Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us
February 4, 2009

To Bury the Truth

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Among the more obvious phenomena of the last years must be counted the increasing number of integralist groups in which the desire for piety, for the sense of mystery, is finding satisfaction. We must be on our guard against minimizing these movements. Without a doubt, they represent a sectarian zealotry that is the antithesis of Catholicity. We cannot resist them too firmly. (Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, pp. 389-390)

 

No sane or intellectually honest Catholic can produce any evidence to suggest that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has in the least abjured what he wrote in Principles of Catholic Theology twenty-seven years ago now.

Indeed, the then Prefect of the conciliar Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith more or less repeated the same desire to isolate the "integralists" when he answered questions posed to him by Italian journalist Vittorio Messorio in 1985 that served as the basis of The Ratzinger Report, a book that seemed to suggest to "conservative" Catholics yet attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism (and I was one of them at the time, thank you very much) that one of the progenitors and chief defenders of the "Second" Vatican Council was having a few "second thoughts," at least here and there, about the "direction" of the Council. Ratzinger did make it clear in 1982 and 1985 that those attached to the Immemorial Mass of Tradition represented a "threat" to the "Church" who had to be resisted quite firmly.

Some continue to claim that Ratzinger/Benedict's Summorum Pontificum, July 7, 2007, a document that is founded on the abject lie that the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service does not constitute a break with the Missale Romanum of Pope Saint Pius V, contradicting what he, Joseph Ratzinger, himself contended in the preface to the French language edition of the late Monsignor Klaus Gamber's The Reform of the Roman Liturgy and in his own memoirs, Milestones, represents Ratzinger/Benedict's commitment to the "restoration" of the Church. It does not. Summorum Pontificum remains now what it was nineteen months ago when it was issued: a trap to neutralize opposition to the "Second" Vatican Council and the Novus Ordo from traditionally-minded Catholics attached to the structures of his false church, which is a perverse "ape" of the Catholic Church along the lines of the Anglican sect.

Father Basil Meramo, the Prior of the Society of Saint Pius X, recognized this trap for what it is when he wrote the following in December of 2007 in a Christmas letter to his benefactors:

The attempt to reconcile the New Mass with the Traditional Mass is the first step in his plan to bring about a reconciliation between the teachings of Vatican II and the True Faith. He cannot permit a rupture or separation to remain, which would impede his dialectic synthesis, for, as he declared when he was Cardinal Ratzinger: "For the life of the Church, it is dramatically urgent that a renewal of the liturgical conscience take place that will recognize once again the unity of the history of the liturgy and will understand Vatican II not as a rupture, but as a moment of development" (ibidem). It now becomes clearly manifested what was the real motivation behind the recognition of the fact that the Traditional Missal was never abrogated. It is the well-known one step backward/two steps forward strategy.

It would be naïve to think that Benedict XVI has taken these measures because he is moving closer to the Traditional Mass and the True Faith. For according to his own words, the aim of these measures is the consolidation and legitimization of the New Mass and of Vatican II. He is attempting this not through brutal and dramatic measures that break with the past, but by using the method of a subtle and gradual evolution [as "Fr." Ratzinger did at Vatican II], he hopes to reconcile and convince all of the opponents of Vatican II and of the New Mass of their legitimacy.

Benedict XVI is proceeding gently, yet firmly, to establish that the New Mass and Vatican II do not constitute a break with the past, either liturgically or doctrinally, but rather that they are the fruit of an organic growth and development within the Church and must be accepted by all of the faithful. Therefore, the Traditional Mass is the expression of an historical past, and the New Mass is the faithful expression of the vital present and the promise of an even more glorious future.

One cannot conceive of a more subtle, clever, and intelligent maneuver that clearly intends to eliminate the forces that compose the Catholic resistance to the innovations and that defend the Traditional Mass and doctrines of the Catholic Church. This elimination is to take place without any dramatic clashes or brutal confrontations, as was attempted in the past, but rather with a warm oecumenical embrace, which will not leave behind any rotting corpses that could mar the irenic and bucolic scenery. This is not how one proceeds in our democratic age, for now we destroy by dialectic substitution. (February 2008 Commentaries on Traditio; see also my own High Church, Low Church.)

