Smashing Through the Conciliar Looking Glass
by Thomas A. Droleskey
Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has a well-documented disregard for the nature of dogmatic truth. The false "pontiff" believes that dogmatic truth is so complex and contains so many different possible interpretations that it is impossible for the human mind to grasp it completely or to express it adequately at any one time. The "limitations" of human language and particular historical circumstances in which men attempt to formulate an expression of dogmatic truth make it necessary to "re-evaluate" various dogmatic expressions at different times.
Indeed, Ratzinger/Benedict has told us in his own words that it was "necessary" to "learn" this "truth," meaning that God the Holy Ghost had kept it hidden from Holy Mother Church until now and that the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity did not direct the expression of dogmatic truths by the Fathers of the Church's dogmatic councils, a belief that is as blasphemous as it is heretical:
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.)
If it was necessary for the Church to "learn to recognize that in these decisions it is only the principles that express the permanent aspect" and that the "practical forms that depend on the historical situation" are "subject to change," then God the Holy Ghost failed the Catholic Church at the [First] Vatican Council when the following decree was issued with the approval of Pope Pius IX:
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 1870.)
If it was, as Ratzinger/Benedict contends, "necessary" to "learn" how we can "understand" the expressions of dogmatic truths differently at different times, then God the Holy Ghost did indeed fail Holy Mother Church at the [First] Vatican Council. Ratzinger/Benedict does not think in these terms, however, as to disbelieve in the nature of dogmatic truth as it has been defined by Holy Mother Church is to disbelieve in the very nature of God, which means that Ratzinger/Benedict, like his late mentor Hans Urs von Balthasar before him, believes that Divine revelation is obscure of its nature and is subject to perfection over time.
It matters not to Ratzinger/Benedict that this logically absurd and blasphemous view of dogmatic truth--and thus of the God Who is the source of Divine Revelation and Who guides its expression at the Church's dogmatic councils and by true popes--has been anathematized. He, Ratzinger/Benedict, has dispensed with past condemnations when he stated the following on June 27, 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.)
It thus matters not to Ratzinger/Benedict that Pope Saint Pius X, writing in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907, prophetically condemned this heretical, anathematized proposition. Ratzinger/Benedict has no regard for anything that he believes has become "obsolete," including these words of Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominci Gregis:
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.
All of his protestations against the "dictatorship of relativism" notwithstanding, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is one of the chief relativists of all time as he regards with favor propositions condemned by the authority of Holy Mother Church and as he regards with favor the "usefulness" of "insights" offered by heretical authors for "understanding" the Catholic Faith. An article in Si, Si, No, No, made this point very clear:
Up to the very end of his conference, Card. Ratzinger resolutely continues on this road of agnosticism and now logically comes to the most disastrous of conclusions. He writes:
In conclusion, as we contemplate our present-day religious situation, of which I have tried to throw some light on some of its elements, we may well marvel at the fact that, after all, people still continue believing in a Christian manner, not only according to Hick's, Knitter's as well as others' substitute ways or forms, but also according to that full and joyous Faith found in the New Testament of the Church of all time.
So, there it is: For Card. Ratzinger, "Hick, Knitter, and others" who deny the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, His Church, His sacraments, and, in short, all of Christianity, continue "despite everything" "believing in a Christian manner," even though they do so using "substitute forms of belief"! Here, the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Faith leaves us wondering indeed, just what it is he means by "believing in a Christian manner."
Moreover, once the "preambula fidei" have been eliminated, that "full and joyous Faith of the Church of all time" which seems [for Card. Ratzinger] to be no different from modern-day apostasies other than by its style and total character, is utterly lacking in any rational credibility in comparison with and in relation to what he refers to as "substitute ways or forms" of faith. "How is it," Card. Ratzinger wonders, "in fact, that the Faith [the one of all time] still has a chance of success?" Answer:
I would say that it is because it finds a correspondence in man's nature…..There is, in man, an insatiable desire for the infinite. None of the answers we have sought is sufficient [but must we take his own word for it, or must we go through the exercise of experiencing all religions?]. God alone [but Whom, according to Card. Ratzinger, human reason cannot prove to be truly God], Who made Himself finite in order to shatter the bonds of our own finitude and bring us to the dimension of His infinity [...and not to redeem us from the slavery of sin?] is able to meet all the needs of our human existence.
