Ribbet, Ribbet, That's Not So Bad

by Thomas A. Droleskey

"Know this: it is by very little breaches of regularity that the devil succeeds in introducing the greatest abuses. May you never end up saying: 'This is nothing, this is an exaggeration.'" (Saint Teresa of Avila, Foundations, Chapter Twenty-nine)

So many people today are like those boiled frogs that I wrote about earlier this year in A Country Full of Boiled Frogs as they accept increasingly higher and higher and higher doses of statism from the caesars and caesarettes of the civil state of Modernity and as they accept increasingly higher and more blatant outrages from the false "pontiff" and his "bishops" as they use their chosen vessel of perdition, the counterfeit church of conciliarism to accustom Catholics to every Modernist proposition that was condemned by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.

To wit, travelers in the United States of America have now grown accustomed to being legally molested by agents of the Transportation Security Agency (TSA) of the United States Department of Homeland Security that I discussed ten days ago in Criminalizing the Innocent, Indemnifying the Guilty. Yes, there was a lot of initial grumbling over the intrusive measures that are being used because the cowardly politicians of both organized crime families of naturalism in the United States of America, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, lack the courage to support the profiling of Mohammedans and those traveling from predominantly Mohammedan countries along the lines of the profiling used by government agents at airports in the State of Israel that has prevented a single terrorist attack aboard any plane that has departed from that country. After the initial grumbling subsided, however, most travelers have accepted this intrusive and unnecessary violation of their bodily integrity with a shrug of the shoulders, saying, in effect, "Ribbet, ribbet, that's not so bad. We just have to live with it."

This is what has happened with so many Americans who consider themselves to be "pro-life" as they have let their fear of the naturalist statists of the "left" drive them to accept candidates given to them by the naturalist statists of the "right" who have learned to live with the daily slaughter of the innocent preborn, by both chemical and surgical means, quite comfortably.

Just consider the fact that the standard of what was considered to be "pro-life" in the political realm in the 1970s and early 1980s was, at the very least, rhetorical support for the reversal of the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v Bolton, January 22, 1973, if not support for some kind of constitutional amendment to overturn those decisions. By successive turns, however, "pro-life" Americans began to accept mere rhetoric without demanding results, something that did not go unnoticed by the career politicians and their enablers in such "mainstream" "pro-life" organizations as the National Right to Life Committee, which supports the direct, intentional slaughter of innocent human beings in cases where it is alleged that a mother's life is endangered and takes institutional position against that which denies the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage, contraception.

Over the course of time, therefore, the political standard of what it meant to be "pro-life" was reduced to being partly opposed to partial-birth abortions even though the legislation that was eventually passed by the Congress of the United States of America in 2003 permits babies to be slaughtered by this means in the case where a mother's life is endangered and even though other methods to kill a baby surgically in the latter stages of pregnancy (saline solution abortion, hysterotomy, dilation and evacuation) remain perfectly legal (see An Illusion of a Victory). It is now considered "enough" for naturalist politicians of the "right" to be opposed to ObamaCare and to the funding of Planned Parenthood and other "family planning" organizations. "Ribbet, ribbet, that's not so bad."

Yes, my good and invisible readership (we've gone way, way down in the Alexa rankings in this country lately, all the way down 77,000 to 388,000!--no, there's not a lot of earthly "percentage" in posting these articles), "pro-life" Americans, including lots and lots and lots of Catholics all across and up and down the vast expanse of the ecclesiastical divide, have accepted gradual increments of increasingly higher doses of the so-called "lesser evil" to such an extent that they have deluded themselves that "progress" is being made even though babies are being killed, by both chemical and surgical means, at pretty much the same rate as they have been killed in the past nearly thirty-eight years now. Well, I guess self-delusion sure beats trying to admit the proximate root cause of our social evils today is the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King wrought by the Protestant Revolution and institutionalized by the multifaceted and interrelated naturalistic forces of Judeo-Masonry, an admission that would lead one to conclude that, yes, the restoration of the Catholic City, of Catholicism, is the one and only way to retard the social evils that have been accepted with enthusiasm by so many Americans and with a mere "so what?" shrug of the shoulders by others.

Thus it is also that so many Catholics, including many, although not all, traditionally-minded Catholics have accepted with enthusiasm or with a mere "so what" shrug of the shoulders the assaults against the honor and glory of the Most Blessed Trinity that have robbed most Catholics in the world today of the sensus Catholicus, making the lion's share of them more willing to accept the increasingly higher doses of statism offered by the caesars and the caesarettes of the naturalist "left" and/or empty rhetoric from the naturalists of the "right" as they refuse to believe even for a single moment that it is the will of God for each and every country in the world, including the United States of America, to be converted to the true Faith and to recognize Catholicism as its official religion as its civic officials seek to pursue the common temporal good in light of man's Last End, the possession of the glory of the Beatific Vision of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost for all eternity in Heaven.

The apostate ethos of conciliarism that has produced so many blasphemies and sacrileges against the honor and glory and majesty of the Most Holy Trinity has reduced what passes for Catholicism in the minds of most baptized Catholics to the level of subjectivism, which is, after all, one of the foundational building-blocks of Modernism. Just as Modernists seek to make of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ an "empty vessel" into which to pour their own apostasies, so is it the case that the Modernists--both in the time of Pope Saint Pius X and today--seek to falsify Tradition so as to make the Faith prisoner to a variety of subjective and thus never-ending interpretations and adaptations.

Pope Saint Pius X explained this in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907

Thus, they will not allow that Christ ever uttered those things which do not seem to be within the capacity of the multitudes that listened to Him. Hence they delete from His real history and transfer to faith all the allegories found in His discourses. We may peradventure inquire on what principle they make these divisions? Their reply is that they argue from the character of the man, from his condition of life, from his education, from the complexus of the circumstances under which the facts took place; in short, if We understand them aright, on a principle which in the last analysis is merely .subjective. Their method is to put themselves into the position and person of Christ, and then to attribute to Him what they would have done under like circumstances. In this way, absolutely a priori and acting on philosophical principles which they hold but which they profess to ignore, they proclaim that Christ, according to what they call His real history, was not God and never did anything divine, and that as man He did and said only what they, judging from the time in which He lived, consider that He ought to have said or done. . . .

If we pass on from the moral to the intellectual causes of Modernism, the first and the chief which presents itself is ignorance. Yes, these very Modernists who seek to be esteemed as Doctors of the Church, who speak so loftily of modern philosophy and show such contempt for scholasticism, have embraced the one with all its false glamour, precisely because their ignorance of the other has left them without the means of being able to recognize confusion of thought and to refute sophistry. Their whole system, containing as it does errors so many and so great, has been born of the union between faith and false philosophy.

