "WYD" hootenannies.

Then again, this is not as mystifying as one would think if you consider the fact that the lords of Modernity in the counterfeit church of conciliarism have seen fit to deconstruct Our Lady's Fatima Message in an effort to pretend that its "time" has passed, placing into the same category as other "things" the current "pope" does not "like" (decrees of councils and encyclical letters of popes that remain true in their essential meaning but "become obsolete in the particulars that they contain, which is nothing other than blasphemy against the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost). Although some have tried to claim that "Pope" Benedict is a "prisoner" of scheming men such as Tarcisio "Cardinal" Bertone and Angelo "Cardinal" Sodano, the truth is of course, that Ratzinger/Benedict does not believe in the physical reality of Our Lady's apparition, no less in her Fatima Message (see No Friend of Fatima and On Full Display: The Modernist Mind).

Our Lady appeared to three children, Jacinta and Francisco Marto and their cousin, Lucia dos Santos. Three children. Our Lady chose innocent lambs to convey to the rest of us that her Divine Son had entrusted the cause of world peace to her own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, telling us further that that Russia had to be consecrated to that same Immaculate Heart by the pope, explaining on July 13, 1917, she she would come to request such a consecration. She did so when appearing to Sister Lucia dos Santos in a convent in Tuy, Spain, on June 13, 1929 (see Our Lady Does Not Act on Her Own):



"The moment has come in which God asks the Holy Father, in union with all the Bishops in the world, to make the consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart, promising to save it by this means. There are so many souls whom the Justice of God condemns for sins committed against me, that I have come to ask reparation: sacrifice yourself for this intention and pray." (Mary's words at Fatima.)

Ah, some will contend that the Church never passed on the June 13, 1929, apparition of Our Lady to Sister Lucia in Tuy, Spain, believing that the terms of the proper consecration of Russia were spelled out in the July 13, 1917 apparition, which terms were fulfilled, they believe, when Pope Pius XII singly consecrated Russia to Our Lady's Immaculate Heart in 1952. Others, however, believe, as I do, that Our Lady came in 1929 to make the specific request for the consecration of Russia to her Immaculate Heart by a pope with all of the world's bishops as she promised on June 13,  1917. As was pointed out in Our Lady Does Not Act on Her Own, the Church never ruled on Our Lady's December 10, 1925, apparition to Sister Lucia dos Santos wherein she specified the practice of the Five First Saturdays to be kept in reparation for sins against her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart:

Have compassion on the heart of your most holy Mother, covered with thorns with which ungrateful men pierce it at every moment, and there is no one to make an act of reparation. Look, my daughter, at my heart, surrounded with thorns with which ungrateful men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You at least try to console me and say that I promise to assist at the hour of death, with the graces necessary for salvation, all those who, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months, shall confess, receive Holy Communion, recite five decades of the Rosary, and keep me company for fifteen minutes while meditating on fifteen mysteries of the Rosary, with the intention of making reparation to me."


The Church has given, at least in a de facto sense, recognition to this private apparition made in 1925, making it plausible, at the very least, that the 1929 apparition of Our Lady to Sister Lucia in the convent at Tuy, Spain, in which Our Lady called for the collegial consecration of Russia by a pope with all of the world's bishops to be an elaboration on that same July 13, 1917, message in the Cova da Iria in which she first called for the Communions of reparation on the First Saturdays and called for the consecration of Russia to her Immaculate Heart by the pope. Although even some who accept the legitimacy of the 1929 apparition contend that the time for such a collegial consecration has passed, noting correctly that World War II could have been prevented by such a collegial consecration, Sister Lucia continued to insist that the collegial consecration needed to be done. With all due respect to those who do not accept these conclusions, I would like to submit that the recent Russia has been converted to nothing and that the mere fact that there is a bit more "religious freedom" in Russia in the past nineteen years has not ended the persecution of Catholics there.

How said it is, therefore, that there are some traditional Catholic prelates and priests who are as hostile in, if not as disbelieving of, Our Lady's Fatima Message as Ratzinger/Benedict himself. Isn't it supposed to mean something that the conciliar officials have worked mightily to deconstruct the Fatima Message in general and its Third Secret in particular. Isn't it supposed to mean something that the Shrine of Our Lady of Fatima has been turned into a Modernist nightmare (see A New Fatima For A New Religion)?