According to this, it is therefore not objective motives based on history and reason, and thus the truth of Christianity, but only a subjective appreciation which brings us to "see" that it [Christianity] is able to satisfy the profound needs of human nature and which would explain the "success" [modernists would say the "vitality"] of the "faith" ["of all time" or in its "substitute forms," it is of but little importance]. Such, however, is not at all Catholic doctrine: this is simply modernist apologetics (cf. Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi), based on their affirmed impossibility of grasping metaphysical knowledge (or agnosticism or skepticism), which Card. Ratzinger seemed to want to shun in the first part of his address.
Now we are in a position to better understand why Card. Ratzinger has such a wide-open concept of "theology" and of "faith" that he includes everything: theology as well as heresies, faith and apostasy. On that road of denial of the human reason's ability of attaining metaphysical knowledge, a road which he continues to follow, he lacks the "means of discerning the difference between faith and non-faith" (R. Amerio, op. cit., p.340) and, consequently, theology from pseudo-theology, truth from heresy:
All theologies are nullified, because all are regarded as equivalent; the heart or kernel of religion is located in feelings or experiences, as the Modernists held at the beginning of this century (Amerio, op. cit., p.542).
We cannot see how this position of Card. Ratzinger can escape that solemn condemnation proclaimed at Vatican I: "If anyone says...that men must be brought to the Faith solely by their own personal interior experience...let him be anathema" (DB 1812). (Cardinal Ratzinger)
Ratzinger/Benedict's blithe, liberal regard for heresy and error and ambiguity and imprecision is what makes it possible for him to contradict himself and/or to express himself, whether in writing or in speech, in ways that seem to say one thing that do not exclude his saying or doing something else almost immediately thereafter. Remember, Ratzinger/Benedict rejects the Scholasticism of Saint Thomas Aquinas, basing his entire theological perspective, such as it is, on the condemned precepts of the "New Theology" of the likes of Hans Urs von Balthasar, Maurice Blondel, Henri de Lubac, Yves Congar, and, at least to some extent despite some differences of approach and substance, Karl Rahner. This rejection of Scholasticism, apart from being condemned by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominci Gregis and by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis, August 12, 1950, was condemned by Pope Pius IX in The Syllabus of Errors, December 8, 1864:
13. The method and principles by which the old scholastic doctors cultivated theology are no longer suitable to the demands of our times and to the progress of the sciences. (Condemned proposition in The Syllabus of Errors.)
By rejecting Scholasticism, Ratzinger/Benedict, therefore, lives in a world of ambiguity and obscurity that makes it possible for him to contradict himself so readily and so regularly.
To wit, it was only three months ago that Ratzinger/Benedict sent a letter to his conciliar "bishops" to explain why he had "lifted" the "excommunications" that had been imposed by the late Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II on the four bishops of the Society of Saint Pius X who had been consecrated by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and co-consecrated by the late Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer of the Society of Saint John Mary Vianney of Campos, Brazil. Ratzinger/Benedict went to great lengths to explain that he "lifted" the "excommunications" as act of "mercy" and that it was his intention to "educate" the members of the Society of Saint Pius X so as to broaden their "vistas" as has been done in the past with members who belong to the currently established Motu communities that feature a modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition in exchange, at least implicitly, for silence about his own apostasies and blasphemies:
Leading men and women to God, to the God Who speaks in the Bible: this is the supreme and fundamental priority of the Church and of the Successor of Peter at the present time. A logical consequence of this is that we must have at heart the unity of all believers. Their disunity, their disagreement among themselves, calls into question the credibility of their talk of God. Hence the effort to promote a common witness by Christians to their faith - ecumenism - is part of the supreme priority. Added to this is the need for all those who believe in God to join in seeking peace, to attempt to draw closer to one another, and to journey together, even with their differing images of God, towards the source of Light - this is inter-religious dialogue. Whoever proclaims that God is Love 'to the end' has to bear witness to love: in loving devotion to the suffering, in the rejection of hatred and enmity - this is the social dimension of the Christian faith, of which I spoke in the Encyclical 'Deus caritas est'.
