The Cost of "Recognition" Keeps Getting Higher and Higher
by Thomas A. Droleskey
Nearly six years have passed since I was invited to a luncheon that I knew would be something along the lines of an inquisition.
The invitation that I received came from a very well-meaning Catholic concerned only about the good of Holy Mother Church. Although this Catholic was in attendance at the luncheon, the main purpose of the invitation was to permit a traditionally-minded conciliar presbyter, one who is quite knowledgeable and for whom I continue to pray every day, to skewer me at great length, getting very red in the face on occasion when I would not accept his sophistries and rationalizations, for writing an article, "The High Price of Recognition," that had been published in Catholic Family News. That article, which my principal inquisitor had not even read prior to lambasting me, demonstrated in a very systematic and logical fashion how Bishop Fernando Areas Rifan of the Society of Saint John Mary Vianney in Campos, Brazil, was singing quite a different tune following the "reconciliation" he entered into on January 18, 2002, with the counterfeit church of concilairism than he had done during the lifetime of the late Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer, a firm opponent of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service and of the false ecumenism of the conciliar "popes." The inquisition ended in a Mexican standoff, and it was the last time that I was to visit with the inquisitor and his associates, although each remains in my prayers every day without fail.
The proximate reason for the composition of "The High Price of Recognition" (a follow-up article was published in both Catholic Family News and The Remnant; similar points were made in
A Bishop's Wonderland: A Response to Bishop Fernando Areas Rifan, which was published less than a month before my first article indicating my openness to accept the canonical doctrine of sedevacantism and that it applied to our times) was the revelation that Bishop Rifan had, despite his initial protestations to the contrary, extended his hands during a a concelebrated staging of the Novus Ordo service in Recife, Brazil, on the Feast of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, September 8, 2004. Bishop Rifan initially denied having extended his right arm in the manner of Novus Ordo concelebrations, backtracking when video of the event emerged, which is when he said that he had merely "simulated" a "concelebration," a serious sacrilege in and of itself. It was only a short time thereafter, however, that Bishop Rifan began to justify participation in the Novus Ordo service, thereby making a mockery of the 62 Reasons to Reject the Novus Ordo service that had been composed by the priests of the Society of Saint John Mary Vianney and appeared on the Society's website for quite a long time.
Bishop Bernard Fellay, the Superior-General of the Society of Saint Pius X, is on his own path of "reconciliation" with the counterfeit church of conciliarism at this time as he keeps his formerly quite open mouth shut about the multiple offenses committed against the honor and majesty and glory of the Most Blessed Trinity and as he has incorporated non-ordained conciliar presbyters into the Society of Saint Pius X's chapels and mutes most of the Society's former criticism of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service. He was, however, quite outspoken about Bishop Rifan's participation in that concelebrated staging of the Novus Ordo service in 2004, stating most forthrightly that his former associate's actions were the logical result of his "reconciliation" with the conciliar authorities:
I just would like to give you some steps on one person who is the head of Campos. Before he was consecrated a bishop, Fr. Rifan, just a few months before, said in Rome to the Vicar General —who repeated it to Fr. Schmidberger, so we have it from a direct source —said, "I have no problem with celebrating the New Mass, but I don’t do it because it would cause trouble to the faithful." So when Rome is consecrating Rifan a bishop, they know already that he has no objection to celebrating the New Mass. I think it is important to see that. That is the first step.
I may say that there is even a step before. Before that, he goes with the diocesan Corpus Christi procession, and he says to those who oppose it, "If we would not have done that, we would have jeopardized the agreement with Rome." It shows you the direction.
The next step will be the jubilee of the diocese of Campos. For that occasion, of course, the local bishop is having a great ceremony, and Rome invites Bishop Rifan to go to that New Mass, to be there. And Bishop Rifan goes there. He does not participate in the sense of concelebrating the Mass, but he is there present with all his ecclesiastical ornaments, with a surplice and so on. He is really there at this New Mass.