Would that they had but displayed less zeal and energy in propagating it! But such is their activity and such their unwearying labor on behalf of their cause, that one cannot but be pained to see them waste such energy in endeavoring to ruin the Church when they might have been of such service to her had their efforts been better directed. Their artifices to delude men's minds are of two kinds, the first to remove obstacles from their path, the second to devise and apply actively and patiently every resource that can serve their purpose. They recognize that the three chief difficulties which stand in their way are the scholastic method of philosophy, the authority and tradition of the Fathers, and the magisterium of the Church, and on these they wage unrelenting war. Against scholastic philosophy and theology they use the weapons of ridicule and contempt. Whether it is ignorance or fear, or both, that inspires this conduct in them, certain it is that their passion for novelty is always united in them with hatred of scholasticism, and there is no surer sign that a man is tending to Modernism than when he begins to show his dislike for the scholastic method. Let the Modernists and their admirers remember the proposition condemned by Pius IX: "The method and principles which have served the ancient doctors of scholasticism when treating of theology no longer correspond with the exigencies of our time or the progress of science." They exercise all their ingenuity in an effort to weaken the force and falsify the character of tradition, so as to rob it of all its weight and authority. But for Catholics nothing will remove the authority of the second Council of Nicea, where it condemns those "who dare, after the impious fashion of heretics, to deride the ecclesiastical traditions, to invent novelties of some kind...or endeavor by malice or craft to overthrow any one of the legitimate traditions of the Catholic Church"; nor that of the declaration of the fourth Council of Constantinople: "We therefore profess to preserve and guard the rules bequeathed to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, by the Holy and most illustrious Apostles, by the orthodox Councils, both general and local, and by everyone of those divine interpreters, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church." Wherefore the Roman Pontiffs, Pius IV and Pius IX, ordered the insertion in the profession of faith of the following declaration: "I most firmly admit and embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and other observances and constitutions of the Church.''

 

Who rejects Scholasticism, the official philosophy of the Catholic Church? None other than the chief subjectivist himself, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI:

"By contrast, I had difficulties in penetrating the thought of Thomas Aquinas, whose crystal-clear logic seemed to be too closed in on itself, too impersonal and ready-made"  (The Memories of a Destructive Mind: Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger's Milestones.)

 

Joseph Ratzinger did not "like" the "thought of Saint Thomas Aquinas" because he believed the saint's "crystal-clear logic seemed to be too closed in on itself, too impersonal and ready-made." No Catholic is "free" to reject the official philosophy of the Catholic Church because he does not "like" it. For Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, you see, subjectivism trumps the official declarations of the Catholic Church, such as the Pope Leo XIII's review in Aeterni Patris, August 4, 1879, of the papal statements on Scholasticism:

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.

 

What does a subjectivist do when he doesn't "like" declarations that run contrary to his personal "tastes"? He must manufacture out of thin air a rhetorical device ("the hermeneutic of continuity and discontinuity") that has no foundation in the writings of the Church Fathers and has been condemned by the authority of the Catholic Church in no uncertain terms (see A Reference Resource: Ratzinger's War Against Catholicism).

Conciliarists, including Ratzinger/Benedict, did not "like" the Catholic Church's condemnations of Modernist principles. What did they do? Ignore various anathematized propositions by claiming that dogmatic truth, given the "limitations" of language and the changing circumstances in which men live, can never be adequately or accurately expressed at any one time, that "modifications" need to be made from time to time. In other words, one can dispense with dogmatic definitions made under the direct inspiration of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, if one does not "like" them because of alleged "changes" in the "circumstances" of "modern" man.

The proto-ecumenists of the early Twentieth Century did not "like" the fact that the Catholic Church called for the unconditional return of non-Catholics to her maternal bosom, plotting amongst themselves to promote the "spiritual ecumenism" of Abbe Paul Couturier, a disciple of Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, S.J., the nature of whose work was condemned by Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928, and ran counter to The Laws of God Forbidding All Communication in Religion With Those of a False Religion, who was praised by Karol Wojtyla (in footnote fifty of Ut Unum Sint, May 25, 1995) and by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI in Cologne, Germany, on August 19, 2005 (Ecumenical meeting at the Archbishopric of Cologne, the meeting in which Ratzinger/Benedict rejected the "ecumenism of the return" that had been called for, by among others, Pope Pius IX, Iam Vos Omnes, September 13, 1868, Pope Leo XIII, Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae, June 20, 1894, and Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928).

The liturgical revolutionaries did not "like" the Immemorial Mass of Tradition, which gives such honor and glory to God as an alter Christus perpetuates in an unbloody manner the Sacrifice of Christ the King to His Co-Equal and Co-Eternal Father in Spirit and in Truth on the wood of the Holy Cross. The subjectivist hatred for the Immemorial Mass of Tradition is such that the front-line revolutionaries who planned the abomination that is the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service boasted of their plans to create a "Mass" stripped of Catholic elements that would be "liked" by Protestants:

We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren that is for the Protestants." (Annibale Bugnini, L'Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965.)

Let it be candidly said: the Roman Rite which we have known hitherto no longer exists. It is destroyed. (Father Joseph Gelineau, who worked with Annibale Bugnini's Consilium, Quoted and footnoted in the work of a Father John Mole, who believed that the Mass of the Roman Rite had been "truncated," not destroyed. Assault on the Roman Rite)

Certainly we will preserve the basic elements, the bread, the wine, but all else will be changed according to local tradition: words, gestures, colors, vestments, chants, architecture, decor. The problem of liturgical reform is immense. (Archbishop Karol Wojtyla, 1965, Quoted and footnoted in Assault on the Roman Rite. This has also been noted on this site in the past, having been provided me by a reader who had access to the 1980 French book in which the quote is found.)

"[T]he intention of Pope Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the Mass, was to reform the Catholic liturgy in such a way that it should coincide with the Protestant liturgy.... [T]here was with Pope Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or at least to correct, or at least to relax, what was too Catholic in the traditional sense, in the Mass, and I, repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist mass" (Dec. 19, 1993), Apropos, #17, pp. 8f; quoted in Christian Order, October, 1994. (Jean Guitton, a close friend of Giovanni Montini/Paul VI.)

The same awareness of the present state of the world also influenced the use of texts from very ancient tradition. It seemed that this cherished treasure would not be harmed if some phrases were changed so that the style of language would be more in accord with the language of modern theology and would faithfully reflect the actual state of the Church's discipline. Thus there have been changes of some expressions bearing on the evaluation and use of the good things of the earth and of allusions to a particular form of outward penance belonging to another age in the history of the Church. (General Instruction to the Roman Missal, Paragraph 15. Here is an admission that the texts of ancient tradition were being changed so that they "would be more in accord with the language of modern theology." What is modern theology, you ask? Modernism, thank you. How can anyone claim that tradition was preserved when the revolutionaries admit that they changed it in light of "modern theology" and the "actual state of the Church's discipline," no less to disparage, as I have noted in other articles and in my own G.I.R.M. Warfare, practices of "outward penance" that are said, quite arrogantly, "to belong to a different age in the history of the Church"?)

 

Yes, it was the hatred of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition that was used as the means to destroy the simple and pure Faith in the souls of so many hundreds of millions of Catholics worldwide in the wake of the "Second" Vatican Council and its sordid aftermath. The liturgical and doctrinal revolutionaries of conciliarism used subjectivism to convince people to "like" the new, false church of conciliarism and its lax disciplinary laws (only two days of fast, Ash Wednesday and Good Friday, a law that has been "adopted" now by the Society of Saint Pius X as it folds completely under the control of the false "pontiff" they have "recognized" and "resisted" up until now).