The leading conciliar revolutionaries hate Our Lady's Fatima Message. They refuse to spread devotion to it or to her Immaculate Heart. Ratzinger/Benedict himself rarely mentions the necessity of praying Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary, and never quotes our saints who have told us that devotion to the Mother of God is a sign of divine favor. To do this, you see, would anger his Protestant "partners" in "ecumenical dialogue." Why be in "full communion" with these revolutionaries in their despising and rejection of Our Lady's Fatima Message?

We have seen in recent days a prominent, ever self-promoting alleged "traditional" website proclaiming the "end of the Fatima Movement," basing this blasphemous, sensationalized headline solely on the basis of a prediction made by a man, who believes that the "true pope is in hiding," who runs a gazillion websites. This man's website not not speak for Our Lady's Fatima Message. Why herald the ridiculous prediction of the destruction of Rome to cast even more aspersions and mockery on Our Lady's Fatima apparitions and message than these "fathers" have done in the past?  

These anonymous "fathers" report on every scandal that takes place in the conciliar church but have yet to utter one word about the arrest and guilty plea of one Father Dennis McCormack on Long Island twenty-five months ago (see Long Island man, posing as bishop, Dennis McCormack, arrested, leading one to wonder why this is so. An oversight? This is not a matter of internal forum or detraction. Bishop McCormack's arrest and guilty plea are not matters of the public matter. Why the censorship? Very strange, especially so when one considers the manner in which every conciliar scandal is covered so thoroughly, if at times sensationally. This is even more strange when one considers that these "anonymous fathers," one of whom was ordained to the priesthood by a married Old Catholic bishop in a Lutheran church in the Los Angeles, California,. area, disparage Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary as a "private prayer" and her Fatima Message as a "private revelation." Perhaps someone would like to tell King Louis XIV and the bishops who enabled him, how well it worked out for them in eternity by ignoring Our Lord's "private revelation" to Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque calling for the consecration of the entirety of France to His Most Sacred Heart?

What makes this even worse, though, is that there are traditional clergymen who not only despise Our Lady's Rosary and the prayers after Low Mass, which certainly can be of assistance to Holy Mother Church in this time of apostasy and betrayal even if a priest's thoroughly private judgment about the matter is to the contrary, but who have, in the case of another such clergyman, dared to assert that Holy Mother Church never "approved" the eighteen apparitions of Our Lady to Saint Bernadette Soubirous in the Grotto of Massabielle near Lourdes, France, in 1858. Since when has Holy Mother Church been in the business of canonizing phony seers? Since when?

Such a blasphemous assertion, which is redolent of the coldness of heart and the disbelief of an Jansenist, also flies in the face of the prayer that Holy Mother Church approved for the Feast of the Apparition of the Immaculate Virgin Mary at Lourdes on February 11:

Deus qui per Immaculatam Virgins Conceptionem dignum Flio tuo habitaculum praeparasti: supplices a te quaesemus, ut ejusdem Virginis Apparitionem celebrantes, salutem mentis et corporis consequamur.

O God, Who, by the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary didst prepare a worthy dwelling for Thy Son: we humbly beseech Thee, that we, who celebration the Apparition of this same Blessed Virgin, may obtain health of soul and body.


Did Holy Mother Church get this wrong? The conciliarists believe so, which is why the name of the feast was (surprise, surprise, surprise, Sergeant Carter) changed in the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service to "The Feast of Our Lady of Lourdes" and all mention of the apparition itself was eliminated:


God of mercy, we celebrate the feast of Mary, the sinless mother of God. May her prayers help us to rise above our human weakness. We ask this through our Lord Jesus Christ, Your Son, who lives and reigns with You and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. +Amen. (Our Lady of Lourdes in the false church.)


Conciliarism is nothing if not Jansenistic The miraculous? An apparition? Locutions? Not to the mind of a rationalist and, it appears, some clergymen the traditional underground are, whether or not they realize it, thorough rationalists when it comes to the apparitions of Our Lady in this, her very age.

There is something else that should discomfit any traditional clergyman attempting to disparage Our Lady's apparition at Lourdes:

Pope Pius IX gave his personal approval public veneration at the Grotto of Massabielle in 1870.