 

Leaving aside Father Meramo's erroneous belief that one can "resist" a legitimate Successor of Saint Peter, his prescient analysis of the real purpose of Summorum Pontificum has been borne out by subsequent events.

Indeed, the nineteen months that have passed since the issuance of Summorum Pontificum have been marked by a "strategic silence" by many, although far from all, members the laity in the various Motu communities in response to the multiple blasphemies that have been committed against God by Ratzinger/Benedict, including his entering into the Park East Synagogue in the Borough of Manhattan in the City of New York, New York, on Friday, April 18, 2008, where he, who believes himself to be, albeit erroneously, the Vicar of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ on earth, was treated as an inferior and sat placidly as a Talmudic hymn was sung that denied the Sacred Divinity of the One Whose Vicar he represents himself to be.

This "strategic silence" has been used also to greet Ratzinger/Benedict's sacrilege of esteeming the symbols of five false religions the day before, Thursday, April 17, 2008, at the "John Paul II Cultural Center" in Washington, District of Columbia. Ratzinger/Benedict has indeed destroyed a good deal of the "resistance" to the conciliar revolution by means of Summorum Pontificum as voices that would have thundered with justifiable rage in the days of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II have been muted, making them guilty of the blasphemies that they refuse to denounce out of fear for "offending" the "Sovereign Pontiff" who is said that have "liberated" the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition but who is not other than an aging Modernist revolutionary who thinks nothing of blaspheming God, Whose very nature he rejects by virtue of his attacks on the nature of dogmatic truth.

But it is vain for them to adopt the name of catholic, as they do not oppose these blasphemies: they must believe them, if they can listen so patiently to such words. (Pope Saint Leo the Great, Epistle XIV, To Anastasius, Bishop of Thessalonica, St. Leo the Great | Letters 1-59 )

 

Saint Alphonsus de Liguori reminded us that we must defend the honor and majesty of glory no matter who gets offended in the process:

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

 

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has "lifted" the "excommunications" that were imposed on July 1, 2008, by Karol Wojtyla/John Paul upon the four bishops who were consecrated without a "papal" mandate by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the day before, June 30, 1988, in Econe, Switzerland, to further his goal of neutralizing traditional voices who have been in opposition to the Novus Ordo and to various "elements" of the "Second" Vatican Council and to the ethos of conciliarism spawned thereby.

The aforementioned Father Meramo has written an "open letter" to his Superior-General, Bishop Bernard Fellay, in which he, Father Meramo, while adhering to the false ecclesiology of the Society of Saint Pius X examined in today's other article, A Little Bit "In," A Little Bit "Out", explains with firmness that the "lifting" of the "excommunications" is yet another trap posed by Ratzinger/Benedict to silence more people about the apostasies of conciliarism and the abomination that is the Novus Ordo service:

You cannot annul a punishment which was never valid in the first place.

Anyone who confuses lifting the excommunications with a recognition of their nullity is being either stupid or malicious.

Accepting the 'lifting of the excommunication' is an act unworthy of a son of Archbishop Lefebvre.

It is as clear as crystal that Rome understands it has 'lifted the excommunications', and that is why it grants this lifting only to the four bishops who asked for it (and not to Lefebvre and Castro Mayer who, being dead, did not ask).

Modernist, Protestantized  Rome has been trying to deactivate the resistance, and the process which began in 2000 is now coming to a close.

I will not let myself be intellectually prostituted by the power of evil which has introduced into the Church everything that could pervert her, and sodomize her spiritually and religiously.


Rome is going about subtly deactivating the SSPX like a bomb to prevent its heroic fight for the faith against the new post-conciliar ecumenical Church which is collaborating with the reign of the Prince of this World.

If none of the three other bishops says anything, they will be consenting to error deception and lies.

These are apocalyptic times in which each member of the faithful is like a solider fighting for Christ, alone with God to face the executioners.

Our sole duty is to remain faithful to the divine Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church while we see the abomination of desolation and the fulfillment of the prophecy of Our Lady of La Salette: "Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the Anti-Christ."

Still, we shouldn't be discouraged because the gates of hell will not prevail against her.

We also know that the veritable Church, the unique, virginal bride of Christ, is the small remnant scattered throughout the world, waiting in hope for Christ's return.