The next step will be the Requiem [i.e., the Novus Ordo "Resurrection"] Mass for the bishop who had kicked them out, Bishop Navarro. At that Requiem Mass, you have Bishop Rifan there, and also the nuncio. The nuncio invites Bishop Rifan to go to Communion, and Bishop Rifan receives Communion at this New Mass.
The next step will be the Mass of Thanksgiving of the new cardinal of Sao Paolo. This time, Bishop Rifan is there again present at that New Mass; he is in the choir. He is not in his surplice; nevertheless, at the time of consecration, with the other priests and bishops celebrating, he raises his hands and says the words of consecration. A seminarian saw him.
And now, the 8th of September this year, we have photos and even a video of the Mass concelebrated by Bishop Rifan on the occasion of the centennial of the coronation of Our Lady of the Aparecida, who is the patroness of Brazil. He is concelebrating the New Mass, a New Mass where you have really scandalous happenings: ladies giving Communion in the hand, a ceremony of coronation where, among all the cardinals and bishops, there is a lady who is crowning our Lady, and so on. Trying to defend himself, he said "But I did not say the words of consecration." I may say, that makes it even worse, because that means he is cheating.
That’s the evolution: now he is two years a bishop, and he is already concelebrating the New Mass. You see, and that is the natural development which was announced from the start by the officials in Rome, Cottier, now Cardinal Cottier and Msgr. Perl. At the time of the agreement between Campos and Rome, Cottier said: "Now they have recognized the Council. The next step will be the new Mass." He even said, "There is a natural, psychological dynamic." And you see in Bishop Rifan a real, natural, clear demonstration of this phrase. (EXTRACT from Bishop Fellay's November 10, 2004 conference in Kansas City, MO regarding Bishop Rifan's actions.)
The price of "recognition" by the conciliar authorities is indeed quite high. Bishop Fellay himself in the process of paying that price now as many of those who assist at the Society's chapels have been convinced that the Society of Saint Pius X is the true "church within the Church" that would never lead them astray even as the Society's multiple falsehoods about the nature of Holy Mother Church's infallibility have convinced them that it is possible for a true pope to authorize and promulgate a liturgy that is offensive to God and can give rise to all manner of outrages heretofore unknown even among the heretics (Arians, Novatians, Donatists, etc.) of old. The Society of Saint Pius X is not the Catholic Church. Its leaders are not possessed of the charism of personal infallibility. It has been on the exact same trajectory of compromise and silence, the exact "natural psychological dynamic," that has been exhibited by the priests and presbyters of the Motu communities and that Bishop Rifan has demonstrated so amply in his very own person in the past one hundred five months.
What has held true in the case of the priests/presbyters of the Motu communities and by Bishop Rifan and is now demonstrating itself to be true within the Society of Saint Pius X is true also of the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer, also known as the Transalpine Redemptorists, of the island Papa Stronsay, part of the Orkney Islands, in Scotland, United Kingdom, following the congregation's own "reconciliation" with conciliar authorities in June of 2008. Father Michael Mary of the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer is going to great lengths to attempt to justify Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's participation in the "vespers" service that took place inside of the Anglican-held Westminster Abbey on Friday, September 17, 2010, the Feast of the Impression of the Stigmata upon Saint Francis of Assisi, claiming that the "pope's" actions fell within the exceptions granted by various true popes to the general prohibition against participating in the services of heretics (see http://papastronsay.blogspot.com; the appendix lists exceptions noted by Father Michael Mary).
Nice try, Father Michael Mary. However, your "nice try" fails on several accounts.
First, the exceptions granted by our true popes extended principally to permitting Catholic missionaries to work with heretical sects that had the true sacraments in order to effect their conversion to the true Faith. Pope Saint Pius X, who opposed the promiscuous association of Catholics and non-Catholics even in secular affairs (see Appendix B), merely tolerated the requested made of him by the metropolitan of Halcyz and Kiev to permit Catholics to receive the sacraments of the Orthodox when no Catholic priest was available to minister to them.
Do you contend, Father Michael Mary, that the Anglicans have true sacraments?
Do you contend, Father Michael Mary, that "Archbishop" Rowan Williams is indeed a bishop and can give a joint "blessing" with the man you consider to be the Vicar of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ?
