Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us
February 7, 2010

Still Nothing New Under The Conciliar Sun

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Nothing new, nothing new. Most of what emanates from the conciliar Vatican is little more than slightly warmed-over servings of the same old apostasies and blasphemies, mixed in now and again with things that sound--and in some cases may very well be--authentically Catholic. That the conciliar "popes" have spoken at times as Catholics gives so many "conservative" and traditionally-minded Catholics yet attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism that there is "hope." I know all about this. I was one of their number for a very, very long time.

As I have written on many other occasions on this site, I projected my own fondest desires for the restoration of the Church Militant on earth into the mind and heart of the late Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, finding little kernels of Catholicism from the false "pontiff" that gave me a false hope that "things" would get better. I wrote about these little kernels of false hope over two years ago now in Singing the Old Songs:

To wit, all of my own former efforts to project Catholicity into the mind and the heart of the late Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II were founded in looking at bits and pieces of the puzzle, refusing to admit that the false "pontiff" expressed most publicly a belief in various condemned propositions (including false ecumenism, the new ecclesiology, inter-religious dialogue, religious liberty, separation of Church and State, praising false religions for the "good" that they do and how they can contribute to "world peace," etc.). Undeterred by these inconvenient little facts, I sang "the old songs" to defend Wojtyla/John Paul II for far too long. This is how the "old songs" went:

1. It was within a week of his election on October 16, 1978, that John Paul II said that he wanted to see priests back in their clerical garb and women religious back in their habits. He's traditionally-minded, I told people repeatedly.

2. He tried to put catechesis back on the "right track" with the issuance of the post-synodal exhortation Sapientia Christianae

3. He told off the Communists in Poland in June of 1979, saying in a "homily" at an outdoor "Mass" in Victory Square in Warsaw that no one could ever remove Christ as the center of history. See, he's not an appeaser like Paul VI, I said triumphantly.

4. John Paul II whacked the American bishops over the head but good during his first pilgrimage to the United States of America in October of 1979, using some of their own pastoral letters against them, knowing full well that they were not enforcing their own documents. He told Catholic educators assembled at The Catholic University of America on October 7, 1979, and I was one of those educators in attendance that day, that the Church needed her theologians to be "faithful to the magisterium." I gloated as John Paul II said this, staring in the direction of the notorious dissenter named Father Charles Curran, a priest of the Diocese of Rochester, New York, who was sitting two rows in back of me, dressed in a jacket and tie. It was later that same day that the "pope" denounced abortion as the nine justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of America sat in the very front row of chairs on the Capitol Mall during an outdoor "Mass," saying in a most stirring manner, "And when God gives life, it is forever!"

5. Two months thereafter, in December of 1979, Father Hans Kung was declared by the then named Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to be ineligible to hold a chair in theology at Tubingen University in Germany (all right, all right, "other arrangements" were made to permit Kung to stay). "Let the heads roll," I told my classes at Allentown College of Saint Francis de Sales that day. "Let the heads of the dissenters roll."

6. John Paul II wanted to correct abuses in the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service, using his Holy Thursday letter, Dominicae Cenae, February 24, 1980, going so far as to state:

As I bring these considerations to an end, I would like to ask forgiveness-in my own name and in the name of all of you, venerable and dear brothers in the episcopate-for everything which, for whatever reason, through whatever human weakness, impatience or negligence, and also through the at times partial, one-sided and erroneous application of the directives of the Second Vatican Council, may have caused scandal and disturbance concerning the interpretation of the doctrine and the veneration due to this great sacrament. And I pray the Lord Jesus that in the future we may avoid in our manner of dealing with this sacred mystery anything which could weaken or disorient in any way the sense of reverence and love that exists in our faithful people.

See, I said proudly, to one and all. He's going to "fix" things, isn't he? The issuance of Inaestimabile Donum two months later, which I would wave in the faces of "disobedient" conciliar priests for about a decade before it began to dawn on me that there was going to be no enforcement of "rules" in an ever-changing and ever-changable liturgical abomination, was "proof," I said at the time, of how the "pope" is "turning things around in right direction. I wasn't the only one. The Angelus, a publication of the Society of Saint Pius X, commented favorably on some of these things itself in 1980.