We must remain firm in the faith.

Saying the SSPX will help the pope to resolve the crisis is inconceivable because the crisis is the fault of the modernist popes. All his life and career Joseph Ratzinger  [Fr Meramo refers to him elsewhere as Benedict XVI] has maintained these errors and not condemned them. Speaking of the crisis of vocations, etc. without speaking of the crisis of the faith is getting things backwards.

Demanding the 'rights of Tradition' is false and part of a liberal approach where every religion asks for its rights. Tradition alone has rights.

Let's not forget that Archbishop Lefebvre said: "[The modernists say: 'because you do not want to contribute to the demolition of the Church, we excommunicate you.' Very well! Thanks! We prefer to be excommunicated. We do not want to participate in this abominable work which has been going on for 20 years." (10 July 1988)

" We wish to have nothing to do with the Pantheon of religions. Our excommunication by a decree of your Eminence would be but an irrefutable proof of this." (6 July 1988, letter to Cardinal Gantin) [CHES: I think this is from the 1988 letter of the SSPX District Superiors).]


(This is a paraphrased translation, found by a reader who accessed http://thesensiblebond.blogspot.com/, of a French-language posting of Father Meramo's letter, whose Spanish-language original can be linked here, http://www.sectorcatolico.com/2008/12/carta-abierta-al-superior-general-de-la.html, for those who read Spanish)

 

Even absent the furor caused by the remarks made by Bishop Richard Williamson to interviewer Ali Fegan that appeared on Swedish television two weeks ago today, January 21, 2009, the day on which the decree "lifting" the "excommunications" was signed, the decree itself is indeed designed to neutralize the voices of those attached to the counterfeit church of conciliarism who have heretofore sought to defend the Catholic Faith within those structures without coming to the conclusion (that took so many of us, myself included, far, far to long to reach ourselves) that it is absolutely impossible for the Catholic Church to be in the least bit responsible for the blasphemies, outrages, abominations, sacrileges and apostasies that have been propagated by the false "pontiffs" in the past fifty years.

Further proof of the apostate nature of the counterfeit church of conciliarism was provided earlier today when the conciliar Vatican's Secretariat of State issued the following statement about the current "canonical" status of the Society of Saint Pius X and about the terms upon which Bishop Williamson might be able to function as a member in "good standing" in that false church in the future:

Following the reactions caused by the recent Decree of the Congregation for Bishops, with which the excommunication of the four Prelates of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X was remitted, and regarding the Negationist or Reductionist declarations on the Shoah of Bishop Williamson, of the same Fraternity, it is considered convenient to clarify a few aspects of past events.

1. Remission of the excommunication.

As already made public previously, the Decree of the Congregation for Bishops, dated January 21, 2009, was an act by which the Holy Father graciously responded to the repeated requests by the Superior General of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X.

His Holiness desired to remove an obstacle which prevented the opening of a door to dialogue. He now expects that an equal disposition will be expressed by the four Bishops in complete adherence to the doctrine and discipline of the Church.

The extremely grave censure of latae sententiae excommunication, in which the aforementioned Bishops had incurred on June 30, 1988, then formally declared on July 1st of the same year, was a consequence of their illegitimate ordinarion by Mons. Marcel Lefebvre.

The removal of the excommunication released the four Bishops from an extremely grave canonical censure, but has not changed the juridical position of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X, which, at the current moment, does not enjoy any canonical recognition by the Catholic Church. Not even the four Bishops, though released from the excommunication, have a canonical function in the Church and they do not exercise licitly a ministry in it.

2. Tradition, doctrine, and the Second Vatican Council.

For a future recognition of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X, the full acknowledgment of the Second Vatican Council and of the Magisterium of Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and of the same Benedict XVI is an indispensable condition

As it was already affirmed in the Decree of January 21, 2009, the Holy See will not avoid, in ways deemed appropriate, discussing with the interested [party] the questions that remain open, so as to be able to reach a full and satisfactory resolution of the problems which originated this painful division.