Did not Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI signify by giving this "joint blessing" that he accepts Rowan Williams, a mere layman of a heretical sect, to be a true minister, although one not validly ordained, of God who has a "mission" from Him to serve and to sanctify souls? Would this not be the reasonable conclusion made by anyone who saw video or photographs of this "joint blessing"?
Is not Rowan Williams in the the grip of the devil by means of his false church's support for contraception, which denies the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriagem and surgical abortion, one of the four crimes that cry out to Heaven for vengeance? How can a man who is in the grip of the devil give anyone a "blessing"? How can a true Successor of Saint Peter do such a thing? Do you agree with with what Joseph Ratzinger/Bendict XVI did in giving this "joint blessing," Father Michael Mary?
When has a true pope of the Catholic Church ever appeared in public as an "equal" with the leader of a false religion, no less appeared in public as an "equal" with the leader of a false religion in a formerly Catholic church building that was seized by the heretics and taken for their own?
When has a true pope of the Catholic Church ever spoken of "so much unity already exists" between Catholics and Lutherans, as Ratzinger/Benedict did in a Lutheran church in Rome, Italy, on Laetare Sunday, March 14, 2010? Is "unity' to be considered as something less than a complete acceptance of the entirety of the Catholic Faith and the public abjuration of all previous errors on the part of non-Catholics seeking to be received into Holy Mother Church's maternal bosom?
It is nothing other than scandalous, without any precedent in the history of the Catholic Church, for a true pope to enter into the halls of heretics and schismatics and to encourage them in their own "work," which is of the devil as the Anglican sect supports the chemical and surgical assassination of innocent preborn children and divorce and remarriage and perversity while rejecting Papal Primacy, Papal Infallibility, Purgatory, the Marian dogmas as defined by the teaching of the Catholic Church and the Social Reign of Christ the King.
Second, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI entered Westminster Abbey on Friday, September 17, 2010, not to seek the unconditional conversion of the Anglicans there present to the Catholic Faith. Although it is the false "pontiff's" desire for the Anglicans to avail themselves of the "apostolic administration" that is being erected at this time in accordance with the terms of
Anglicanorum Coetibus, he believes that Protestants, including the Anglicans, have legitimate "traditions" that must be maintained more or less intact, heedless of the fact that those "traditions" come from the devil himself as they are based, either in whole or in part, on the rejection and/or corruption of various elements of Catholic Faith and Worship and Tradition. Ratzinger/Benedict is accepting various "Anglo-Catholic" groups--and is willing accept all Anglicans--without demanding that they publicly abjure their errors and by permitting them to keep many of their liturgical books that were condemned as heretical by Pope Saint Pius V in Regnans in Excelsis, March 5, 1570.
Was Pope Saint Pius V wrong about those Anglican liturgical books, Father Michael Mary?
Third, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has made it abundantly clear that he rejects what he calls disparagingly as the "ecumenism of the return," meaning that he did not enter into Westminster Abbey to seek the unconditional conversion of Anglicans to the Catholic Church as he believes that it is "enough" for Protestants to be placed in a "more perfect unity" with the Catholic Church without demanding, as noted before, that they abandon their own "traditions:"
We all know there are numerous models of unity and you know that the Catholic Church also has as her goal the full visible unity of the disciples of Christ, as defined by the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council in its various Documents (cf. Lumen Gentium, nn. 8, 13; Unitatis Redintegratio, nn. 2, 4, etc.). This unity, we are convinced, indeed subsists in the Catholic Church, without the possibility of ever being lost (cf. Unitatis Redintegratio, n. 4); the Church in fact has not totally disappeared from the world.
On the other hand, this unity does not mean what could be called ecumenism of the return: that is, to deny and to reject one's own faith history. Absolutely not!