Pope Leo XIII issued an apostolic letter in commemoration of the consecration of basilica at Lourdes in 1879, the year of Saint Bernadette's death, occurring three years after the basilica's consecration, and he also approved a Mass in honor of the apparition to be offered in the Diocese of Tarbes, France a year later, that is, in 1880.

Pope Saint Pius X raised the Feast of Apparition of the Immaculate Virgin Mary at Lourdes to a universal feast on November 13, 1907.

Pope Pius XI canonized Saint Bernadette Soubirous on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, December 8, 1933.

I guess that's all just too much for any rationalist mind and Jansenist heart to accept as being enough. It is quite enough for me, simpleton that I am.

There are also those in the traditional world who claim to be devoted to Our Lady's Fatima Message yet who tolerate the most offensive styles of dress imaginable even though Our Lady had said the following to Jacinta Marto while she was hospitalized with the Spanish Influenza that would take her life on February 20, 1920.

"Certain fashions are introduced which gravely offend my Divine Son." (For one of many articles on the subject, please see Revolutions Have Consequences, part two.)


How can anyone claim to be devoted to Our Lady's Fatima Message and not even attempt as a matter of true supernatural charity to persuade men and women who dress immodestly that they must change how they dress as they do indeed offend God and His Most Blessed Mother and lead themselves and possibly many other souls into both spiritual and temporal ruin? How? How is this possible? Fear of having the exhortation rejected? Fear that they will return to the Novus Ordo or stop giving money in the collection basket? What's the point of being away from the Novus Ordo when the faithful can dress just a little bit better than they do they while continuing to offend God and serving as incitements to impure thoughts in other?

One of the reasons that conciliar revolutionaries are able to go about their diabolical business of relativizing the truths of the Holy Faith as they engage in their abominable acts of liturgical sacrilege at their Cranmer tables is precisely because they seek to trivialize Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary, refusing to speak of it or doing so in a most perfunctory manner, and because they are hostile to Our Lady's Fatima Message as they know that that the Third Secret of Fatima is all about them and their false church.

Their work is made all the more easier when fully traditional clergymen, who ought to be of one heart and one mind in promoting Our Lady's Fatima Message and thus of devotion to her Most Holy Rosary and the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through her own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, either discount or deny Marian apparitions and/or seek to disparage even the Holy Rosary itself. The devil cannot be more delighted when those who think that they are opposing his minions in the conciliar church wind up enabling them because of a decision not to employ Heaven's weapons against them: Our Lady's Rosary, her Brown Scapular, her Miraculous Medal, her Green Scapular, and devotion to her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart as part and parcel of the spread of her Fatima Message.

To refuse to use these weapons is to engage in cowardly acts of unilateral disarmament that wind up further empowering the devil's minions in the conciliar church and in the world and, quite possibly, by stirring up such coldness of heart in those who so disarm that they are never able to forgive any offenses, whether real or imagined, as they continue to plot acts of revenge against those who have dared to call into question their abusive and arbitrary ways that have gone unchecked and unchallenged for so long, much to the detriment and the demoralization of so many souls, some of whom have lost the Holy Faith entirely.

Saint Louis de Montfort explained that it was Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ Himself who asked Blessed Alan La Roche why His Most Blessed Mother's Most Holy Rosary, which had fallen into disuse in the Fourteenth and much of the Fifteenth Centuries, was forgotten even by Saint Dominic's own Order of Preachers to which he belonged:

Later on, when these trials were over, thanks to the mercy of God, our Lady told Blessed Alan[de la Roche] to revive the former Confraternity of the Holy Rosary. Blessed Alan was one of the Dominican Fathers at the monastery at Dinan, in Brittany. He was an eminent theologian and a famous preacher. Our Lady chose him because, since the Confraternity had originally been started in that province, it was fitting that a Dominican from the same province should have the honour of re-establishing it.

Blessed Alan began this great work in 1460, after a special warning from our Lord. This is how he received that urgent message, as he himself tells it:

One day when he was offering Mass, our Lord, who wished to spur him on to preach the holy Rosary, spoke to him in the Sacred Host. "How can you crucify me again so soon?" Jesus said. "What did you say, Lord?" asked Blessed Alan, horrified. "You crucified me once before by your sins," answered Jesus, "and I would willingly be crucified again rather than have my Father offended by the sins you used to commit. You are crucifying me again now because you have all the learning and understanding that you need to preach my Mother's Rosary, and you are not doing it. If you only did that, you could teach many souls the right path and lead them away from sin. But you are not doing it, and so you yourself are guilty of the sins that they commit."