"So if the arduous task of working for faith, hope and love in the world is presently (and, in various ways, always) the Church's real priority, then part of this is also made up of acts of reconciliation, small and not so small. That the quiet gesture of extending a hand gave rise to a huge uproar, and thus became exactly the opposite of a gesture of reconciliation, is a fact which we must accept. But I ask now: Was it, and is it, truly wrong in this case to meet half-way the brother who 'has something against you' and to seek reconciliation? Should not civil society also try to forestall forms of extremism and to incorporate their eventual adherents - to the extent possible - in the great currents shaping social life, and thus avoid their being segregated, with all its consequences? Can it be completely mistaken to work to break down obstinacy and narrowness, and to make space for what is positive and retrievable for the whole? I myself saw, in the years after 1988, how the return of communities which had been separated from Rome changed their interior attitudes; I saw how returning to the bigger and broader Church enabled them to move beyond one-sided positions and broke down rigidity so that positive energies could emerge for the whole. Can we be totally indifferent about a community which has 491 priests, 215 seminarians, 6 seminaries, 88 schools, 2 university-level institutes, 117 religious brothers, 164 religious sisters and thousands of lay faithful? Should we casually let them drift farther from the Church? I think for example of the 491 priests. We cannot know how mixed their motives may be. All the same, I do not think that they would have chosen the priesthood if, alongside various distorted and unhealthy elements, they did not have a love for Christ and a desire to proclaim Him and, with Him, the living God. Can we simply exclude them, as representatives of a radical fringe, from our pursuit of reconciliation and unity? What would then become of them?
"Certainly, for some time now, and once again on this specific occasion, we have heard from some representatives of that community many unpleasant things - arrogance and presumptuousness, an obsession with one-sided positions, etc. Yet to tell the truth, I must add that I have also received a number of touching testimonials of gratitude which clearly showed an openness of heart. But should not the great Church also allow herself to be generous in the knowledge of her great breadth, in the knowledge of the promise made to her? Should not we, as good educators, also be capable of overlooking various faults and making every effort to open up broader vistas? And should we not admit that some unpleasant things have also emerged in Church circles? At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach them - in this case the Pope - he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint. (LETTER ON REMISSION OF EXCOMMUNICATION LEFEBVRE BISHOPS)
Ratzinger/Benedict was clearly communicating to his conciliar "bishops" that his intention in seeking the "reconciliation" of the bishops of the Society of Saint Pius X was to enable them to "move beyond one-sided positions" and "arrogance and presumptuousness" as has been done as the "interior attitudes" of "communities which had been separated from Rome" were changed so that "positive energies could emerge for the whole." Ratzinger/Benedict is intent on effecting the full integration of the Society of Saint Pius X with the counterfeit church of conciliarism, thereby silencing the most visible, highly organized and vocal opponents of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service and false ecumenism and religious liberty and separation of Church and State, to say nothing of the withering critiques of his own false theology that have been published by journals of and/or related to the Society of Saint Pius X. Ratzinger/Benedict used his LETTER ON REMISSION OF EXCOMMUNICATION LEFEBVRE BISHOPS to plead for the help of his fellow conciliar revolutionaries to "broaden the vistas" of those had had an "obsession with one-sided positions."
Ratzinger/Benedict's LETTER ON REMISSION OF EXCOMMUNICATION LEFEBVRE BISHOPS was meant to purchase some time and space from his critics amongst the ultra-progressive revolutionaries in the conciliar "hierarchy," men who do not agree in Ratzinger/Benedict's desire to neutralize the Society of Saint Pius X, whose entire ecclesiology was condemned by Pope Pius IX in The Syllabus of Errors (see
One Sentence Says It All), by integrating it fully into the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, ultra-progressive revolutionaries who do not believe in any kind of accommodation to the "past" that puts into question the "integrity" of their vision of the conciliar revolution.
These ultra-progressive revolutionaries were somewhat mollified by Ratzinger/Benedict's assuring them in his LETTER ON REMISSION OF EXCOMMUNICATION LEFEBVRE BISHOPS that the bishops of the Society of Saint Pius X had no "canonical status" in the conciliar church at this time because of the doctrinal "differences" between its bishops and the conciliar authorities that need to be "addressed" in "negotiations:"
The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church. There needs to be a distinction, then, between the disciplinary level, which deals with individuals as such, and the doctrinal level, at which ministry and institution are involved. In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers - even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty - do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.