It does not mean uniformity in all expressions of theology and spirituality, in liturgical forms and in discipline. Unity in multiplicity, and multiplicity in unity: in my Homily for the Solemnity of Sts Peter and Paul on 29 June last, I insisted that full unity and true catholicity in the original sense of the word go together. As a necessary condition for the achievement of this coexistence, the commitment to unity must be constantly purified and renewed; it must constantly grow and mature. (Ecumenical meeting at the Archbishopric of Cologne English)
Are we to cast aside the following clear statement of a true pope, Father Michael Mary, in order to indemnify Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's scandalous actions of Friday, September 17, 2010, according to the illogic of the "hermeneutic of continuity and discontinuity," an illogic that renders the immutability of God's Sacred Deposit of Faith into so much silly putty to be shaped by each pope as he sees fit, meaning that the pronouncements of Ratzinger/Benedict are just as dispensable, just as disposable, if you will, as the following clear statement, made by Pope Pius IX in Iam Vos Omnes, that it is only the unconditional return of non-Catholics to the true Church that can please the true God of Divine Revelation: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost?
It is for this reason that so many who do not share 'the communion and the truth of the Catholic Church' must make use of the occasion of the Council, by the means of the Catholic Church, which received in Her bosom their ancestors, proposes [further] demonstration of profound unity and of firm vital force; hear the requirements [demands] of her heart, they must engage themselves to leave this state that does not guarantee for them the security of salvation. She does not hesitate to raise to the Lord of mercy most fervent prayers to tear down of the walls of division, to dissipate the haze of errors, and lead them back within holy Mother Church, where their Ancestors found salutary pastures of life; where, in an exclusive way, is conserved and transmitted whole the doctrine of Jesus Christ and wherein is dispensed the mysteries of heavenly grace.
It is therefore by force of the right of Our supreme Apostolic ministry, entrusted to us by the same Christ the Lord, which, having to carry out with [supreme] participation all the duties of the good Shepherd and to follow and embrace with paternal love all the men of the world, we send this Letter of Ours to all the Christians from whom We are separated, with which we exhort them warmly and beseech them with insistence to hasten to return to the one fold of Christ; we desire in fact from the depths of the heart their salvation in Christ Jesus, and we fear having to render an account one day to Him, Our Judge, if, through some possibility, we have not pointed out and prepared the way for them to attain eternal salvation. In all Our prayers and supplications, with thankfulness, day and night we never omit to ask for them, with humble insistence, from the eternal Shepherd of souls the abundance of goods and heavenly graces. And since, if also, we fulfill in the earth the office of vicar, with all our heart we await with open arms the return of the wayward sons to the Catholic Church, in order to receive them with infinite fondness into the house of the Heavenly Father and to enrich them with its inexhaustible treasures. By our greatest wish for the return to the truth and the communion with the Catholic Church, upon which depends not only the salvation of all of them, but above all also of the whole Christian society: the entire world in fact cannot enjoy true peace if it is not of one fold and one shepherd. (Pope Pius IX, Iam Vos Omnes, September 13, 1868.)
Was Pope Pius IX correct, Father Michael Mary, or was he incorrect? If he was correct, as any believing Catholic accepts without question, then you have shown yourself to betray the integrity of the Catholic Faith by seeking to indemnify an enemy of souls, a man who specifically and categorically rejects the Social Reign of Christ the King in favor of the separation of Church and State that was condemned by Pope Saint Pius X as a thesis "absolutely false" (Paragraph 3, Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906), who has told us publicly in his very own words uttered from his very own mouth before an "ecumenical" gathering in Cologne, Germany, that he rejects out of hand the "ecumenism of the return" that was sought by Pope Pius IX. How can you be so intellectually dishonest before men, no less than before God Himself, by pretending as though Ratzinger/Benedict has free rein from God to ignore what you yourself used to accept and proclaim as true? Oh, yes, the cost of recognition keeps getting higher and higher.
Are we to cast aside the following clear statement of another true pope, Father Michael Mary, in order to indemnify Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's scandalous actions of Friday, September 17, 2010, according to the illogic of the "hermeneutic of continuity and discontinuity," an illogic that renders the immutability of God's Sacred Deposit of Faith into so much silly putty to be shaped by each pope as he sees fit, meaning that the pronouncements of Ratzinger/Benedict are just as dispensable, just as disposable, if you will, as the following clear statement, made by Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos, that it is only the unconditional return of non-Catholics to the true Church that can please the true God of Divine Revelation: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost?