This terrible reproach made Blessed Alan solemnly resolve to preach the Rosary unceasingly.

Our Lady also said to him one day to inspire him to preach the Rosary more and more, "You were a great sinner in your youth, but I obtained the grace of your conversion from my Son. Had such a thing been possible, I would have liked to have gone through all kinds of suffering to save you, because converted sinners are a glory to me. And I would have done that also to make you worthy of preaching my Rosary far and wide."

Saint Dominic appeared to Blessed Alan as well and told him of the great results of his ministry: he had preached the Rosary unceasingly, his sermons had borne great fruit and many people had been converted during his missions.

He said to Blessed Alan, "See what wonderful results I have had through preaching the Rosary. You and all who love our Lady ought to do the same so that, by means of this holy practice of the Rosary, you may draw all people to the real science of the virtues."

Briefly, then, this is the history of how Saint Dominic established the holy Rosary and of how Blessed Alan de la Roche restored it.

From the time Saint Dominic established the devotion to the holy Rosary up to the time when Blessed Alan de la Roche reestablished it in 1460, it has always been called the Psalter of Jesus and Mary. This is because it has the same number of Hail Marys as there are psalms in the Book of the Psalms of David. Since simple and uneducated people are not able to say the Psalms of David, the Rosary is held to be just as fruitful for them as David's Psalter is for others. 

Ever since Blessed Alan de la Roche re-established this devotion, the voice of the people, which is the voice of God, gave it the name of the Rosary, which means "crown of roses." That is to say that every time people say the Rosary devoutly they place on the heads of Jesus and Mary 153 white roses and sixteen red roses. Being heavenly flowers, these roses will never fade or lose their beauty.

Our Lady has approved and confirmed this name of the Rosary; she has revealed to several people that each time they say a Hail Mary they are giving her a beautiful rose, and that each complete Rosary makes her a crown of roses.

So the complete Rosary is a large crown of roses and each chaplet of five decades is a little wreath of flowers or a little crown of heavenly roses which we place on the heads of Jesus and Mary. The rose is the queen of flowers, and so the Rosary is the rose of devotions and the most important one. (The Secret of the Rosary.)


"You are crucifying me again now because you have all the learning and understanding that you need to preach my Mother's Rosary, and you are not doing it. If you only did that, you could teach many souls the right path and lead them away from sin. But you are not doing it, and so you yourself are guilty of the sins that they commit."

Read that again. Read that again and again.

Oh? Just another "private revelation." Believe that, and see what God thinks of such rationalism at your Particular Judgment.

Our Lord's words to Blessed Alan de la Roche stand as a firm condemnation to "Pope" Benedict XVI. They also stand as a firm condemnation to any traditional clergyman who is so foolishly proud as to think he can ignore Our Lady's Rosary, which is a foundation of her Fatima Message and of devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary she wants promoted. How can anyone in the traditional world join with the "pope" of a false church in crucifying  Our Lord anew by refusing to pray the Rosary and, for those in the clergy, to preach it openly so that souls can be taught right right path that will lead them away from sin"?Such people are indeed 'guilty of the sins" committed by those who have not heard them speak about Heaven's weapon, Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary.

Pope Leo XIII put it this way in a letter to Italian Catholics issued in 1892:


It is only too plain how many and of what nature are the corrupting agencies by which the wickedness of the world deceitfully strives to weaken and completely uproot from souls their Christian faith and the respect for God's law on which faith is fed and depends for its effectiveness. Already the fields cultivated by our Lord are everywhere turning into a wilderness abounding in ignorance of the Faith, in error and vice, as though blown upon by some hideous pest. And to add to the anguish of this thought, so far from putting a check on such insolent and destructive depravity, or imposing the punishment deserved, they who can and should correct matters seem in many cases, by their indifference or open connivance, to increase the spirit of evil.