The ultra-progressive revolutionaries within the ranks of the conciliar "hierarchy" were mollified until they learned that, in spite of this clear statement on the part of Ratzinger/Benedict about the Society of Saint Pius X's having no "canonical status," the Society's bishops had planned to ordain men to the priesthood in various places this month, June of 2009:
The four Lefebvrist bishops whom Pope Benedict XVI partially rehabilitated in January have defended their decision to ordain 21 priests into the Society of St Pius X (SSPX), sparking alarm among German-speaking bishops. In January the Pope lifted the excommunications of the four SSPX bishops, including British-born Richard Williamson, a Holocaust-denier, but the men remain suspended.
The ordinations are to take place in three of the Society's seminaries at the end of June, according to a round-robin letter published on SSPX websites on Monday. Three men will be ordained at Zaitzkofen in Bavaria, 13 at the St Thomas Aquinas Seminary at Winona, Minnesota, and the rest at the SSPX headquarters at Ecône in Switzerland.
The President of the Vatican's Ecclesia Dei Commission, Cardinal Dario Castrillón Hoyos, is considering visiting Ecône on 29 June, according to a French priest Claude Barthe, the French right-wing newspaper Présent reported. The priest said the cardinal's visit would be aimed at hastening the implementation of a provisional agreement "for the good of [the clerics'] souls". On 4 July the cardinal turns 80, the age at which membership of curial congregations usually ends, and it is widely believed that Cardinal Castrillón wanted to have the SSPX fully reintegrated before he retired.
Following the huge outcry over the lifting of the excommunications, in March the Pope wrote an unprecedented letter to bishops around the world expressly stating that the Society did not have a canonical status in the Church and its ministers did not exercise legitimate ministries.
However, the SSPX communiqué argues that the ordinations will be taking place with the permission of the Holy See. "During the period in which convergence and understanding with Rome is being sought, the SSPX has a provisional legal status for an indefinite period of time until, after the theological talks are over, a definitive canonical ruling is found. That is what the ‘line of approach' which has been agreed to by the Vatican foresees. In none of the talks up to now has there ever been any mention of ‘putting a stop to ordinations' in general. On the contrary, the lifting of the excommunications was meant to show a willingness to cooperate without putting any restrictions on the life of the Society."
There was no comment from the Vatican on the SSPX's statement.
In an interview with Vatican Radio on 1 June, the Bishop of Regensburg, Gerhard Müller, in whose diocese Zaitzkofen lies, said he contacted the Zaitzkofen seminary as soon as he read about the SSPX plans. "I told them that the ordinations were against canon law and that in such a precarious situation one must allow Rome to prescribe how to proceed." Calling the ordinations "a provocation", he said: "One simply must suspend everything until this Society's position is cleared up as far as canon law is concerned. In the letter the Society wrote to the Pope in January, they said they fully accepted the Pope's primacy ... [T]hey are not prepared to take the consequences."
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who founded SSPX, was suspended a divinis in 1976 for ordaining priests without church approval, and excommunicated in 1988 automatically when he ordained four priests as bishops illicitly. (SSPX defends plans to ordain 21 priests.)
Ratzinger/Benedict is so intent on making a deal (Let's Make A Deal 1976-1977 closing theme music, "Lets Make A Deal") with the bishops (well, at least three of them, that is) of the society of Saint Pius X that he is willing, it appears, to contradict himself privately by "permitting" them to continue their administration of the Sacraments, including priestly ordination, even though he had written to his conciliar "bishops" that the Society of Saint Pius lacked any "canonical status" to do so.
This, of course, is nothing new for Ratzinger, who was willing to put aside the late Archbishop Lefebvre's tirade in defense of the Social Reign of Christ the King on July 14, 1987, in order to make a deal then, a deal that the Archbishop, who contradicted himself very frequently as he believed "diplomacy" could save the day for the Church (see The Nine vs. Lefebvre: We Resist You to Your Face, Logical Chickens Coming Home to Roost: A Commentary on Recent Events in SSPX, and Here Comes the Bride:
The Music Starts Again for the SSPX), had agreed to in 1988 before changing his mind and proceeding with the episcopal consecrations in Econe on June 30 of that year without a "papal" mandate from the then governing false "pontiff," Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II.