7. "Pope" John Paul II personally opened a Perpetual Adoration Chapel in the Piazza Venezia in Rome at the behest of Mother Teresa of Calcutta, also mandating daily periods of Solemn Eucharistic Adoration in each of the four major basilicas in Rome. He used his pilgrimage to South Korea in 1984 to state that he wanted to see Perpetual Eucharistic Adoration established in all of the parishes of the world.

8. Father Charles Curran was finally denied in 1986 the right to teach as a theologian in Catholic institutions and Father Matthew Fox, O.P., was forbidden to teach in Catholic institutions by John Paul II's "defender of the faith," Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger, and dismissed from the Order of Preachers in 1992  for his New Age "creation spirituality" beliefs.

9. John Paul II would take various American "bishops" to task during the quinquennial (or ad limina apostolorum) visits, pointedly asking the late "Bishop" John Raymond McGann of the Diocese of Rockville Center in 1983 why sixteen of his diocese's parishes did not have regularly scheduled confessions during the recently concluded Easter Triduum. Being dissatisfied with McGann's answer ("Our priests are very busy, Your Holiness"), John Paul said, "Excellency, I was not too buy to hear Confessions in Saint Peter's on Good Friday." McGann got into further trouble later that day in April of 1983 when he was talking at lunch with John Paul and the other New York Province "bishops" about how most young people today do not know their faith and are thus in theological states of error, inculpable for their ignorance. John Paul II put down his soup spoon and said, "I agree with you. You are correct. However, the bishops and priests who are responsible for these young people being in states of error go directly to Hell when they die." McGann turned ashen, reportedly having difficulty eating for three days. "Ah, what a pope we have,"  I said when learning of this from Roman contacts.

10. Silvio Cardinal Oddi, then the Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, told me personally in his office on the Via della Concilazione on October 10, 1984, the very day that the first "indult" for the Immemorial Mass of Tradition was issued, "I want the Mass of Saint Pius V back! The Pope wants the Mass of Saint Pius V back! We will get the Mass of Saint Pius V back!" Cardinal Oddi explained that there was much opposition to what the "pope" wanted to, that he had to move cautiously and with conditions. He made it clear, however, that it was the mind of the "pope" for the "old Mass" to return.


My cheerleading for the last conciliar "pontiff" to have been a true bishop was not without some justification as I selectively refused to to accept the fact that his embrace of the new ecclesiology and false ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue and inter-religious "prayer" meetings and religious liberty and separation of Church and State and his treating the "ministers" of false religions as valid servants of God placed him outside the pale of the Catholic Church.

To wit, I heard Wojtyla/John Paul II give quite what I thought was a reprimand to dissenting theologians such as Father Charles Curran, who was sitting two rows in back of me, at the Catholic University of American Field House on Sunday, October 7, 1979, the very day that, as I learned much later, Father Anthony Cekada of the Society of Saint Pius X was warning people at Saint Athanasius Church in Vienna, Virginia, not to be fooled by the actor from Poland. Here are the words uttered by Wojtyla/John Paul II in my own hearing that certainly fooled me into thinking that the young "pontiff" bode well for the "restoration" of the Church:

The relationship to truth explains therefore the historical bond between the university and the Church. Because she herself finds her origin and her growth in the words of Christ, which are the liberating truth (cf. Jn 8 :32), the Church has always tried to stand by the institutions that serve, and cannot but serve the knowledge of truth. The Church can rightfully boast of being in a sense the mother of universities. The names of Bologna, Padua, Prague and Paris shine in the earliest history of intellectual endeavor and human progress. The continuity of the historic tradition in this field has come down to our day.