So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it. During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears witness: "The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly."The same holy Martyr with good reason marveled exceedingly that anyone could believe that "this unity in the Church which arises from a divine foundation, and which is knit together by heavenly sacraments, could be rent and torn asunder by the force of contrary wills." For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one, compacted and fitly joined together, it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)
Was Pope Pius XI wrong as well, Father Michael Mary? Did he not have his facts correct? Did he err on Catholic doctrine by reiterating the simple truth that Catholics are not allowed to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics and that the Catholic Church promotes the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, meaning, of course that the Anglican sect is false and must disappear as its adherents are converted to the Catholic Faith and its buildings returned to Holy Mother Church? Why did you not inform Catholics that Pope Pius XI stressed that Catholics are not allowed to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics?
Third, Father Michael Mary has done Catholics accessing his website a further disservice by failing to mention the words that Ratzinger/Benedict uttered while taking part in the scandalous event at Westminster Abbey on Friday, September 17, 2010. For the false "pontiff" dared once again to praise the "Word Missionary Conference" that took place in Edinburgh, Scotland, in 1910 that gave rise to the modern ecumenism that was condemned by Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos and that Father Maximilian Kolbe, the founder of the Knights of the Immaculata, termed as being "no greater enemy" of the Immaculata:
This year, as we know, marks the hundredth anniversary of the modern ecumenical movement, which began with the Edinburgh Conference’s appeal for Christian unity as the prerequisite for a credible and convincing witness to the Gospel in our time. In commemorating this anniversary, we must give thanks for the remarkable progress made towards this noble goal through the efforts of committed Christians of every denomination. At the same time, however, we remain conscious of how much yet remains to be done. In a world marked by growing interdependence and solidarity, we are challenged to proclaim with renewed conviction the reality of our reconciliation and liberation in Christ, and to propose the truth of the Gospel as the key to an authentic and integral human development. In a society which has become increasingly indifferent or even hostile to the Christian message, we are all the more compelled to give a joyful and convincing account of the hope that is within us (cf. 1 Pet 3:15), and to present the Risen Lord as the response to the deepest questions and spiritual aspirations of the men and women of our time. (Ecumenical Celebration at Westminster Abbey, City of Westminster, 17 September 2010.)
"We are challenged to proclaim with renewed conviction the reality of our reconciliation and liberation in Christ, and to propose the truth of the Gospel as the key to an authentic and integral human development"?
Who's the "we," Father Michael Mary?
Do Anglicans have a mission from God to do anything other than to convert to the Catholic Faith?
Well, what's the answer?
How can men and women who reject substantial parts of the Deposit of Faith bear any kind of witness to the Gospel?
How is the late Jacques Maritain's concept of "integral human development" consonant with Pope Saint Pius X's call in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910, for the restoration of the Catholic City?
Words have meaning, Father Michael Mary. Do you agree with your "pontiff" that Anglicans "are challenged to proclaim with renewed conviction the reality of our reconciliation and liberation in Christ, and to propose the truth of the Gospel as the key to an authentic and integral human development"?
Can Protestants serve as witnesses in behalf of the Gospel of Christ the King?
You've put yourself into this bind, Father Michael Mary, no one else. I am just pointing out the consequences of your "reconciliation" with a false church and your lame efforts to defend the indefensible, to justify what are, objectively speaking, offenses to the very honor and glory and majesty of the Most Blessed Trinity.