The laity have grown to accept being in the sanctuary of their local parish churches during what purports to be Holy Mass to serve as lectors or "extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist." "Ribbet, ribbet, that's not so bad."

The laity have grown to accept the fact that the presbyter faces them during the Novus Ordo service. "Ribbet, ribbet, that's not so bad."

The laity have grown to accept the fact that they can dress casually and even immodestly for the Novus Ordo service, that the women among them need not wear their chapel veils as a humble sign of submission to Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and that they can serve at the altar as the extension of the hands of the presbyter. "Ribbet, ribbet, that's not so bad."

The laity have grown to accept the fact that the prayers of the Novus Ordo service no longer remind them of a God Who judges their souls and that they could lose their souls for all eternity in Hell. "Ribbet, ribbet, that's not so bad."

The laity have grown to accept the fact that they can receive what purports, albeit falsely, to receive Holy Communion in their non-consecrated hands. "Ribbet, ribbet, that's not so bad."

The laity have grown to accept the fact that they can receive what purports, albeit falsely, to receive Holy Communion under both kinds. "Ribbet, ribbet, that's not so bad."

The laity have grown to accept the fact that they can receive what purports, albeit falsely, to receive Holy Communion standing. "Ribbet, ribbet, that's not so bad."

The laity have grown to accept the concept of a God Who can teach one thing consistently for nearly two millennia and then "relax" his rules to give them a "break." "Ribbet, ribbet, that's not so bad."

The laity have grown to accept the fact that they don't have to evangelize their Protestant and Jewish and Mohammedan friends and neighbors. "Ribbet, ribbet, that's not so bad."

The laity have grown to accept the fact that the conciliar "pontiffs" and their "bishops" esteem the symbols of false religions and engage regularly in inter-religious "prayer" services. "Ribbet, ribbet, that's not so bad.

The laity have grown to accept the fact that their parishes hold inter-faith "prayer services" and Passover "seders," events that disgust Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. "Ribbet, ribbet, that's not so bad.

The laity have grown to accept the "Luminous Mysteries" and altered Stations of the Cross."Ribbet, ribbet, that's not so bad."

The laity have grown to accept that fact that they can participate actively in the rot of popular culture without being warned from the pulpit that they are risking the salvation of their immortal souls by exposing themselves to the near occasions of sin. "Ribbet, ribbet, that's not so bad."

The laity have grown to accept the fact that the art and architecture of many church buildings in conciliar captivity are reflective of "modern" tastes and "modern" theology. "Ribbet, ribbet, that's not so bad."

The laity have grown to "like" the fact that many of their "bishops" and "presbyters" are "tolerant" and "charitable" towards those who are actively and unrepentantly steeped in perverse sins against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments. "Ribbet, ribbet, that's not so bad."

The laity have grown to accept the fact that "religious education" in the conciliar structures stresses the "love" of God rather than the rote memorization of articles contained in the Baltimore Catechism. "Ribbet, ribbet, that's so bad."

The laity have grown to accept the fact that they can applaud vigorously and laugh uproariously in the context of the Novus Ordo service. "Ribbet, ribbet, that's not so bad."

The laity have grown to accept the fact that they have more "freedom," at least in a de facto sense, to "question" the truths of the Faith. "Ribbet, ribbet, that's not so bad."

The laity have grown to accept Scripture "study" programs that explain away the miracles, if not the Sacred Divinity, of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. "Ribbet, ribbet, that's not so bad."

The laity have grown to accept the Novus Ordo "Rite of Christian Burial" with its white vestments and the words of reassurance that their loved ones who never darkened a church after childhood are in Heaven and were "model" Christians during life. "Ribbet, ribbet, that's not so bad."

The laity have grown to accept the Novus Ordo service in the vernacular as belief in the Real Presence has waned. "Ribbet, ribbet, that's not so bad."

Many, although far from all, of the laity have grown to accept their clown liturgies and their "rock" liturgies and their "folk" liturgies and their liturgical dances. "Ribbet, ribbet, that's not so bad."

Many, although far from all, of the laity have grown to accept their "World Youth Days" with all of their abominations and sacrileges. "Ribbet, ribbed, that's not so bad."

Many, although far from all, of the laity have grown to accept the incorporation of pagan rituals into what passes for the "Mass" and what are called "para-liturgies." "Ribbet, ribbet, that's not so bad.

Many, although far from all, of the laity have grown to accept "face-to-face" "confession" in the "reconciliation room." "Ribbet, ribbet, that's not so bad."

Many, although far from all, of the laity have grown to accept their Saturday afternoon or evening Novus Ordo services that permit them to keep Sunday, the Lord's Day, "free" for what really matters (sleep, baseball, football, soccer, shopping, .etc.). "Ribbet, ribbet, that's not so bad."

Those of the laity who are involved in various movements ("Catholic" Charismatic Renewal, Opus Dei, Focolare, Cursillo, the Sant'Egidio Community, the Shalom Catholic Community, the Chemin Neuf Community, the International Community of Faith and Light, Regnum Christi, Communion and Liberation, the Emmanuel Community, the Seguimi Lay Group of Human-Christian Promotion, and. among many, many others, the Neocatechumenal Way) have grown to accept and to bask in the the "papal" approbations given to their false "spiritualities" that convince them of their "unique" "calling" in what they believe to be, albeit falsely, the Catholic Church. "Ribbet, ribbet, that's not so bad."

Many presbyters have grown to accept the fact that they are the "stars of the show" in the Novus Ordo service who bask in the warmth of human respect because they do not have to preach "uncomfortable" truths or force their parishioners to dress modestly in order to receive what passes for Holy Communion (while other presbyters have made their "peace" with changes they don't "like" by saying, "I'm just following orders"). "Ribbet, ribbet, that's no so bad. It's not my fault if what I am doing offends God. It's not my fault if my 'pope' and my 'bishop' offend God by means of 'inter-faith prayer services.' I just have to keep my mouth shut and do what I am told. That's all I'm required to do, right? I'm not required to use the brain that God gave me to recognize evil by its proper name to denounce it fearlessly no matter the consequences that I might suffer for doing so. What? I'm supposed to oppose error and to tell my people that the Catholic Church always always rejected and condemned novelty? Ees not my job, man? It's time for me to have a nice liqueur or two as I relax in my easy chair watching television or listening to Mozart or Hayden on my stereo system in my rectory. What, me worry? Ribbet, ribbet, that's not so bad."

And it is because most, although not all, members of the clergy who are attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism are responding with a "ribbet, ribbet, that's not so bad" to the scandal represented by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's interview with German journalist Peter Seewald that has been publish in book form under the title of Light of the World, thinking that little, if anything, is amiss in the "pope's" comments about the subject that was discussed in five straight articles on this site last week (If Them, Why Not Others?, Let the Olympic Games of Absurdity Begin!, Razing The Last Bastions, Nothing New Under Benedict's Sun, and Words and Actions Without Consequences). "Ribbet, ribbet, that's not so bad.

Catholic pro-aborts remain in perfectly good "canonical" standing in the new religion of conciliarism.