An undiminished dedication to intellectual honesty and academic excellence are seen, in a Catholic university, in the perspective of the Church's mission of evangelization and service. This is why the Church asks these institutions, your institutions, to set out, without equivocation, your Catholic nature. This is what I have desired to emphasize in my Apostolic Constitution Sapientia Christiana, where I stated: "Indeed, the Church's mission of spreading the Gospel not only demands that the Good News be preached ever more widely and to ever greater numbers of men and women, but that the very power of the Gospel should permeate thought patterns, standards of judgment, and the norms of behavior; in a word, it is necessary that the whole of human culture be steeped in the Gospel. The cultural atmosphere in which a human being lives has a great influence upon his or her way of thinking and, thus, of acting. Therefore, a division between faith and culture is more than a small impediment to evangelization, while a culture penetrated with the Christian spirit is an instrument that favors the spreading of the Good News" (Sapientia Christiana, I). The goals of Catholic higher education go beyond education for production, professional competence, technological and scientific competence; they aim at the ultimate destiny of the human person, at the full justice and holiness born of truth (cf. Eph 4:24).

If then your universities and colleges are institutionally committed to the Christian message, and if they are part of the Catholic community of evangelization, it follows that they have an essential relationship to the hierarchy of the Church. And here I want to say a special word of gratitude, encouragement and guidance for the theologians. The Church needs her theologians, particularly in this time and age so profoundly marked by deep changes in all areas of life and society. The Bishops of the Church, to whom the Lord has entrusted the keeping of the unity of the faith and the preaching of the message—individual Bishops for their dioceses; and Bishops collegially, with the Successor of Peter, for the universal church—we all need your work, your dedication and the fruits of your reflection. We desire to listen to you and we are eager to receive the valued assistance of your responsible scholarship.

But true theological scholarship, and by the same token theological teaching, cannot exist and be fruitful without seeking its inspiration and its source in the word of God as contained in Sacred Scripture and in the Sacred Tradition of the Church, as interpreted by the authentic Magisterium throughout history (cf. Dei Verbum, 10). True academic freedom must be seen in relation to the finality of the academic enterprise, which looks to the total truth of the human person. The theologian's contribution will be enriching for the Church only if it takes into account the proper function of the Bishops and the rights of the faithful. It devolves upon the Bishops of the Church to safeguard the Christian authenticity and unity of faith and moral teaching, in accordance with the injunction of the Apostle Paul: "Proclaim the message and, welcome or unwelcome, insist on it. Refute falsehood, correct error, call to obedience ..." (2 Tim 4 :2). It is the right of the faithful not to be troubled by theories and hypotheses that they are not expert in judging or that are easily simplified or manipulated by public opinion for ends that are alien to the truth. On the day of his death, John Paul I stated: "Among the rights of the faithful, one of the greatest is the right to receive God's word in all its entirety and purity ..." (September 28, 1979). It behooves the theologian to be free, but with the freedom that is openness to the truth and the light that comes from faith and from fidelity to the Church.

In concluding I express to you once more my joy in being with you today. I remain very close to your work and your concerns. May the intercession of Mary, Seat of Wisdom, sustain you always in your irreplaceable service of humanity and the Church. God bless you. ( To the Catholic University in Washington, October 7, 1979.)


All of that sounded pretty Catholic to me, and it was as far as it went. Modernism is, after all, a mixture of truth and error. What I did not realize at the time, and did not realize for about twenty-six and one-half years thereafter, was that the Catholic Church can never give us any admixture of truth and error, as Pope Gregory XVI noted in Singulari Nos, May 25, 1834:

As for the rest, We greatly deplore the fact that, where the ravings of human reason extend, there is somebody who studies new things and strives to know more than is necessary, against the advice of the apostle. There you will find someone who is overconfident in seeking the truth outside the Catholic Church, in which it can be found without even a light tarnish of error. Therefore, the Church is called, and is indeed, a pillar and foundation of truth. You correctly understand, venerable brothers, that We speak here also of that erroneous philosophical system which was recently brought in and is clearly to be condemned. This system, which comes from the contemptible and unrestrained desire for innovation, does not seek truth where it stands in the received and holy apostolic inheritance. Rather, other empty doctrines, futile and uncertain doctrines not approved by the Church, are adopted. Only the most conceited men wrongly think that these teachings can sustain and support that truth.