"We must give thanks for the remarkable progress made towards this noble goal through the efforts of committed Christians of every denomination"? Remarkable progress? The following words, contained in an out-of-print book that was published eight years ago now, lambasted Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II for claiming that such "progress" had been made in "Anglican-Catholic" relations since the end of the "Second" Vatican Council. The words below, written by sedeplenists who are very much opposed to sedevacantism and are firm supporters of the current "pontiff," are as applicable to Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI:
Ecumenical relations with the Anglicans provide a good first example of how ecumenism has degenerated into an utter debacle in its departure from the preconciliar teachings on the return of the dissidents. In 1966, Pope Paul VI and the Archbishop of Canterbury officially opened channels of dialogue between Catholics and Anglicans. Toward this end, the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC) was established. Over the course of the 1970s, this body drew up so-called "Agreed Statements"on the Eucharist, ministry, and authority. Anyone familiar with the liturgical changes that brought us the new Mass would recognize in these "Agreed Statements" the same kind of equivocation regarding sacrifice, the priesthood, and other such issues that seem to be present in parts of the new rite. (The whole story is told in Michael Davies' book The Order of Mechisedech.) These dreadful and apparently deliberate ambiguities were ultimately repudiated by Rome in the early 1990s. This is to be welcomed. But do we draw any lessons from this? None, apparently. Instead, Pope John Paul II has approved the convocation of yet another Anglican-Catholic "working group," addressing this new collection of Catholic bishops and Anglican "bishops" with these words: "On this significant occasion our minds turn spontaneously to the meeting between Pope Paul VI and Archbishop Ramsey in 1966, from which there came the first Anglican and Roman Catholic International Commission. In their Joint Statement, the Pope and the Archbishop spoke of the need for 'a serious dialogue which, founded on the Gospels and on the ancient common traditions, may lead to that unity in truth for which Christ prayed.' Now we can look back and say that that dialogue has continued fruitfully in the years since then." What are the fruits of the Anglican-Catholic "dialogue" since 1996? The Anglicans' ordination of women. Their denial of the torments of hell? Their support for abortion, contraception and divorce? And how does one reconcile John Paul II's statement to the "working group" that Anglican-Catholic dialogue "may lead to that unity in truth for which Christ prayed" with Pius XI's condemnation in Mortalium Animos of the very nation that "Christ Jesus merely expressed a desire and prayer, which still lacks its fulfillment"? But there we go, pitting one Pope against another. (Christopher A. Ferrara and Thomas E. Woods, Jr., The Great Facade, Remnant Press, 2002, pp. 195-196.)
Mind you, these words do not belong to the crazy sedevacantist, Thomas A. Droleskey, whose articles are, within the Holy Providence of God, accessed by only two or three hundred people on average and whose financial supporters can be counted on the fingers of two hands at the present time. These words were written by men who believed, as you used to believe, Father Michael Mary, that one could "resist but recognize" a true Successor of Saint Peter, although there is not much "resistance" any more to the current "pontiff's" words and actions that reaffirm, at least in the minds of most people who pay attention to these matters, on a basic level of pastoral praxis the falsehood that one religion is as good as another, leaving aside, of course, for the present time the simple fact that "resist but recognize" approach to dealing with a true Vicar of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ was condemned by Pope Pius VI in Auctorem Fidei, August 28, 1794.
Here is how Pope Pius XI dealt with the ideology of false ecumenism that was born at the "Word Missionary Conference" in Edinburgh, Scotland, in 1910, that has been praised multiple times this year by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI:
This being so, it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ. Shall We suffer, what would indeed be iniquitous, the truth, and a truth divinely revealed, to be made a subject for compromise? For here there is question of defending revealed truth. Jesus Christ sent His Apostles into the whole world in order that they might permeate all nations with the Gospel faith, and, lest they should err, He willed beforehand that they should be taught by the Holy Ghost: has then this doctrine of the Apostles completely vanished away, or sometimes been obscured, in the Church, whose ruler and defense is God Himself? If our Redeemer plainly said that His Gospel was to continue not only during the times of the Apostles, but also till future ages, is it possible that the object of faith should in the process of time become so obscure and uncertain, that it would be necessary today to tolerate opinions which are even incompatible one with another? If this were true, we should have to confess that the coming of the Holy Ghost on the Apostles, and the perpetual indwelling of the same Spirit in the Church, and the very preaching of Jesus Christ, have several centuries ago, lost all their efficacy and use, to affirm which would be blasphemy. But the Only-begotten Son of God, when He commanded His representatives to teach all nations, obliged all men to give credence to whatever was made known to them by "witnesses preordained by God," and also confirmed His command with this sanction: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned." These two commands of Christ, which must be fulfilled, the one, namely, to teach, and the other to believe, cannot even be understood, unless the Church proposes a complete and easily understood teaching, and is immune when it thus teaches from all danger of erring. In this matter, those also turn aside from the right path, who think that the deposit of truth such laborious trouble, and with such lengthy study and discussion, that a man's life would hardly suffice to find and take possession of it; as if the most merciful God had spoken through the prophets and His Only-begotten Son merely in order that a few, and those stricken in years, should learn what He had revealed through them, and not that He might inculcate a doctrine of faith and morals, by which man should be guided through the whole course of his moral life. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)
Was Pope Pius XI wrong?