Presbyters who even go beyond the apostasies of conciliarism by denying articles contained in the Deposit of Faith that the conciliar church still teaches are permitted to remain in "canonical" good standing in the new religion of conciliarism, including those who teach in conciliar schools, universities and colleges. Even "bishops" who do so remain in "canonical" good standing as they retain their "offices" in the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

What has happened, pray tell, to the Chairman of the conciliar "bishops'" conference in the Federal Republic of Germany, Robert Zollitsch, the "archbishop" of Freiburg, who denied on Holy Saturday, April 11, 2009, that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ died to make expiation for our sins?

The Chairman of the German Bishops' Conference and archbishop of Freiburg, Robert Zollitsch, believes that Christ’s crucifixion is just a psychological support for those who suffer.

On Holy Saturday, the archbishop denied the Expiatory Death of Christ in an interview with the German TV station 'Hessischer Rundfunk'.

Christ "did not die for the sins of the people as if God had needed a sacrificial offering or something like a scapegoat" - the archbishop said.

According to him the dying Christ simply expressed "solidarity" with the suffering of the people even to death.

This way, Christ showed, the archbishop said, that even suffering and pain have been taken up by God.

According to Zollitsch "this is the great perspective, the tremendous solidarity," that Christ went so far that he suffered all "with" me.

The journalist asked Zollitsch: "You would now no longer describe it in such a way that God gave his own son, because we humans were so sinful? You would no longer describe it like this?"

To this question Zollitsch replied with a clear "no".

He stated that God has given "his own son in solidarity with us unto his last agony” to show that: You mean so much to me that I go with you, and I am totally with you in every situation."

The archbishop seems to row back a tiny way when he says that one’s own sins were responsible that Christ "has become so involved with me". But he does not elaborate farther.

"Christ has become involved with me out of solidarity – out of free will" – the archbishop repeated in the interview.

According to Zollitsch Christ has "participated in carrying my debt, including the evil I have caused, in order to take this up into the world of God and hence to show also to me the way out of sin, guilt and from death to life."  (Gloria.tv: Chairman of German Bishops’ Conference denies Christ's Expiatory Death)

 

What has happened to "Archbishop" Zollitsch? How can a man, appointed by Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II in 2003, rise to such prominence in what purports to be, albeit falsely, the Catholic Church without anyone in "Rome" bothering to care about what he believes? Has "Archbishop" Zollitsch been subjected by his brother conciliar "bishops" in Germany to the scorn and revulsion that greeted Bishop Richard Williamson's interview that was aired on Swedish television on January 21, 2009? No, large numbers of people in the counterfeit church of conciliarism have grown used to outrageous denials of the Faith as nothing out of the ordinary, simply indicative of "opinions" that one is free to hold in these "modern" times. "Ribbet, ribbet, that's not so bad."

Those who are not convinced that the counterfeit church of conciliarism represents a new religion, one that is made by men to be "liked" by all men, Catholics and non-Catholics alike, should consider the fact that Holy Mother Church is as spotless as the Blessed Virgin Mary, the very fairest flower of our race. It is not possible for the Catholic Church to have generated and sustained outrages and apostasies and blasphemies and sacrileges and abominations that have their preternatural origins in no other place than Hell itself.

As I wrote over a year and one-half ago now:

Our Lady is the archetype of Holy Mother Church. She is without stain of sin or the least trace of error of any kind. So is Holy Mother Church. Holy Mother Church takes refuge in the arms of Our Lady in her Basilica in Rome today, Saint Mary Major. Holy Mother Church rushes into the arms of the Blessed Mother to make reparation for the infidelity of the traitor Judas Iscariot and to plead for her children to be faithful always unto the point of their dying breaths. Holy Mother Church can no more give us error or blasphemy or sacrilege or be a participate in various apostasies than can the Blessed Virgin Mary. What more proof do we need that the counterfeit church of conciliarism is a Judas "church" filled with modern-day Judases, for whom we must pray but with whom we must have no association in the slightest at any time for any reason whatsoever?

 

The fact that so many Catholics yet attached to the structures of the counterfeit church conciliarism accept their new religion should teach us to flee from everything to do with teachings and practices that have been condemned time and time again by the authority of the Catholic Church, cleaving only to those true bishops and true priests who make no concessions to--or countenance in the slightest to--the counterfeit church of conciliarism and its false shepherds who free free to spit on Our Lord and His Sacred Deposit of Faith, including during the Paschal Triduum of His Passion, Death and Resurrection.

We cannot go "ribbet, ribbet, that's not bad" about liturgical outrages, both those "approved" and those that are "unapproved" by the lords of conciliarism as the Catholic Church can never give us a liturgy is an incentive to impiety:

CANON VII.--If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema. (Session Twenty-Two, Chapter IX, Canon VII, Council of Trent, September 17, 1562, CT022.)

The Catholic Church has never and can never give us novelties of any kind. She has consistently condemned doctrinal and liturgical novelties of all kinds:

Would that they had but displayed less zeal and energy in propagating it! But such is their activity and such their unwearying labor on behalf of their cause, that one cannot but be pained to see them waste such energy in endeavoring to ruin the Church when they might have been of such service to her had their efforts been better directed. Their artifices to delude men's minds are of two kinds, the first to remove obstacles from their path, the second to devise and apply actively and patiently every resource that can serve their purpose. They recognize that the three chief difficulties which stand in their way are the scholastic method of philosophy, the authority and tradition of the Fathers, and the magisterium of the Church, and on these they wage unrelenting war. Against scholastic philosophy and theology they use the weapons of ridicule and contempt. Whether it is ignorance or fear, or both, that inspires this conduct in them, certain it is that the passion for novelty is always united in them with hatred of scholasticism, and there is no surer sign that a man is tending to Modernism than when he begins to show his dislike for the scholastic method. Let the Modernists and their admirers remember the proposition condemned by Pius IX: "The method and principles which have served the ancient doctors of scholasticism when treating of theology no longer correspond with the exigencies of our time or the progress of science." They exercise all their ingenuity in an effort to weaken the force and falsify the character of tradition, so as to rob it of all its weight and authority. But for Catholics nothing will remove the authority of the second Council of Nicea, where it condemns those "who dare, after the impious fashion of heretics, to deride the ecclesiastical traditions, to invent novelties of some kind...or endeavor by malice or craft to overthrow any one of the legitimate traditions of the Catholic Church"; nor that of the declaration of the fourth Council of Constantinople: "We therefore profess to preserve and guard the rules bequeathed to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, by the Holy and most illustrious Apostles, by the orthodox Councils, both general and local, and by everyone of those divine interpreters, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church." Wherefore the Roman Pontiffs, Pius IV and Pius IX, ordered the insertion in the profession of faith of the following declaration: "I most firmly admit and embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and other observances and constitutions of the Church.'' (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

These firings, therefore, with all diligence and care having been formulated by us, we define that it be permitted to no one to bring forward, or to write, or to compose, or to think, or to teach a different faith. Whosoever shall presume to compose a different faith, or to propose, or teach, or hand to those wishing to be converted to the knowledge of the truth, from the Gentiles or Jews, or from any heresy, any different Creed; or to introduce a new voice or invention of speech to subvert these things which now have been determined by us, all these, if they be Bishops or clerics let them be deposed, the Bishops from the Episcopate, the clerics from the clergy; but if they be monks or laymen: let them be anathematized. (Sixth Ecumenical: Constantinople III).