Blissfully believing that Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II  was the great "defender" despite such travesties as the Assisi event and "papal" extravaganza "liturgies" that I was "sure" pained the "pontiff" as much as they pained me, I ignored those things that pointed to the fact that Wojtyla/John Paul II was a Modernist and chose to "hang my hat" on such exhortations as the following one that he gave to the American "bishops" at the Minor Seminary of Our Lady of the Angels in Los Angeles, California, on September 16, 1987, heedless of the fact that the warning he gave to dissenting Catholics applied just as much to himself as he, Wojtyla/John Paul II, spoke of the Church as "communio" and pointed with pride to the falsehood of episcopal collegiality. I chose to believe what I wanted to believe:

It is sometimes reported that a large number of Catholics today do not adhere to the teaching of the Church on a number of questions, notably sexual and conjugal morality, divorce and remarriage. Some are reported as not accepting the Church’s clear position on abortion. It has also been noted that there is a tendency on the part of some Catholics to be selective in their adherence to the Church’s moral teachings. It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the Magisterium is totally compatible with being a "good Catholic" and poses no obstacle to the reception of the sacraments. This is a grave error that challenges the teaching office of the bishops of the United States and elsewhere. I wish to encourage you in the love of Christ to address this situation courageously in your pastoral ministry, relying on the power of God’s truth to attract assent and on the grace of the Holy Spirit which is given both to those who proclaim the message and to those to whom it is addressed.

We must also constantly recall that the teaching of Christ’s Church - like Christ himself - is a "sign of contradiction". It has never been easy to accept the Gospel teaching in its entirety, and it never will be. The Church is committed, both in faith and morals, to make her teaching as clear and understandable as possible, presenting it in all the attractiveness of divine truth. And yet the challenge of the Gospel remains inherent in the Christian message transmitted to each generation. Archbishop Quinn has made reference to a principle with extremely important consequences for every area of the Church’s life: "...  the revelation of God par excellence is found in the Cross of Christ which makes God’s folly wiser than human wisdom. Often human wisdom in a given age appears to have the last word. But the Cross brings a perspective that changes judgements radically". Yes, dear brothers, the Cross - in the very act of revealing mercy, compassion and love - changes judgements radically.

6. A number of other general points may be made. First, the Church is a community of faith. To accept faith is to give assent to the word of God as transmitted by the Church’s authentic Magisterium. Such assent constitutes the basic attitude of the believer, and is an act of the will as well as of the mind. It would be altogether out of place to try to model this act of religion on attitudes drawn from secular culture.

Within the ecclesial community, theological discussion takes place within the framework of faith. Dissent from Church doctrine remains what it is, dissent; as such it may not be proposed or received on a equal footing with the Church’s authentic teaching.

Moreover, as bishops we must be especially responsive to our role as authentic teachers of the faith when opinions at variance with the Church’s teaching are proposed as a basis for pastoral practice.

I wish to support you as you continue to engage in fruitful dialogue with theologians regarding the legitimate freedom of inquiry which is their right. You rightly give them sincere encouragement in their difficult task, and assure them how much the Church needs and deeply appreciates their dedicated and constructive work. They, on their part, will recognize that the title Catholic theologian expresses a vocation and a responsibility at the service of the community of faith, and subject to the authority of the pastors of the Church. In particular your dialogue will seek to show the unacceptability of dissent and confrontation as a policy and method in the area of Church teaching. (To the Bishops of the United States of America, September 16, 1987.)