Was Father Maximilian Kolbe wrong to have condemned the false ecumenism that has been part of the life's work of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and is part of the very lifeblood of concilairism and its Novus Ordo service in the following terms:
"Only until all schismatics and Protestants profess the Catholic Creed with conviction, when all Jews voluntarily ask for Holy Baptism – only then will the Immaculata have reached its goals.”
“In other words” Saint Maximilian insisted, “there is no greater enemy of the Immaculata and her Knighthood than today’s ecumenism, which every Knight must not only fight against, but also neutralize through diametrically opposed action and ultimately destroy. We must realize the goal of the Militia Immaculata as quickly as possible: that is, to conquer the whole world, and every individual soul which exists today or will exist until the end of the world, for the Immaculata, and through her for the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus.” (Father Karl Stehlin, Immaculata, Our Ideal, Kansas City, Missouri, Angelus Press, 2007, p. 37.)
I don't know about you, Father Michael Mary. However, poor, miserable sinner that I am, I am on the side of fighting against today's ecumenism, an ecumenism that has been the life's work of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, as I do indeed recognize it there is no greater enemy of the Immaculata and of Christ the King. The cost of "recognition" by a man who personally esteems the symbols of false religions with his own hands and treats the non-ordained "clergy" of false religions as having a mission from God to serve and sanctify and save souls is very, very high, Father Michael Mary.
Lest someone object by saying that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI took a swipe at almost all present in Westminster Abbey on Friday, September 17, 2010, when he warned them against an "intellectual conformism or facile accommodation to the spirit of the age," which was an oblique criticism of the "ordination" of women "priestesses" and "bishops" and possibly of Anglican "clergy" who are open practitioners of moral perversity (as opposed to the members of the conciliar "clergy" who are closet practitioners of perversity, you understand), it must be pointed out yet again that Ratzinger/Benedict believes that Anglicanism represents a legitimate "Christian tradition" that has been "hijacked" by those seeking to surrender to the pressures of the world.
Well,what was the "Second" Vatican Council all about? Wasn't it Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI who wrote in Principles of Catholic Theology that Gaudium et Spes, December 7, 1965, represented what he believes is the Catholic Church's "official reconciliation" with the principles of the "new era inaugurated in 1787"? Conciliarism is all about an "intellectual conformism or facile accommodation to the spirit of the age" as its false liturgy, the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service, was designed to be the chief vehicle to make this conformism and accommodation part of the lives of ordinary Catholics (see Appendix D below).
Do not live in confusion. The Catholic Church cannot be responsible for any of these outrages, which come from her counterfeit ape, an entity headed by men who believe that they can dispense with Catholic doctrine with a wave of the hand and a nod in the direction of a philosophical absurdity called the "hermeneutic of continuity and discontinuity."
As I note very frequently, pray your Rosaries. Know that the Immaculate Heart of Mary will indeed triumph. May it be our privilege to plant a few seeds for that Triumph.
We can console the good God and make reparation for our sins and for those of the whole world, including those of the conciliarists, with each Rosary that we pray.
What are we waiting for?
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 Francis of Assisi, pray for us.
See also: A Litany of Saints
List of Exceptions Granted by True Popes (as found at http://papastronsay.blogspot.com)
Pope Innocent IV
permitted the Dominican missionaries
among the (Non-Catholic) Jacobites and Nestorians
to share with them
“in verbis, officio et cibo”
(literally in words, offices and food;
better english: in speech, in offices, in meals).