 

Pope Gregory XVI prophetically condemned the proliferation of various errors in Germany in the fourth decade of the Nineteenth Century that were eerie precursors of both concilairism and of the "resist but recognize" movement that seeks to "sift" the decrees and pronouncements of true popes. And do you know where these errors that were precursors of Modernism and thus of the counterfeit church of concilairism itself originated? You got it. Germany:

Truly such reformers use these principles. In addition, they disclose and propose them in many pamphlets, which they distribute especially in Germany. This is now very clear from the booklet printed in Offenburg. It is especially clear from those things which the aforementioned F. L. Mersy, head of the seditious meeting held there, imprudently compiled in his republication of the same book. While these men were shamefully straying in their thoughts, they proposed to fall upon the errors condemned by the Church in proposition 78 of the constitution Auctorem fidei (published by Our predecessor, Pius VI on August 28, 1794). They also attacked the pure doctrine which they say they want to keep safe and sound; either they do not understand the situation or craftily pretend not to understand it. While they contend that the entire exterior form of the Church can be changed indiscriminately, do they not subject to change even those items of discipline which have their basis in divine law and which are linked with the doctrine of faith in a close bond? Does not the law of the believer thus produce the law of the doer? Moreover, do they not try to make the Church human by taking away from the infallible and divine authority, by which divine will it is governed? And does it not produce the same effect to think that the present discipline of the Church rests on failures, obscurities, and other inconveniences of this kind? And to feign that this discipline contains many things which are not useless but which are against the safety of the Catholic religion? Why is it that private individuals appropriate for themselves the right which is proper only for the pope? (Pope Gregory XVI, Quo Graviora, October 4, 1833.)

In other words, if you have a true pope, good readers, you have to obey him. However, a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter can never give us the offenses against God that have been given us by the conciliar "popes." True popes have never give us novelties. True popes have never countenanced "clown" liturgies or "folk" liturgies or "rock" liturgies or gone into places of false worship to participate as inferiors in ceremonies that are offensive to the true God of Divine Revelation. True popes have never presided over such liturgies. True popes have never esteemed the symbols of false religions with their own priestly hands or praised their nonexistent ability to help create the "better" world and to contribute to "world peace." This is all, every single bit of it, without any precedent in the history of the Catholic Church. And how can any believing Catholic go "ribbet, ribbet, that's not so bad" in the face of these offenses to God that lead souls on pathways to eternal perdition? How?

Pope Gregory XVI went on to say the following in Quo Graviora that deal death blows to conciliarism and to its supposed opposition in the "resist but recognize" movement:

 

6. We will now discuss those sections of discipline which are in effect for the whole Church. Because they are free from ecclesiastical instruction, they can undergo change, but only by the pope, whom Christ placed over the entire Church to judge concerning the necessity of change for various reasons of circumstance. Thus, as St. Gelasius wrote: "Balance the decrees of the canons and consider the precepts of your predecessors, so that those things which the demands of the times require to be relaxed for the rebuilding of the churches may be moderated through careful consideration." It is tedious to detain you with a long speech, venerable brothers, about the false principles which the reformers depend on. They add rashness to error with the usual verbal license of such men, since they attack this Holy See as if it were too persistent in outdated customs and did not look deeply inside the character of our time. They accuse this See of becoming blind amid the light of new knowledge, and of hardly distinguishing those things which deal with the substance of religion from those which regard only the external form. They say that it feeds superstition, fosters abuses, and finally behaves as if it never looks after the interests of the Catholic Church in changing times. Where does all this lead? Actually, so that the most Holy See of Peter in which Jesus Christ placed the foundation of His Church is hastened toward envy. Its divine authority is subjected to the hatred of the people, and the union of other churches with it is broken. The dissidents give up hope then that they would obtain what they want at this Apostolic See. They assert that the Church -- one nation, as they call it -- should be ruled by its own laws. From here they continue so as to grant free authority to revoke or abrogate the laws of the whole Church to each individual pastor, if the expediency of his diocese demands it. What then? Since they do not perceive any advantage among you, they try to free those same priests from the submission due to the bishops. They are not afraid to concede to the priests the right of administrating the dioceses. It is quite clear that these men, acting against the truth of faith, have overthrown the ecclesiastical hierarchy which was established by divine will and defined by the fathers of the Council of Trent. It is also clear that they want to return to the very errors in the propositions 6, 7, 8, and 9 proscribed by the aforesaid dogmatic constitution Auctorem fidei. (Pope Gregory XVI, Quo Graviora, October 4, 1833.)

 

The conciliarists are condemned in this passage as those who claim that the disciplinary practices and even the language of the Catholic Church must be changed "amid the light of new knowledge" and that those practices have fed "superstition" and fostered "abuses" while insisting that they must look after "the interests of the Catholic Church in changing times."

Who says that the Catholic Church must adapt to "modern times?" Oh, I don't know. Let me make a wild stab to find just two of many examples, all right? Just bear with me for a moment:

The same awareness of the present state of the world also influenced the use of texts from very ancient tradition. It seemed that this cherished treasure would not be harmed if some phrases were changed so that the style of language would be more in accord with the language of modern theology and would faithfully reflect the actual state of the Church's discipline. Thus there have been changes of some expressions bearing on the evaluation and use of the good things of the earth and of allusions to a particular form of outward penance belonging to another age in the history of the Church. (Paragraph Fifteen, General Instruction to the Roman Missal, 1997.)

Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger, 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; Card. Ratzinger: The teachings of the Popes against Modernism are obsolete.)

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

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

 

This is apostasy. Catholics go "ribbet, ribbet, that's not so bad" to these kinds of defections from the Catholic Faith only by being willfully blind to the truth.

The "resist but recognize" movement of the Society of Saint Pius X is condemned by the words of Pope Gregory XVI in Quo Graviora by arrogating unto itself the right to decide what papal decrees and statements are binding upon them as their bishops and priests, although conceding the "legitimacy" of their "pope," obey what they believe is consonant with the Catholic faith and reject what they do not like, thus making a mockery of Papal Primacy and the infallibility of Holy Mother Church. Here are the relevant passages from Pope Pius VI's Auctorem Fidei as cited by Pope Gregory XVI in Quo Graviora:

6. The doctrine of the synod by which it professes that "it is convinced that a bishop has received from Christ all necessary rights for the good government of his diocese," just as if for the good government of each diocese higher ordinances dealing either with faith and morals, or with general discipline, are not necessary, the right of which belongs to the supreme Pontiffs and the General Councils for the universal Church,—schismatic, at least erroneous.

7. Likewise, in this, that it encourages a bishop "to pursue zealously a more perfect constitution of ecclesiastical discipline," and this "against all contrary customs, exemptions, reservations which are opposed to the good order of the diocese, for the greater glory of God and for the greater edification of the faithful"; in that it supposes that a bishop has the right by his own judgment and will to decree and decide contrary to customs, exemptions, reservations, whether they prevail in the universal Church or even in each province, without the consent or the intervention of a higher hierarchic power, by which these customs, etc., have been introduced or approved and have the force of law,—leading to schism and subversion of hierarchic rule, erroneous.