This is all sounded very good at the time to me, then approaching thirty-six years of age, as I was so focused on the "bad bishops" and the "bad theologians" and "disobedient" priests and religions that I did not realize--and could not accept when challenged to do so (as I was so challenged by members of the Society of Saint Pius X and the Society of Saint Pius V on Long Island in 1986 and 1987; indeed I was challenged by relatives, who were going to a Society of Saint Pius X Mass each Sunday in New Hartford, New York, about the Judeo-Masonic influences at the "Second" Vatican Council as early as Thursday, November 25, 1976, the day after I turned twenty-five years of age)--the fact that Wojtyla/John Paul II was a Modernist himself and that the source of all of the liturgical "abuses" I hated so much and fought so fiercely was the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service itself. And, of course, the same is true today for those still attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism who point with pride to those times that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI appears to speak as a Catholic while they prefer to ignore the many ways that he defects from the Catholic Faith, starting with his denial of the nature of dogmatic truth as defined solemnly by the teaching authority of the Catholic Church and to which he had to swear when he took The Oath Against Modernism before his ordination to the sub-diaconate, the diaconate and the priesthood, and including, of course, his recent apostasy at the synagogue in Rome as he told us that Christians and Jews pray to the "same Lord," and that we must promoted a "respect for a Jewish interpretation of the Bible."

Thus it is that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's recent call for "fidelity" to the magisterium of the Catholic Church is nothing new. It is nothing new at all. It is a continuation of the the double-mindedness of conciliarism that was represented so ably by Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II's embrace of the "Second" Vatican Council and his own multiple defections from the Faith and his occasional advertence to Catholic truth, a double-mindedness that was dissected and condemned by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907:

This will appear more clearly to anybody who studies the conduct of Modernists, which is in perfect harmony with their teachings. In their writings and addresses they seem not unfrequently to advocate doctrines which are contrary one to the other, so that one would be disposed to regard their attitude as double and doubtful. But this is done deliberately and advisedly, and the reason of it is to be found in their opinion as to the mutual separation of science and faith. Thus in their books one finds some things which might well be approved by a Catholic, but on turning over the page one is confronted by other things which might well have been dictated by a rationalist. When they write history they make no mention of the divinity of Christ, but when they are in the pulpit they profess it clearly; again, when they are dealing with history they take no account of the Fathers and the Councils, but when they catechize the people, they cite them respectfully. In the same way they draw their distinctions between exegesis which is theological and pastoral and exegesis which is scientific and historical. So, too, when they treat of philosophy, history, and criticism, acting on the principle that science in no way depends upon faith, they feel no especial horror in treading in the footsteps of Luther and are wont to display a manifold contempt for Catholic doctrines, for the Holy Fathers, for the Ecumenical Councils, for the ecclesiastical magisterium; and should they be taken to task for this, they complain that they are being deprived of their liberty. Lastly, maintaining the theory that faith must be subject to science, they continuously and openly rebuke the Church on the ground that she resolutely refuses to submit and accommodate her dogmas to the opinions of philosophy; while they, on their side, having for this purpose blotted out the old theology, endeavor to introduce a new theology which shall support the aberrations of philosophers.


As one who rejects Scholasticism in favor the precepts of the "New Theology" that were condemned by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis, August 12, 1950 (don't hold your breath waiting for a "papal" commemoration of the encyclical's sixtieth anniversary in six months), Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, aware of the disparities between the immemorial teaching of the Catholic Church and that of the "magisterium" of the "Second" Vatican Council and the conciliar "popes," a "magisterium to which the bishops and priests of the Society of Saint Pius X are being required to express their own "fidelity" as a condition for their full incorporation into the canonical life of the conciliar church, has had to invent a philosophically absurd and dogmatically condemned notion, the "hermeneutic of continuity and discontinuity," to explain that what appears to be a break in Catholic teaching is actually a continuation of that teaching's more "profound" aspects that render certain "contingent" expressions obsolete. This is how he put the matter in his December 22, 2005, Christmas address to the members of the conciliar curia in the Vatican:

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.; see also Ratzinger's War Against Catholicism.)


For Ratzinger/Benedict to be correct, that is, that 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.)