3. Declarations on the Shoah.

The positions of Mons. Williamson on the Shoah are absolutely unacceptable and firmly rejected by the Holy Father, as he himself remarked on the past January 28, when, referring to that brutal genocide, he reaffirmed his full and unquestionable solidarity with our Brethren, receivers of the First Covenant, and affirmed that the memory of that terrible genocide must lead "mankind to reflect on the unpredictable power of evil when it conquers the heart of man", adding that the Shoah remains "for all a warning against forgetfulness, against denial or reductionism, because the violence against a single human being is violence against all".

Bishop Williamson, for an admission to episcopal functions in the Church, will also have to distance himself, in an absolutely unequivocal and public manner, from his positions regarding the Shoah, unknown to the Holy Father in the moment of the remission of the excommunication.


The Holy Father asks to be joined by the prayers of all the faithful, so that the Lord may enlighten the path of the Church. May the effort of the Pastors and of all the faithful increase in support of the delicate and burdensome mission of the Successor of Apostle Peter as "custodian of the unity" in the Church.

From the Vatican, February 4, 2009. (Translation found on RORATE CĂLI blogspot.)

 

Well, as a former colleague of mine is wont to say, you have it. The ability of a validly-consecrated bishop to function in the counterfeit church of concilairism does not depend upon his adherence to the totality of the Deposit of Faith that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has entrusted to the Church that He founded upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope, for Its eternal safekeeping and infallible explication. (See Voices From Hell.) No, the ability of a validly-consecrated bishop to function in the counterfeit church of conciliarism depends upon his adherence to what revisionist historian Michael Hoffman calls "Holocaustianity."

Those who examine evidence put forth by historical revisionists concerning the nature and the crimes committed against innocent human beings, Christians and Jews alike, and find such evidence reasonable enough to put into question the propaganda advanced by "mainstream" historians must renounce any effort to seek the truth in order not to be considered offensive to the ancient enemies of the Catholic Faith, the people who deny the one and only Holocaust, that which was offered by Our Lord to His Co-Equal and Co-Eternal Father in Spirit and in Truth on the wood of the Holy Cross in atonement for our sins. It is fealty to the "sensitivities" and to the "demands" of adherents of a document, the Talmud, that blasphemes Our Lord and His Most Blessed Mother and which categorizes non-Jews as sub-humans that qualifies a prelate to function "legitimately" within the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

The duplicity of this is truly astounding.

While I noted in Those Who Deny The Holocaust that I have not made a study of revisionist literature a preoccupation of my time, focusing on the proximate root causes that has led up to the mass slaughter of innocent human beings in the era of Modernity (the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King wrought by the Protestant Revolt and cemented in place by the multifaceted, inter-related anti-Incarnational, naturalistic forces of Judeo-Masonry) by the anthropocentric (man-centered) modern civil state, are Catholics to be prohibited from reading this literature and of expressing their judgments about it in the measured, reasoned tones that Bishop Williamson did in his interview that was conducted on November 2, 2008, and aired, curiously, on the very day that the decree "lifting" the "excommunications" was signed, Wednesday, January 21, 2009?

It is most curious and duplicit that Joseph Ratzinger believes that the truths contained in the Deposit of Faith can be examined through the lens of his "New Theology" as though the decrees of the Council of Trent and the [First] Vatican Council are deficient because they relied upon the Scholasticism of Saint Thomas Aquinas. Ratzinger/Benedict used the occasion of the centenary of the birth of his beloved mentor, the Hegelian Hans Urs von Balthasar, to praise him as follows:

“Hans Urs von Balthasar, the Pope writes, ‘was a theologian who put his work at the service of the Church,’ because he was convinced that theology is useful only within the context of Catholic practice. ‘I can testify that his life was an authentic search for truth," the Pope adds. Pope Benedict says that he hopes the 100th-anniversary observance will stimulate a revival of interest in the work of von Balthasar, recalling Henri de Lubac's claim that the Swiss theologian was "the most cultured man of our century.’ The Lateran University seminar is co-sponsored by Communio, the international theological journal that was founded by von Balthasar in cooperation with theologians such as Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict) and Angelo Scola (now the Patriarch of Venice). Participants in the weekend's discussions include Cardinal Scola, Cardinal James Stafford, and Cardinal Marc Ouellet.” (Catholic World News.com, October 7, 2005.)