8. Likewise, in that it says it is convinced that "the rights of a bishop received from Jesus Christ for the government of the Church cannot be altered nor hindered, and, when it has happened that the exercise of these rights has been interrupted for any reason whatsoever, a bishop can always and should return to his original rights, as often as the greater good of his church demands it"; in the fact that it intimates that the exercise of episcopal rights can be hindered and coerced by no higher power, whenever a bishop shall judge that it does not further the greater good of his church,—leading to schism, and to subversion of hierarchic government, erroneous.

9. The doctrine which states, that "the reformation of abuses in regard to ecclesiastical discipline ought equally to depend upon and be established by the bishop and the parish priests in diocesan synods, and that without the freedom of decision, obedience would not be due to the suggestions and orders of the bishops," 1-false, rash, harmful to episcopal authority, subversive of hierarchic government, favoring the heresy of Aerius, which was renewed by Calvin. (Pope Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei, August 29, 1794.)

 

This is what the bishops and priests of the Society of Saint Pius X have done by deciding what parts of "papal" decrees they will accept, including a liturgy that was promulgated by a man they believe to have been a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter, Giovanni Montini/Paul VI. The Society of Saint Pius X has gone so far as to establish their own marriage "tribunals" as its officials have scoffed at Vatican admonitions not to proceed with priestly ordinations until their status within the conciliar church is "regularized." The ecclesiology and practices of the Society of Saint Pius X that have been used to defend elements of Catholic Faith and Worship over the course of the past forty years are just are erroneous as have been the evils of conciliarism that the Society has opposed.

Indeed, the Society of Saint Pius X's belief that Catholics are not bound by all pronouncements made by a true pope or issued with his approval by the authority of the Catholic Church has been condemned by Pope Pius IX in The Syllabus of Errors:

22. The obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are strictly bound is confined to those things only which are proposed to universal belief as dogmas of faith by the infallible judgment of the Church. -- Letter to the Archbishop of Munich, "Tuas libenter," Dec. 21, 1863. (Proposition condemned by Pope Pius IX, The Syllabus of Errors, December 8, 1864.)

 

Although there will always be those who cling to the myths that conciliarism just needs to be "understood" properly and that the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service does not offend God, those who have come to reject that which simply cannot from God or His Holy Church have not "invented" the doctrine that those who defect privately on even one point of the Catholic Faith have expelled themselves from the Catholic Church and thus deprived themselves of any right to hold offices within her legitimately. Although one can attempt to argue, in spite all evidence to the contrary, that the conciliar"popes" have not knowingly and pertinaciously adhered to any heresy, even conciliar canonist admitted in February of 2005 that the See of Peter would be vacant in the case of heresy.

It is true that the canonical doctrine states that the see would be vacant in the case of heresy. ... But in regard to all else, I think what is applicable is what judgment regulates human acts. And the act of will, namely a resignation or capacity to govern or not govern, is a human act. (Cardinal Says Pope Could Govern Even If Unable to Speak, Zenit, February 8, 2005.)

 

Admittedly, "Cardinal" Pompedda, who was the head of the counterfeit church of concilairism's Apostolic Signatura from 1997 to 2004, did not admit the canonical-doctrinal truth of sedevacantism applied during the "pontificate" of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II. Unlike what many traditionally-minded Catholics have heard from the theologians of the Society of Saint Pius X, however, Pompedda was intellectually honest enough to admit that sedevacantism is indeed a part of the canonical doctrine of the Catholic Church. Only a handful of Catholics, priests and laity alike, accepted this doctrine and recognized that it applied in our circumstances in the immediate aftermath of the "Second" Vatican Council. I was not one of them.

For those who might contend that a papacy vacancy lasting more than half a century could "never" occur, it is necessary to point out that very few Catholics, save for the revolutionaries who were planning their assault against Holy Mother Church's perennial patrimony, would have thought it possible seventy or eighty years ago for a true pope to do or say the things that have been done in the past century as they knew that no Catholic can do or say such things and remain a member of the Catholic Church in good standing. The appendix below will provide yet a reminder of the silliness of the "God would never permit" argument that has been bandied about by some about the "impossibility" that sedevacantism, a canonical doctrine of the Catholic Church, is even true, no less that it applies in our times.

The bottom line, ladies and gentlemen, is that God does not accept the apostasies and novelties and blasphemies and errors of conciliarism that are accepted by so many of His creatures, who have made "golden calves," if you will, of their Novus Ordo "likes" to such an an extent that anyone who speaks to them about the teaching of the Catholic Church might as well be a visitor from another planet.

God will not be mocked, however. We must defend His greater honor and majesty and glory, as Saint Alphonsus de Liguori made clear:

Be attentive. Brethren, if we wish to save our souls, we must overcome human respect, and bear the little confusion which may arise from the scoffs of the enemies of the cross of Jesus Christ. "For there is a shame that bringeth sin, and there is a shame that bringeth glory and grace"-Eccl., iv. 25. If we do not suffer this confusion with patience, it will lead us into the pit of sin; but, if we submit to it for God's sake, it will obtain for us the divine grace here, and great glory hereafter. "As," says St. Gregory, "bashfulness is laudable in evil, so it is reprehensible in good"--hom. x., in  Ezech.

But some of you will say: I attend to my own affairs; I wish to save my soul; why should I be persecuted? But there is no remedy; it is impossible to serve God, and not be persecuted. "The wicked loathe them that are in the right way"--Prov., xxix. 27. Sinners cannot bear the sight of the man who lives according to the Gospel, because his life is a continual censure on their disorderly conduct; and therefore they say: "Let us lie in wait for the just; because he is not for our turn, and he is contrary to our doings, and upbraideth us with transgressions of the law"--Wis., ii. 12. The proud man, who seeks revenge for every insult he receives, would wish that all should avenge the offences that may be offered to him. The avaricious, who grow rich by injustice, wish that all should imitate their fraudulent practices. The drunkard wishes to see others indulge like himself, in intoxication. The immoral, who boast of their impurities, and can scarcely utter a word which does not savour of  obscenity, desire that all should act and speak as they do; and those who do not imitate their conduct, they regard as mean, clownish, and intractable--as men without honour and without education. "They are of the world; therefore of the world they speak"--I. John., iv. 5. Worldlings can speak no other language than that of the world. Oh! how great is their poverty and blindness! Sin has blinded them, and therefore they speak profanely. "These things they thought, and were deceived; for their own malice blinded them"--Wis., ii, 21. . . .