Ratzinger/Benedict is willing, it appears, to let the Society of Saint Pius X continue operating without a public "agreement" on "doctrinal issues" as he desires to neutralize this source of "opposition" once and for all, and to this end he is willing to run the risk of angering the conciliar "bishops" once again by letting stand uncontradicted the communique issued by the Society of Saint Pius X that it does indeed have a "provisional legal status" despite his, Ratzinger/Benedict's, earlier protestations that the Society had no "canonical status" in his false church. Ratzinger/Benedict can justify this, obviously, by having recourse to his belief that truth is "anchored" in one place for a time before being "anchored" in another place later on, saying that his LETTER ON REMISSION OF EXCOMMUNICATION LEFEBVRE BISHOPS was true when it was written, that the doctrinal "negotiations" have permitted the granting of a "provisional legal status" for the Society of Saint Pius X since that day.
The conciliar "bishops," it appears, have been kept in the dark about a "provisional legal status" for the Society of Saint Pius X. "Archbishop" Robert Zollitsch, the head of the conciliar "bishops'" conference in the Federal Republic of Germany who has now gone sixty day without being correct publicly by Ratzinger/Benedict for having denied that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ died in atonement for our sins, is furious about the Society's planned priestly ordinations. So is Gerhard Muller, the conciliar "bishop" of Regensburg, Germany, where one set of these priestly ordinations is to take place. They have yet to figure out Ratzinger/Benedict's use of paradox and contradiction and obfuscation as means of furthering the conciliar revolution.
Someone is not telling the truth here. It is either the leaders of the Society of Saint Pius X when contending that they have a "provisional legal status" that permits them to continue operating as a "church within a church" (replete with their own marriage tribunal, mind you) before any "agreement" on "doctrinal" issues with the conciliar Vatican is reached or it is Ratzinger/Benedict XVI himself by permitting this "provisional legal status," if one exists," in spite of having assured his conciliar "bishops" that the Society has no "canonical status" at this time.
Where is the truth? More confusion is added by this story from The Catholic Herald Online published today, June 12, 2009:
The Society of St Pius X has announced that it will go ahead with plans to ordain 21 priests in America, Germany and Switzerland despite opposition from bishops.
In a statement the SSPX said that priestly ordinations would take place without the direct permission of the Holy See as scheduled. A spokesman for the Diocese of Regensburg, Germany, said the plans could result in excommunication.
Spokesman Jakob Schötz said: "Our bishop is waiting for Rome to advise on how to respond. But it will almost certainly result in the excommunication of the priests and the bishop who ordains them."
Mr Schötz was reacting to an announcement by the society that it would ordain three priests and three deacons in its seminary at Zaitzkofen in Bavaria on June 27 despite repeated requests from Bishop Gerhard Müller of Regensburg to hold off the ordinations. Bishop Müller said the ordinations contravened Canon Law and told Vatican Radio that he had spoken with the responsible parties and advised them of this. He also said he had invited members of the society to speak with him at their request.
Another 18 seminarians are to be ordained at the SSPX headquarters in America and Switzerland.
The SSPX seminary rector, Fr Stefan Frey, said the society now had "provisional legal status" in the Catholic Church pending a "definitive canonical ruling" on its future, and had not been told to "put a stop to ordinations".
He said the new priests would be ordained "without direct Church permission" because of the "grave state of emergency" facing the Church.
Mr Schötz said the new ordinations would be viewed as "a provocation against the whole Catholic world". (SSPX ordinations could lead to excommunication, says diocese)
Who is telling the truth? In the wonderland of conciliarism, my friends, truth is so obscure and fraught with such multiple meanings that what appears to be "open and shut" (namely, that the Society of Saint Pius X has no "canonical status" in the counterfeit church of conciliarism) becomes filled with lack of clarity and confusion. This confusion has been fed by the fact that Ratzinger/Benedict has not insisted that the bishops and the priests of the Society of Saint Pius X stop offering Masses in their chapels or issuing their own worthless "decrees of nullity." Will the bishops of the Society of Saint Pius X be "re-excommunicated" and to be "un-excommunicated" when "agreement" is reached on the "doctrinal issues"? Does such an agreement exist at this time so that it can be made "public" prior to the scheduled priestly ordinations? The whole thing is dizzying.
What we do know, however, is that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI lives in a world of contradiction and paradox. As has been pointed out on this site on numerous occasions in the past two years, Ratzinger/Benedict contradicted his own publicly stated position that the Novus Ordo service represented a rupture with the liturgical history of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church when he contended the following in his Explanatory Letter on "Summorum Pontificum:"
There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church's faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place. Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness (Explanatory Letter on "Summorum Pontificum".)