Thus it is that any effort on the part of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI to lecture his conciliar "bishops," such as those from Scotland who made their quinquennial or ad limina apostolorum visit to Rome last week, about "fidelity" to the entirety of the Church's magisterium is laughable (To the Bishops of the Episcopal Conference of Scotland on their ad Limina visit, February 5, 2010.)  Ratzinger/Benedict himself is not faithful to the magisterium of the Catholic Church as he promotes a concept of doctrinal truth that has been anathematized, as he promotes a concept of the Church's ecclesiology that is erroneous, as he has promoted the condemned propositions of religious liberty and separation of Church and State, and as he promotes "respect" for false religions and engages in "inter-religious" prayer services that have been prohibited by the authority of the the Catholic, including by the Vicar Apostolic of the Scottish Lowlands region at the beginning of the Nineteenth Century, Bishop George Hay:

Lastly, the beloved disciple St. John renews the same command in the strongest terms, and adds another reason, which regards all without exception, and especially those who are best instructed in their duty: "Look to yourselves", says he, "that ye lose not the things that ye have wrought, but that you may receive a full reward. Whosoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine the same hath both the Father and the Son. If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, nor say to him, God speed you: for he that saith to him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works". (2 John, ver. 8)

Here, then, it is manifest, that all fellowship with those who have not the doctrine of Jesus Christ, which is "a communication in their evil works" — that is, in their false tenets, or worship, or in any act of religion — is strictly forbidden, under pain of losing the "things we have wrought, the reward of our labors, the salvation of our souls". And if this holy apostle declares that the very saying God speed to such people is a communication with their wicked works, what would he have said of going to their places of worship, of hearing their sermons, joining in their prayers, or the like?

From this passage the learned translators of the Rheims New Testament, in their note, justly observe, "That, in matters of religion, in praying, hearing their sermons, presence at their service, partaking of their sacraments, and all other communicating with them in spiritual things, it is a great and damnable sin to deal with them." And if this be the case with all in general, how much more with those who are well instructed and better versed in their religion than others? For their doing any of these things must be a much greater crime than in ignorant people, because they know their duty better. (Bishop George Hay, The Laws of God Forbidding All Communication in Religion With Those of a False Religion.)

The spirit of Christ, which dictated the Holy Scriptures, and the spirit which animates and guides the Church of Christ, and teaches her all truth, is the same; and therefore in all ages her conduct on this point has been uniformly the same as what the Holy Scripture teaches. She has constantly forbidden her children to hold any communication, in religious matters, with those who are separated from her communion; and this she has sometimes done under the most severe penalties. In the apostolical canons, which are of very ancient standing, and for the most part handed down from the apostolical age, it is thus decreed: "If any bishop, or priest, or deacon, shall join in prayers with heretics, let him be suspended from Communion". (Can. 44)

Also, "If any clergyman or laic shall go into the synagogue of the Jews, or the meetings of heretics, to join in prayer with them, let him be deposed, and deprived of communion". (Can. 63) (Bishop George Hay, (The Laws of God Forbidding All Communication in Religion With Those of a False Religion.)


Our true popes have taught us that men who believe and do and say things that are believed, done, and said by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict are the last ones on the face of this earth to be speaking about "fidelity" to the magisterium of the Catholic Church:

Her deportment has not changed in the course of history, nor can it change whenever or wherever, under the most diversified forms, she is confronted with the choice: either incense for idols or blood for Christ. The place where you are now present, Eternal Rome, with the remains of a greatness that was and with the glorious memories of its martyrs, is the most eloquent witness to the answer of the Church. Incense was not burned before the idols, and Christian blood flowed and consecrated the ground. But the temples of the gods lie in the cold devastation of ruins howsoever majestic; while at the tombs of the martyrs the faithful of all nations and all tongues fervently repeat the ancient Creed of the Apostles. (Pope Pius XII, Ci Riesce, December 6, 1953.)

Everyone should avoid familiarity or friendship with anyone suspected of belonging to masonry or to affiliated groups. Know them by their fruits and avoid them. Every familiarity should be avoided, not only with those impious libertines who openly promote the character of the sect, but also with those who hide under the mask of universal tolerance, respect for all religions, and the craving to reconcile the maxims of the Gospel with those of the revolution. These men seek to reconcile Christ and Belial, the Church of God and the state without God. (Pope Leo XIII, Custodi di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892.)