Wicked friends come to you and say: "What extravagancies are those in which you indulge? Why do you not act like others? Say to them in answer: My conduct is not opposed to that of all men; there are others who lead a holy life. They are indeed few; but I will follow their example; for the Gospel says: "Many are called, but few are chosen"--Matt., xx. 16. "If", says St. John Climacus, "you wish to be saved with the few, live like the few". But, they will add, do you not see that all murmur against you. and condemn your manner of living? Let your answer be: It is enough for me, that God does not censure my conduct. Is it not better to obey God than to obey men? Such was the answer of St. Peter and St. John to the Jewish priests: "If it be just in the sight of God to hear you rather than God, judge yet"--Acts, iv. 19. If they ask you how you can bear an insult? or who, after submitting to it, can you appear among your equals? answer them by saying, that you are a Christian, and that it is enough for you to appear well in the eyes of God. Such should be your answer to all these satellites of Satan: you must despise all their maxims and reproaches. And when it is necessary to reprove those who make little of God's law, you must take courage and correct them publicly. "Then that sin, reprove before all"--I. Tim., v. 20. And when there is question of the divine honour, we should not be frightened by the dignity of the man who offends God; let us say to him openly: This is sinful; it cannot be done. Let us imitate the Baptist, who reproved King Herod for living his brother's wife and said to him: "It is not lawful for thee to have her"--Matt., xiv. 4. Men indeed shall regard us as fools, and turn us into derision; but, on the day of judgment they shall acknowledge that they have been foolish, and we have shall have the glory of being numbered among the saints. They shall say: "These are they whom we had some time in derision. . . . . We fools esteemed their life madness, and their end without honour. Behold how they are numbered among the children of God, and their lot is among the saints"--Wis., v. 3, 4, 5. (Sixth Sunday After Easter: On Human Respect.)

 

As has been noted a great deal on this site in the past fifty-three months or so, each person must come to see the truth of our ecclesiastical situation for himself as we continue to pray for each other at a time when the conciliar revolutionaries have pitted us against so many of our own relatives and friends and acquaintances and former colleagues. Disparaging no one who continues to go "ribbet, ribbet, that's not so bad" in the face of the travesties of the moment, it is useful nevertheless, at least as I see it, to note that no one who has come to the conclusion that conciliarism is false and that its officials hold their offices illegitimately has invented a single, solitary event of the past fifty years, events about which we have been warned by the Mother of God herself and by our true popes. Those of us who point out the absolute incompatibility of Catholicism and conciliarism are not the "problem" facing the Church Militant on earth today. It is the conciliar revolutionaries who have caused these problems, chief among them Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI.

May the Joyful Mysteries of Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary that we offer up during this Advent season of vigilant expectation to the Throne of the Most Blessed Trinity through her own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart help to plant a few seeds for the restoration of the Social Reign of Christ the King in the world and for the vanquishing of conciliarism as the Holy Mother Church is restored to her glory as the fruit of the Triumph of that same Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.

What are we waiting for? Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.

 

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

 

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior and Balthasar, pray for us.

Saint Andrew the Apostle, pray for us.

Saint Saturninus, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints

Appendix A

Does God Permit Mass Numbers of People to be Deceived

(Drawn from past articles)

Oh, yes, there are some who argue against sedevacantism by claiming that God would never "permit" as long of a vacancy in the See of Saint Peter as has occurred since the death of Pope Pius XII on October 9, 1958, and the present time. Father Martin Stepanich, O.F.M., S.T.D., has dissected this assertion in An Objection to Sedevacantism: 'Perpetual Successors' to Peter.

Still others try to reason, speciously, from the consequences that would result if the See of Peter was truly vacant. I would only point out in all charity that we are eyewitnesses to these consequences, that the men accepted and defended by the sedeplenists as true, valid and legitimate Successors of Saint Peter can permit clown "Masses" and "rock" Masses and liturgical dancing and esteem the symbols of false religions publicly and flatly contradict the teaching of the Catholic Church, making it appear, no matter their subjective motivations, which are known only to God and are judged by Him while their external words and deeds speak for themselves very plainly, to Catholics and non-Catholics alike that the Catholic Church can indeed "change with the times."

The old adage about a picture being worth a thousand words is very true, which is why the appearance of practical religious indifferentism given by Giovanni Montini/Paul VI, Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, and Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI by treating non-Catholic "clergymen" as valid ministers of God and by esteeming the symbols of false religions reaffirms non-Catholics in their false beliefs and also scandalizes some evangelical and fundamentalist Protestants in their firm conviction that the Catholic Church is indeed the whore of Babylon. A true Successor of Saint Peter gives no such impression. (See Wear Your Catholic Stripes Well.)

No, the "God would never permit so many Catholics to be deceived about the legitimacy of claimants to the papal throne" argument is indeed specious and without any merit. Truth is what it is. The mere fact that a particular truth bears within itself a requirement that we come to face to face with the chastisements of the present moment with sobriety and with a total trust in God's Holy Providence and the loving care of His Most Blessed Mother as we enfold ourselves in the garment of her Brown Scapular and and use the shield of her Most Holy Rosary does not make that truth go away or in any way invalid.

Truth will discomfit us now and again. Few people want to face the reality of their mortality when they are told that they have some sort of incurable disease. "Not me? Not now. It's too soon. It's not fair. I have too much to do so." All of that protestation, however, does not and cannot change the reality of the imminent deaths of those who have been diagnosed with incurable diseases. All of the protestation about the "impossibility" of sedevacantism even being a doctrine of the Catholic Church, no less that it applies in our times of apostasy and betrayal, does not make this truth go away. People are either going to see this or they are not.

To come to the conclusion that the conciliarists are spiritual robber barons and that they belong to a false church that is but a counterfeit ape of the Catholic Church is not the path to popularity, career success or financial well-being. We have lost friends and major financial supporters in the past four years. This is all within God's Holy Providence as we remember with fondness and gratitude the friendships and financial support of the past, remembering that friendship and financial support are free gifts that can be bestowed or withdrawn at will. They cannot be earned, coerced or forced in any way.

No one put a gun to my head and said, "Sedevacantism or die!" I made a choice, and I alone am responsible for the consequences that I knew would befall me as a result. Choices carry consequences with them. No one in my acquaintance comes to the conclusions that the conciliarists are imposters for the "money" as, believe me, there is no "money" to be "made" from joining the warring ranks of the tiny, tiny number of people in the world who have come to see our situation as it is. Some of the Catholics who opposed the Protestant Revolt in England in the Sixteenth Century were at war with each other almost as much, if not more, than with the English civil authorities who were trying to arrest and kill them. Why should it be any different now?

Our Lady of La Salette prophesied that families would indeed be estranged in these days of apostasy. Behold so many estrangements, so much misunderstand and suspicion, so much hostility, so much condemnation of the persons of others as opposed to the rejection of their mistaken positions. We are indeed living in a time that requires us to accept the chastisements of the moment with joy and gratitude, knowing full well that God has willed us to be alive at this specific time in salvation history. Is not the grace He won for us on Calvary that flows into our hearts and souls through the loving hands of His Most Blessed Mother still sufficient to weather these storms as we see Our Lady's help to get through them in serenity on our path to Heaven?

God has indeed permitted large numbers of people in the past to be deceived:

God permitted one hundred percent of the human race to be deceived in the Garden of Eden.

God permitted all but eight members of the human race to be deceived and deluded prior to the Great Flood.

Almost all of the Chosen People who had been led out of their bondage to the slavery of the Egyptian Pharaoh by Moses built and worshiped a molten calf whilst Moses was receiving the Ten Commandments from God on Mount Sinai.

All but a handful of people stood by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as He suffered and died for us on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday.

All but a handful of bishops remained faithful to the Church during the Arian heresy that was fought by Saint Athanasius. Saint Jerome, of those who fought Arianism, wrote "The whole world groaned, and was astonished to find itself Arian."