In 1245 he gave the same permission to Franciscan Missionaries.
From the context it is obvious that the words
“in officio” is are equivalent to “in sacris”
(in sacred things).
The following Popes,
Nicholas IV (1288),
John XXII (1316-34), and
Benedict XII (1334-42)
gave the missionaries
the same permission many times
as can be verified in the books of the
Sources of the Codification of Oriental Canon Law
published by the Vatican in 1943.
Blessed Urban V gave his legate in the East,
St Peter Thomas, Latin Patriarch of Constantinople,
permission to share with non-Catholics "in divinis",
with this limitation,
that the permission did not extend
to those excommunicated by name.
258 years ago, in 1752,
Pope Benedict XIV concluded that communicatio in sacris
with schismatics and heretics
is not always contrary to the divine law:
for example in a marriage between a Catholic and a Non-Catholic.
(From a letter written to Pope Saint Pius X):
Most Blessed Father!
Andrew Szeptycki, Metropolitan of Halycz, Metropolitan
of Kiev and Administrator of all Russia at the foot of
His Holiness most humbly asks that faculties may be conceded
to himself and also to confessors in communion (capable of being communicated)
for dispensing secular faithful
from the law which forbids communicatio in sacris with the Orthodox
as many times as they will judge it in conscience to be opportune.
Our Most Holy Father Pope Pius X
deigned to sign with his own hand
this document written by me
with the words "May be tolerated".
Pope Saint Pius X's Condemnation of Promiscuous Contact With Non-Catholics in Secular Affairs
This being said, what must be thought of the promiscuity in which young Catholics will be caught up with heterodox and unbelieving folk in a work of this nature? Is it not a thousand-fold more dangerous for them than a neutral association? What are we to think of this appeal to all the heterodox, and to all the unbelievers, to prove the excellence of their convictions in the social sphere in a sort of apologetic contest? Has not this contest lasted for nineteen centuries in conditions less dangerous for the faith of Catholics? And was it not all to the credit of the Catholic Church? What are we to think of this respect for all errors, and of this strange invitation made by a Catholic to all the dissidents to strengthen their convictions through study so that they may have more and more abundant sources of fresh forces? What are we to think of an association in which all religions and even Free-Thought may express themselves openly and in complete freedom? For the Sillonists who, in public lectures and elsewhere, proudly proclaim their personal faith, certainly do not intend to silence others nor do they intend to prevent a Protestant from asserting his Protestantism, and the skeptic from affirming his skepticism. Finally, what are we to think of a Catholic who, on entering his study group, leaves his Catholicism outside the door so as not to alarm his comrades who, “dreaming of disinterested social action, are not inclined to make it serve the triumph of interests, coteries and even convictions whatever they may be”?
Bishop George Hay, writing fifty years after Pope Benedict XIV Comment on a Mixed Marriage Ceremony in 1752 as cited by Father Michael May, on Relations With Non-Catholics
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.)
Bishop Hay, who was the Vicar Apostolic for the Scottish Lowland District from 1778 to 1805 knew the Catholic Faith very well. There is no record that the Sovereign Pontiffs during his tenure, Popes Pius VI and Pius VII, ever once contradicted him for reiterating these truths of the Catholic Faith that he wanted the Catholics in Scotland to accept with humility and docility. That includes you, Father Michael Mary.
The Novus Ordo Service as a Rejection of Catholic Tradition and an Effort of "Conformism" to Protestantism
"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.)
"[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. The words were spoken by Jean Guitton, a close friend of Giovanni Montini/Paul VI. The quotation and citations are found in Christopher A. Ferrara and Thomas E. Woods, Jr., The Great Facade, The Remnant Publishing Company, 2002, p. 317.)
Let it be candidly said: the Roman Rite which we have known hitherto no longer exists. It is destroyed. (Father Joseph Gelineau, an associate of Annibale Bugnini on the Consilium, 1uoted and footnoted in the work of a John Mole, who believed that the Mass of the Roman Rite had been "truncated," not destroyed. Assault on the Roman Rite)