 

There is frequently the need to search for the truth of various historical facts. There is no need to "search" for the truths of the Catholic Faith, truths that indeed were put into question by Father Hans Urs von Balthasar by his belief that the words of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ contained "paradoxes" and "contradictions" that had to be re-examined in light of the "changing circumstances" in which "modern man" finds himself. Von Balthasar believed that "only love is credible," meaning that precise dogmatic formulations are secondary, if even at all necessary, to serving God as members of the Catholic Church. Hans Urs von Balthasar, whose belief in the heresy of "universal salvation" was critiqued by Father Regis Scanlon, O.F.M.., Cap., in The Inflated Reputation of Hans Urs von Balthasar, is to be "praised" for his "search" for dogmatic truth on points that have been defined solemnly by the Catholic Church--and therefore no longer matters of debate--while a validly-consecrated bishop is to be silenced for searching for the truth in matters of the historical record that is open to debate and discussion.

Then again, why should historical truth matters when there are those who have a vested interest in convincing ordinary Catholics attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism that Ratzinger/Benedict is not a disciple of the New Theology and who act as though it is no "big deal" that this Modernist has offended God greatly by his public acts of blasphemy and sacrilege?

This is nothing other than rank duplicity designed to cater to the "sensitivities" and "demands" of those who believe that the only "good" Catholic is one who accepts conciliarism en toto and who thus rejects the necessity of seeking with urgency their conversion to the true Faith. No believing Catholic justifies in the slightest the crimes of the Third Reich. A believing Catholic should, however, be concerned about the manner in which the Christophobic adherents of the Talmud have used those crimes to produce a situation wherein the then prefect of the conciliar church's Congregation of the Faith could use the "Shoah" as one of the pretexts for concluding that a Jewish reading of the Bible is a "possible" one, a conclusion that is both blasphemous and and act of apostasy at one and the same time:

In its work, the Biblical Commission could not ignore the contemporary context, where the shock of the Shoah has put the whole question under a new light. Two main problems are posed: Can Christians, after all that has happened, still claim in good conscience to be the legitimate heirs of Israel's Bible? Have they the right to propose a Christian interpretation of this Bible, or should they not instead, respectfully and humbly, renounce any claim that, in the light of what has happened, must look like a usurpation? The second question follows from the first: In its presentation of the Jews and the Jewish people, has not the New Testament itself contributed to creating a hostility towards the Jewish people that provided a support for the ideology of those who wished to destroy Israel? The Commission set about addressing those two questions. It is clear that a Christian rejection of the Old Testament would not only put an end to Christianity itself as indicated above, but, in addition, would prevent the fostering of positive relations between Christians and Jews, precisely because they would lack common ground. In the light of what has happened, what ought to emerge now is a new respect for the Jewish interpretation of the Old Testament. On this subject, the Document says two things. First it declares that “the Jewish reading of the Bible is a possible one, in continuity with the Jewish Scriptures of the Second Temple period, a reading analogous to the Christian reading, which developed in parallel fashion” (no. 22). It adds that Christians can learn a great deal from a Jewish exegesis practised for more than 2000 years; in return, Christians may hope that Jews can profit from Christian exegetical research (ibid.). I think this analysis will prove useful for the pursuit of Judeo-Christian dialogue, as well as for the interior formation of Christian consciousness. (Joseph Ratzinger, Preface to The Jewish People and Their Scriptures in the Christian Bible.)

 

Yes, my friends, there is a direct connection between the exaggerated claims of those whose religion is indeed "Holocaustianity" and the counterfeit church of conciliarism's refusal to speak as Pope Saint Pius X did to the founder of international Zionism, Theodore Herzl, on January 25, 1904, when he, unlike Ratzinger/Benedict and, to quote from the Vatican Secretariat of State's statement of earlier today, unlike Ratzinger's "full and unquestionable solidarity with our Brethren, receivers of the First Covenant," spoke of the supersession of that "First Covenant:"

POPE: We are unable to favor this movement [of Zionism]. We cannot prevent the Jews from going to Jerusalem—but we could never sanction it. The ground of Jerusalem, if it were not always sacred, has been sanctified by the life of Jesus Christ. As the head of the Church I cannot answer you otherwise. The Jews have not recognized our Lord, therefore we cannot recognize the Jewish people.