All but one bishop, Saint John Fisher of Rochester, England, defected from the Faith at the time of the Protestant Revolt in England when King Henry VIII took this thoroughly Catholic country out of the Church.

All but thirty bishops defected from the Faith at the time Queen Elizabeth I took England out of the Church once again in the 1560s following the brief restoration that took place under the reign of her half-sister, Queen Mary, from 1553 to 1558.

 

The "mainstream" is not be followed. We need apostolic courage in these times of apostasy and betrayal. God's greater honor and glory must be defended against the against of men who have proved themselves to be precursors of the Antichrist.

God does indeed permit massive numbers of people to be deceived. His greater honor and glory are defended in most cases by a relative handful of the most unlikely souls, whom He raises up to confound the mighty and the powerful and the respected.

How do we think that we are going to recognize, no less resist and reject, the Antichrist when he comes when we are so complacent and smug in the face of the groundwork that is being laid by his conciliar minions for his coming? Will the emotionalism of sentimentality and the delusion of positivism not prevail then in the minds and hearts of most men?

Appendix B

A Reprise: The Errors of the Society of Saint Pius X

Compiled by Mr. Michael Creighton in 2009, who gave permission for publication on this site

To briefly enumerate some of the problems in the SSPX, they are:

1  A rejection of the of the ordinary magisterium (Vatican I; Session III - Dz1792) which must be divinely revealed. For instance Paul VI claimed that the new mass and Vatican II were his “Supreme Ordinary Magisterium” and John Paul II promulgated his catechism which contains heresies and errors in Fide Depositum by his “apostolic authority” as “the sure norm of faith and doctrine” and bound everyone by saying who believes what was contained therein is in “ecclesial communion”, that is in the Church.

2  A rejection of the divinely revealed teaching expressed in Vatican I , Session IV, that the faith of Peter [the Pope] cannot fail. Three ancient councils are quoted to support this claim. (2nd Lyons, 4th Constantinople & Florence). Pope Paul IV’s bull Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio teaches the same in the negative sense of this definition.

3  A distortion of canon law opposed to virtually all the canonists of the Church prior to Vatican II which tell us a heretical pope ipso facto loses his office by the operation of the law itself and without any declaration. This is expressed in Canon 188.4 which deals with the divine law and footnotes Pope Paul IV’s bull, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio. The SSPX pretends that sections of the code on penalties somehow apply to the pope which flatly contradicted by the law itself. The SSPX pretends that jurisdiction remains in force when the code clearly says jurisdiction is lost and only ‘acts’ of jurisdiction are declared valid until the person is found out (canons 2264-2265). This is simply to protect the faithful from invalid sacraments, not to help heretics retain office and destroy the Church. Charisms of the office, unlike indelible sacraments, require real jurisdiction. The SSPX pretends that penalties of the censure of ipso facto excommunication cannot apply to cardinals since it reserved to Holy See (canon 2227). This is another fabrication since the law does not refer to automatic (latae sententiae) penalties but only to penalties in which a competent judge is needed to inflict or declare penalties on offenders. Therefore it only refers to condemnatory and declaratory sentences but not automatic sentences. To say that ipso facto does not mean what it says is also condemned by Pope Pius VI in Auctorem Fidei.

4  The SSPX holds a form of the Gallican heresy that falsely proposes a council can depose a true pope. This was already tried by the Council of Basle and just as history condemned those schismatics, so it will condemn your Lordship. This belief also denies canon 1556 “The First See is Judged by no one.” This of course means in a juridical sense of judgment, not remaining blind to apostasy, heresy and crime which automatically takes effect.

5  The SSPX denies the visible Church must manifest the Catholic faith. They claim that somehow these men who teach heresy can’t know truth. This is notion has been condemned by Vatican I, Session III, Chapter 2. It is also condemned by canon 16 of the 1917 code of canon law. Clearly LaSalette has been fulfilled. Rome is the seat of anti-Christ & the Church is eclipsed. Clearly, our Lords words to Sr. Lucy at Rianjo in 1931 have come to pass. His “Ministers [Popes] have followed the kings of France into misfortune”.

6  The SSPX reject every doctor of the Church and every Church father who are unanimous in stating a heretic ipso facto is outside the Church and therefore cannot possess jurisdiction & pretends that is only their opinion when St. Robert states “... it is proven, with arguments from authority and from reason, that the manifest heretic is ipso facto deposed.” The authority he refers to is the magisterium of the Church, not his own opinion.

7  Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis is misinterpreted by the SSPX to validly elect a heretic to office against the divine law. A public heretic cannot be a cardinal because he automatically loses his office. This decree only refers to cardinals and hence it does not apply to ex-cardinals who automatically lost their offices because they had publicly defected from the Catholic faith. The cardinals mentioned in this decree who have been excommunicated are still Catholic and still cardinals; hence their excommunication does not cause them to become non-Catholics and lose their offices, as does excommunication for heresy and public defection from the Catholic faith. This is what the Church used to call a minor excommunication. All post 1945 canonists concur that Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis does not remove ipso facto excommunication: Eduardus F. Regatillo (1956), Matthaeus Conte a Coronata (1950), Serapius Iragui (1959), A. Vermeersch - I. Creusen (1949), Udalricus Beste (1946) teach that a pope or cardinal or bishop who becomes a public heretic automatically loses his office and a public heretic cannot legally or validly obtain an office. Even supposing this papal statement could apply to non-Catholics (heretics), Pope Pius XII goes on to say “at other times they [the censures] are to remain in vigor” Does this mean the Pope intends that a notorious heretic will take office and then immediately lose his office? It is an absurd conclusion, hence we must respect the interpretation of the Church in her canonists.

Errors/Heresies typical of an SSPX chapel attendees & priests:

1)  We are free to reject rites promulgated by the Church. [Condemned by Trent Session VII, Canon XIII/Vatican I, Session II]

2)  The Pope can’t be trusted to make judgments on faith and morals. We have to sift what is Catholic. [Condemned by Vatican I, Session IV, Chapter III.]

3) We are free to reject or accept ordinary magisterial teachings from a pope since they can be in error. This rejection may include either the conciliar ‘popes’ when teach heresy or the pre-conciliar popes in order to justify the validity of the conciliar popes jurisdiction, sacraments, etc [Condemned by Vatican I (Dz1792)/Satis Cognitum #15 of Leo XIII]

4)  The Kantian doctrine of unknowability of reality. We can’t know what is heresy, therefore we can’t judge. [Condemned by Vatican I, Session III, Chapter 2: On Revelation, Jn7:24].

5)  The faith of the Pope can fail. Frequently this is expressed as “we work for” or “we pray for the Popes conversion to the Catholic faith”. [condemned by Vatican I and at least 3 earlier councils mentioned above].

6)  Universal salvation, ecumenism, religious liberty, validity of the Old Covenant, etc. can be interpreted in a Catholic sense. [Condemned by every saint, every doctor of the Church and every Pope who comments on such issues; for instance Pope Eugene IV (Cantate Domino – Council of Florence)]

7)  Contraries can be true. [Hegelian doctrine against Thomistic Philosophy]. If these positions appear to be contradictory, they are.

When I point out these positions are against the Faith, frequently the Hegelian doctrine is employed by those in attendance at the SSPX chapel.