We have good reason to deplore the public institutions in which the teaching of the sciences and arts is purposely so organized that the name of God is passed over in silence or visited with vituperation; to deplore the license -- growing more shameless by the day -- of the press in publishing whatever it pleases, and the license of speech in addressing any kind of insult to Christ our God and His Church. And We deplore no less the consequent laxity and apathy in the practice of the Catholic religion which if not quite open apostasy from the Faith, is certainly going to prove an easy road to it, since it is a manner of life having nothing in common with faith. Nobody who ponders this disorder and the surrender of the most fundamental principles will be astonished if afflicted nations everywhere are groaning under the heavy hand of God's vengeance and stand anxious and trembling in fear of worse calamities.

Now, to appease the might of an outraged God and to bring that health of soul so needed by those who are sorely afflicted, there is nothing better than devout and persevering prayer, provided it be joined with a love for and practice of Christian life. And both of these, the spirit of prayer and the practice of Christian life, are best attained through the devotion of the Rosary of Mary.

The well-known origin of the Rosary, illustrated in celebrated monuments of which we have made frequent mention, bears witness to its remarkable efficacy. For, in the days when the Albigensian sect, posing as the champion of pure faith and morals, but in reality introducing the worst kind of anarchy and corruption, brought many a nation to its utter ruin, the Church fought against it and the other infamous factions associated with it, not with troops and arms, but chiefly with the power of the most holy Rosary, the devotion which the Mother of God taught to our Father Dominic in order that he might propagate it. By this means the Church triumphed magnificently over every obstacle and provided for the salvation of her children not only in that trial but in others like it afterward, always with the same glorious success. For this reason, now, when human affairs have taken the course which We deplore, bringing affection to the Church and ruin to the State, all of us have the duty to unite our voice in prayer, with like devotion, to the holy Mother of God, beseeching her that we too may rejoice, as we ardently desire, in experiencing the same power of her Rosary.

When we have recourse to Mary in prayer, we are having recourse to the Mother of mercy, who is so well disposed toward us that, whatever the necessity that presses upon us especially in attaining eternal life, she is instantly at our side of her own accord, even though she has not been invoked. She dispenses grace with a generous hand from that treasure with which from the beginning she was divinely endowed in fullest abundance that she might be worthy to be the Mother of God. By the fullness of grace which confers on her the most illustrious of her many titles, the Blessed Virgin is infinitely superior to all the hierarchies of men and angels, the one creature who is closest of all to Christ. "It is a great thing in any saint to have grace sufficient for the salvation of many souls; but to have enough to suffice for the salvation of everybody in the world. is the greatest of all; and this is found in Christ and in the Blessed Virgin."

It is impossible to say how pleasing and gratifying to her it is when we greet her with the Angelic Salutation, "full of grace"; and in repeating it, fashion these words of praise into ritual crowns for her. For every time we say them, we recall the memory of her exalted dignity and of the Redemption of the human race which God began through her. We likewise bring to mind the divine and everlasting bond which links her with the joys and sorrows, the humiliations and triumphs of Christ in directing and helping mankind to eternal life.

It pleased Christ to take upon Himself the Son of Man, and to become thereby our Brother, in order that His mercy to us might be shown most openly; for "it behooved him in all things to be made like unto his brethren that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest before God." Likewise because Mary was chosen to be the Mother of Christ, our Lord and our Brother, the unique prerogative was given her above all other mothers to show her mercy to us and to pour it out upon us. Besides, as we are indebted to Christ for sharing in some way with us the right, which is peculiarly His own, of calling God our Father and possessing Him as such, we are in like manner indebted to Him for His loving generosity in sharing with us the right to call Mary our Mother and to cherish her as such.

While nature itself made the name of mother the sweetest of all names and has made motherhood the very model of tender and solicitous love, no tongue is eloquent enough to put in words what every devout soul feels, namely how intense is the flame of affectionate and active charity which glows in Mary, in her who is truly our mother not in a human way but through Christ. Nobody knows and comprehends so well as she everything that concerns us: what helps we need in life; what dangers, public or private, threaten our welfare; what difficulties and evils surround us; above all, how fierce is the fight we wage with ruthless enemies of our salvation. In these and in all other troubles of life her power is most far-reaching. Her desire to use it is most ardent to bring consolation, strength, and help of every kind to children who are dear to her.