HERZL: [The conflict between Rome and Jerusalem, represented by the one and the other of us, was once again under way. At the outset I tried to be conciliatory. I said my little piece. . . . It didn’t greatly impress him. Jerusalem was not to be placed in Jewish hands.] And its present status, Holy Father?


POPE: I know, it is disagreeable to see the Turks in possession of our Holy Places. We simply have to put up with it. But to sanction the Jewish wish to occupy these sites, that we cannot do.


HERZL: [I said that we based our movement solely on the sufferings of the Jews, and wished to put aside all religious issues].


POPE: Yes, but we, but I as the head of the Catholic Church, cannot do this. One of two things will likely happen. Either the Jews will retain their ancient faith and continue to await the Messiah whom we believe has already appeared—in which case they are denying the divinity of Jesus and we cannot assist them. Or else they will go there with no religion whatever, and then we can have nothing at all to do with them. The Jewish faith was the foundation of our own, but it has been superceded by the teachings of Christ, and we cannot admit that it still enjoys any validity. The Jews who should have been the first to acknowledge Jesus Christ have not done so to this day.


HERZL: [It was on the tip of my tongue to remark, “It happens in every family: no one believes in his own relative.” But, instead, I said:] Terror and persecution were not precisely the best means for converting the Jews. [His reply had an element of grandeur in its simplicity:]


POPE: Our Lord came without power. He came in peace. He persecuted no one. He was abandoned even by his apostles. It was only later that he attained stature. It took three centuries for the Church to evolve. The Jews therefore had plenty of time in which to accept his divinity without duress or pressure. But they chose not to do so, and they have not done it yet.

 

Who is correct? Pope Saint Pius X, who said that the Catholic Church "cannot admit that it [Judaism] enjoys any validity," or Ratzinger/Benedict, who believes does indeed believe in the validity of the false religion of Talmudic Judaism, even lending it credibility by walking into synagogues and listening patiently to a pro-abortion Talmudic rabbi's comments and his choir singing a song that denies the Sacred Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ? This is not a minor matter. This is a matter of spiritual life and spiritual death. The Catholic Church has imposed the solemn penalty of excommunication upon any cleric who walked into a synagogue to join in prayer with them:

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.)

 

Nothing that happened during World War II changes this truth. Nothing that happened during World War II changes the truth of what Pope Saint Pius X told Theodore Herzl 105 years ago now. And noting once again what I have written in recent commentaries on this subject, as horrible and as deplorable as crimes against innocent human beings are, crimes against God are more evil in the hierarchy of evils, which is why conciliarism's warfare against the nature of dogmatic truth, against the nature of the Church (the "new ecclesiology") and in favor of "false ecumenism" and "religious liberty" and "separation of Church and State" has produced a slaughter of the souls of innocent human beings, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, that is a greater evil than the crimes committed by civil states under cover of the civil law in the last 492 since the beginning of the the Protestant Revolt against the Divine Plan that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ instituted to effect man's return to Him through the Catholic Church.

To bury historical truth in order to achieve some "strategic goal" whereby a traditionally-minded religious community may be incorporated into the buildings of the One World Church along with the "Catholic" Charismatic Renewal, Opus Dei, Focolare, Cursillo, the Sant'Egidio Community, the Shalom Catholic Community, the Chemin Neuf Community, the International Community of Faith and Light, Regnum Christi, Communion and Liberation, the Emmanuel Community, the Seguimi Lay Group of Human-Christian Promotion, and. among many, many others, the Neocatechumenal Way, is to blind oneself to how the ancient enemies of the Faith, for whose conversion to the true Faith we must pray fervently, have exaggerated the facts of history to accomplish their own purposes of neutralizing what appears to most people in the world to be the Catholic Church--but is in reality her perverse ape--and have used the "victim card" to their advantage to make one demand after another of conciliar "popes."

Indeed, the Preacher to the "Papal" Household, Father Raniero Cantalamessa, O.F.M., Cap., said the following on September 30, 2005, and he has not been contradicted by the man for whom he works, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI:

If Jews one day come (as Paul hopes) to a more positive judgment of Jesus, this must occur through an inner process, as the end of a search of their own (something that in part is occurring). We Christians cannot be the ones who seek to convert them. We have lost the right to do so by the way in which this was done in the past. First the wounds must be healed through dialogue and reconciliation. (Zenit, September 30, 2005.)