This is, of course, the exact opposite of what Ratzinger contended in his preface to the French language edition of the late Monsignor Klaus Gamber's The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, in which Gamber wrote of the "destruction of the Roman Rite," and in his own memoirs, Milestones:
What happened after the Council was something else entirely: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it--as in a manufacturing process--with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product. Gamber, with the vigilance of a true prophet and the courage of a true witness, oppose this falsification, and thanks to his incredibly rich knowledge, indefatigably taught us about the living fullness of a true liturgy. As a man who knew and loved history, he showed us the multiple forms and paths of liturgical development; as a man who looked at history form the inside, he saw in this development and its fruit the intangible reflection of the eternal liturgy, that which is not the object of our action but which can continue marvelously to mature and blossom if we unite ourselves intimately with its mystery. (Joseph Ratzinger, Preface to the French language edition of Monsignor Klaus Gamber's The Reform of the Roman Liturgy.)
The prohibition of the missal that was now decreed, a missal that had known continuous growth over the centuries, starting with the sacramentaries of the ancient Church, introduced a breach into the history of the liturgy whose consequences could only be tragic. It was reasonable and right of the Council to order a revision of the missal such as had often taken place before and which this time had to be more thorough than before, above all because of the introduction of the vernacular.
But more than this now happened: the old building was demolished, and another was built, to be sure largely using materials from the previous one and even using the old building plans. There is no doubt that this new missal in many respects brought with it a real improvement and enrichment; but setting it as a new construction over against what had grown historically, forbidding the results of this historical growth. thereby makes the liturgy appear to be no longer living development but the produce of erudite work and juridical authority; this has caused an enormous harm. For then the impression had to emerge that liturgy is something "made", not something given in advance but something lying without our own power of decision. (Joseph Ratzinger, Milestones.)
One will also note that Ratzinger/Benedict wrote in his Explanatory Letter on "Summorum Pontificum" that the 1962 Missal "was never judicially abrogated" even though he had written in Milestones the exact opposite:
The prohibition of the missal that was now decreed, a missal that had known continuous growth over the centuries, starting with the sacramentaries of the ancient Church, introduced a breach into the history of the liturgy whose consequences could only be tragic.
There is, however, a consistency in all of this inconsistency, which is different than a frank changing of positions that is admitted openly: that is, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict has been steeped in contradiction and paradox throughout the course of his nearly fifty-eight years as a priest. He is unwilling to accept Scholasticism as the foundation of a true understanding of the Catholic Faith, believing, as Modernists do, that everything must be "re-thought" in light of new philosophies and new theories, drawing "insights" from all manner of sources, including those, such as the odious Martin Luther, who reject the Catholic Faith entirely (see Mark Stabinski's The Insidious Tactics of Change, which appears on the anti-sedevacantist Tradition in Action site). And Benedict XVI is the same man now as he has been throughout his priesthood, as he has told us in his very own words:
I've been taken apart various times: in my first phase as professor and in the intermediate phase, during my first phase as Cardinal and in the successive phase. Now comes a new division. Of course circumstances and situations and even people influence you because you take on different responsibilities. Let's say that my basic personality and even my basic vision have grown, but in everything that is essential I have remained identical. I'm happy that certain aspects that weren't noticed at first are now coming into the open. (Interview with Bayerische Rundfunk (ARD), ZDF, Deutsche Welle and Vatican Radio.)
There is every reason to believe that something along the lines of the communique issued by the Society of Saint Pius X about a "provisional legal status" for itself that would permit its bishops and priests to administer the Sacraments with the "blessing" of Ratzinger/Benedict exists as there has been nothing but silence from the Society's bishops and priests about the apostasies committed by the false "pontiff" during his pilgrimage to Jordan and Israel last month. As I wrote after Bishop Fernando Areas Rifan was caught "simulating" a concelebration of the Novus Ordo travesty in Aparecida, Brazil, nearly five years ago, the price of "recognition" is indeed very, very high.