Accordingly, let us approach Mary confidently, wholeheartedly beseeching her by the bonds of her motherhood which unite her so closely to Jesus and at the same time to us. Let us with deepest devotion invoke her constant aid in the prayer which she herself has indicated and which is most acceptable to her. Then with good reason shall we rest with an easy and joyous mind under the protection of the best of mothers.

To this commendation of the Rosary which follows from the very nature of the prayer, We may add that the Rosary offers an easy way to present the chief mysteries of the Christian religion and to impress them upon the mind; and this commendation is one of the most beautiful of all. For it is mainly by faith that a man sets out on the straight and sure path to God and learns to revere in mind and heart His supreme majesty, His sovereignty over the whole of creation, His unsounded power, wisdom, and providence. For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder to those who seek Him. Moreover, because God's eternal Son assumed our humanity and shone before us as the Way, the Truth, and the Life, our faith must include the lofty mysteries of the august Trinity of divine Persons and of the Father's only-begotten Son made Man: "This is eternal life: that they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."

God gave us a most precious blessing when He gave us faith. By this gift we are not only raised above the level of human things, to contemplate and share in the divine nature, but are also furnished with the means of meriting the rewards of heaven; and therefore the hope is encouraged and strengthened that we shall one day look upon God, not in the shadowy images of His creatures, but in the fullest light, and shall enjoy Him forever as the Supreme Goodness. But the Christian is kept so busy by the various affairs of life and wanders so easily into matters of little importance, that unless he be helped with frequent reminders, the truths which are of first importance and necessity are little by little forgotten; and then faith begins to grow weak and may even perish.

To ward off these exceedingly great dangers of ignorance from her children, the Church, which never relaxes her vigilant and diligent care, has been in the habit of looking for the staunchest support of faith in the Rosary of Mary. And indeed in the Rosary, along with the most beautiful and efficacious prayer arranged in an orderly pattern, the chief mysteries of our religion follow one another, as they are brought before our mind for contemplation: first of all the mysteries in which the Word was made flesh and Mary, the inviolate Virgin and Mother, performed her maternal duties for Him with a holy joy; there come then the sorrows, the agony and death of the suffering Christ, the price at which the salvation of our race was accomplished; then follow the mysteries full of His glory; His triumph over death, the Ascension into heaven, the sending of the Holy Spirit, the resplendent brightness of Mary received among the stars, and finally the everlasting glory of all the saints in heaven united with the glory of the Mother and her Son.

This uninterrupted sequence of wonderful events the Rosary frequently and perseveringly recalls to the minds of the faithful and presents almost as though they were unfolding before our eyes: and this, flooding the souls of those who devoutly recite it with a sweetness of piety that never grows weary, impresses and stirs them as though they were listening to the very voice of the Blessed Mother explaining the mysteries and conversing with them at length about their salvation. (Pope Leo XIII, Magnae Dei Matris, September 8, 1892.)


Let anyone assert that this is a "private teaching" of Pope Leo XIII that ought not to concern them in the slightest try to defend such an assertion before Christ the King at the hour of his death.

Although an afterword to this article will be written later this morning before I resume work on my Americanism book, suffice it for now to remind the very few readers of this website that this ill-regarded writer takes seriously the Fatima Message and will, despite his many sins and mistakes, go to his dying breath defending its relevance to our times and its necessity in our daily lives as long as Our Lady sends me the graces won for us by her Divine Son to do so.

May each of you have a most blessed Feast of the Immaculate Heart of Mary!

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!

Vivat Christus Rex!

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.


Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint 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.

Saints Timothy, Hippolytus and Symphorian, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints


Another Reprise: Joseph Ratzinger and His 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.)

1990: The text [of the document Instruction on the Theologian's Ecclesial Vocation] also presents the various types of bonds that rise from the different degrees of magisterial teaching. It affirms - perhaps for the first time with this clarity - that there are decisions of the magisterium that cannot be the last word on the matter as such, but are, in a substantial fixation of the problem, above all an expression of pastoral prudence, a kind of provisional disposition. The nucleus remains valid, but the particulars, which the circumstances of the times influenced, may need further correction.

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

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

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

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


  • 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 anathema.

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.)

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

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

I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God. (The Oath Against Modernism, September 1, 1910; see also Nothing Stable, Nothing Secure.)



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