There is still nothing new under the conciliar sun, just as there is really nothing new under the political sun as naturalists vie with each other for the favor of the public, trying to craft their "message" to respond to the results of the latest focus group research and/or what they gauge to be public sentiment. There is no fidelity to Christ the King in the world-at-large in no small measure because a theological monster who rejects categorically the Social Reign of Christ the King, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, can speak of "fidelity" to the magisterium of the Catholic Church from which he is a leading dissenter, thus confusing and misleading Catholics and non-Catholics alike. No, there is nothing new under the conciliar sun.

It is, of course, by the working of Our Lady's graces that any of us is able to see and to reject the apostasies of the moment. We must keep this in mind as we can't "force" others to see the truth of our ecclesiastical situation. All we can do is provide them with information as we pray for them. No amount of "argumentation" is going to win the day immediately with "instant results" as people need time to study, reflect, and pray about the evidence that is presented before them.

Indeed, I, for one, fled from loud mouths who sought to badger me on a constant basis about the truth of sedevacantism. It is very important to have some good Catholic common sense about us, which is why I have never promoted this site or sent out any "alerts" that some new article has been posted. Readers will find this site--and either accept or reject its work--on their own as they respond to the graces sent to them.

To come to the realization that the conciliar "popes" have been imposters requires a great deal of study, reflection, and prayer, which is why, although the numbers of those who read the articles on this site is very tiny in comparison to the hundreds of millions of people who access the internet on a daily basis, articles that appear to be--and in many cases are--repetitive keep being written or revised. You never know when one person happens upon an article in God's Holy Providence at a time that he is ready to accept it more than in the past. I know that I kept going to back to various articles and documents at this time four years ago. Things that appeared too "radical" just two or three years before made more sense, especially in light of Ratzinger/Benedict's first eight months in "office" in 2005.

To help others to reject conciliarism, we need Our Lady's help. It is through her loving hands that the graces won for us by her Divine Son on the wood of the Holy Cross in obedience to God the Father and that are made present in the Sacraments by the working of God the Holy Ghost flow into our own hearts and souls. She, the great foe of heresy, will help us to recognize the plain truth that the jaws of Hell have indeed prevailed against the Church if true and legitimate Successors of Saint Peter can deny Catholic doctrine openly and publicly as they hold give public expression to private views that expelled them from the Church long before their apparent "election." And she will help us to have the courage to cleave to true bishops and true priests in the Catholic catacombs who make no concessions to conciliarism or its blaspheming apostates posing as "popes" and "bishops."

Even a now deceased  conciliar official conceded in 2005 what many in the "resist and recognize" movement, including those in the Society of Saint Pius X, refuse to concede even in principle as being true, no less that this truth applies in these our days, namely, that the See of Peter is indeed vacant in cases 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; for an explanation of how a long papal vacancy is not excluded by the doctrine of perpetual successors of Saint Peter, please see, Father Martin Stepanich, O.F.M., S.T.D., An Objection to Sedevacantism: 'Perpetual Successors' to Peter.)


Holy Mother Church, our spotless, immaculate mother on earth, cannot give us even any teaching with "even a light tarnish of error." We are in the midst of the "operation of error," awash with apostasy and blasphemy that can never be given us by Holy Mother Church, which is why we must be pray for our true bishops and priests so that they will be remain as faithful as Saint Athanasius and that we will remain steadfast in our knowledge that we have the Faith while the blaspheming apostates have the church buildings and other church properties.


Keeping close to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary as we prepare for the celebration of the Feast  of Corpus Christi in but two days from now, may we pray as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit as we continue to offer up all of our prayers and sufferings and sacrifices to that same Sacred Heart through the Immaculate Heart out of which It was formed and with which It beats as one. May it be our privilege to plant a few seeds for the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary as we attempt to make reparation to Jesus through Mary for our sins and those of the whole world


Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Our Lady of Lourdes, pray for us.


Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

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.

Saint Romuald, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints

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