The Society of Saint Pius X has done us a service in the past, however, by pointing out Ratzinger/Benedict's multiple defections from the Catholic Faith, reminding us very clearly that one who defects from the Faith in one thing defects from It in Its entirety. This does not change despite the fact that it is now expedient for the leaders of the Society of Saint Pius X to downplay their past criticisms of Ratzinger/Benedict and of the Novus Ordo and the whole ethos of conciliarism:
Faced with this new danger, it is necessary to remind ourselves that "Such is the nature of faith, that it is impossible to believe one thing and reject another," because "He who refuses to accept even one divinely revealed truth, in reality totally abandons the Faith -since he refuses to submit himself to God, who is Sovereign Truth itself and the motive for our act of Faith" ... "The Arians and Montanists most certainly did not abandon Catholic doctrine in all its entirety, but only some part of it - and we all know that as a result they were declared to be heretics and so excluded from the bosom of the Church. (Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum)"
The same pope quotes St. Augustine on this subject:
"On many points they agree with me. They disagree with me on only a few points. Yet, since they stand apart from me on these few points, it is pointless for them to stand with me on all the rest. (Ennarat on Ps. 54:19)"
Pope Leo continues: "It is only fair [that they be declared heretics and excluded from the Church), for those who take from Christian doctrine only those things which they want, rely upon their own judgment rather than relying upon Faith. Thus, by this refusal of 'bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ,’ they are really more obedient to themselves than they are to God. "
St. Augustine wrote: "If you only believe those parts of the Gospel that please and reject those parts that displease you, then you believe more in yourselves than you do in the Gospel. (Book 17: Contra Faustum Manich. ch. 3)"
Consequently, our attitude to the Catholic Faith should be one of - "either we profess it in its entirety, or not at all. (Benedict XV, Ad Beatorum Apostolorum Principio)" Only one error, in the tiniest detail of the Faith, suffices to make any Catechism unacceptable.
What then are we to think of this new Catechism, which pretends to be Catholic, while it propagates the same errors as Vatican II? Errors that are in no way insignificant, since they touch upon the very origins and structure of the Church; the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ; the unity and universality of His mediation, and in effect, His Divinity!
In future issues we will publish a detailed examination of the new Catechism by two of our learned colleagues. For the time being, we will simply say that in order to accept the new Catechism, it would be necessary to prove that there never was any reason whatsoever in resisting the "aggiornamento" of Vatican II.
(See The New Catechism: Is it Catholic?, which is also appended at the end of my own Piracy, Conciliar Style just in case it "disappears" one day from the Society of Saint Pius X's American website.)
It is necessary to smash through the conciliar looking glass, if you will, repeatedly in order to demonstrate to those who are willing to accept the truth dispassionately that Joseph Ratzinger is not a Catholic and that he cannot hold ecclesiastical office in the Catholic Church legitimately as a result. The few numbers of people who read these articles testifies to the fact that very few people want to accept this truth. This does not lessen my obligation to make these facts known to the few people who read the articles on this website as the truth stands on its own merits and not on whether anyone accepts it. The teaching of the Catholic Church is clear. The "teaching" of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is full of ambiguity and contradiction.
Pope Saint Pius X explained to us that maintaining the integrity of the Faith is not an "option" for a Catholic. Catholics are not permitted to be "conflicted" and "confused" and then spread their confusion and error in the minds of others:
Watch, O priests, that the doctrine of Christ, not your fault for losing the face of integrity. Always purity and integrity of the doctrine ... Many do not understand the zealous care and caution should be used to preserve the purity of doctrine ... When this doctrine can not be kept longer incorruptible and that the rule of truth is no longer possible in this world, then the Son of God appear a second time. But until that day we must keep intact the sacred tank and repeat the statement of the glorious Saint Hilary: 'Better to die in this century that corrupt the chastity of the truth .” (Pie X, Jérome Dal-Gal OM Conv. 1953, pp. 107-108).
To Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart belongs the triumph that will vanquish the lords of Modernity and Modernism once and for all. May our own efforts to make reparation for our sins, many though they may be, to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary help to plant a few seeds so that more and more Catholics, clergy and laity alike, yet attached to the false structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism will smash through its looking glass once and for all in order to receive true Sacraments from true bishops and true priests who make absolutely no concessions to conciliarism or its false shepherds at any time for any reason, men who are never afraid to speak the truth and act with complete integrity in its behalf, knowing that no true pope can do, say or act as the conciliar "pontiffs" and "bishops" have done, said and acted.
Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?