 

At what point did "we" lose the right" to seek the conversion of those who adhere to the Talmud? To refuse to seek their conversion means that they are, more or less, pretty much assured of their salvation, making a mockery of Pope Eugene IV's Cantate Domino, issued during the Council of Florence  on February 4, 1442, precisely 567 years ago today:

It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

 

Is this one of the dogmatic statements that had "utility" for its time but has been rendered "moot" in light of the "Shoah" or rendered irrelevant because the "particulars" it contains has become "obsolete"? Where does one draw the line to curry favor with the "world"? Keeping silent about the facts of history? Keeping silent about the truths of the Faith? Refusing to "offend" non-Catholics by reaffirming them, at least in a de facto manner, in their false religions to the point of their deaths?

No, no, no, a thousand times no! Truth matters in the Order of Grace (Redemption) and in the Order of Creation (Nature). No one who is committed to the pursuit of truth in either realm is an enemy of the Faith just because certain Christophobic elements in the Organized Forces of Naturalism of Judeo-Masonry will be "offended." Those who blithely permit lies, whether concerning doctrine or liturgy or history of philosophy, to go unanswered with the truth are part of the problem and show themselves to enemies of Christ the King as they serve as ready enablers of those lies that they believe would offend many in "the world."

Those who adhere to the Society of Saint Pius X are being given a choice by the lords of the conciliar Vatican: submit to the teaching of the "Second" Vatican Council and the "magisterium" of its "pontiffs" or remain in the outer wildness of "partial communion," a term used by Dario Castrillon "Cardinal" Hoyos repeatedly to refer to the Society of Saint Pius X and that has been used by Ratzinger/Benedict himself.

A legitimate Successor of Saint Peter must be obeyed in all that pertains to the Deposit of Faith. Have the conciliar "pontiffs" been legitimate Successors of Saint Peter. Fathers Francisco and Dominic Radecki, CMRI, explain this with great clarity in their magnificent work, Tumultuous Times:

"A legitimate pope cannot contradict or deny what was first taught by Christ to His Church. An essential change in belief constitutes the establishment of a new religion.

"The attribute of infallibility was given to the popes in order that the revealed doctrines and teaching of Christ would remain forever intact and unchanged. It is contrary to faith and reason to blindly follow an alleged pope who attempts to destroy the Catholic Faith--for there have been 41 documented antipopes. Papal infallibility means that the Holy Ghost guides and preserves the Catholic Church from error through the succession of legitimate popes who have ruled the Church through the centuries. All Catholics, including Christ's Vicar on earth, the pope, must accept all the doctrinal pronouncements of past popes. These infallible teachings form a vital link between Christ and St. Peter and his successors.

"If a pope did not accept and believe this entire body of formulated teachings (the Deposit of Faith), he could not himself be a Catholic. He would cease to belong to Christ's Church. If he no longer belongs to the Catholic Church, he cannot be her Head." (Fathers Francisco and Dominic Radecki, CMRI, Tumultuous Times, p. 274.)

Two of those conciliar "pontiffs," Giovanni Montini/Paul VI and Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, used the "personalist" approach to dealing with issues of morality covered by the Sixth and Ninth Commandments, emphasizing the "unitive" rather the the "procreative" as the first end of marriage, quite a contrast with Pope Pius XI's Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930, and something to which a believing Catholic must object and criticize most strenuously. A third, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, has used his "pontificate" as the means of attempting to wipe Scholasticism off of the Catholic map entirely as he reads the precepts of his condemned "New Theology" into the minds of the evangelists and of the Fathers of the Church.

There is no need to list once again the very brief summary of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's multiple defections from the Catholic Faith that have been chronicled in depth in Singing the Old Songs and yesterday in A Little Bit "In," A Little Bit "Out". Those who understand that conciliarism represents a defection from the Catholic Faith in many ways and that the conciliar "pontiffs" have themselves fallen from the Faith by virtue of violating the Divine Positive Law recognize that one cannot "recognize and resist" a legitimate Successor of Saint Peter. That the conciliar "pontiffs" have defied the anathematized statements of the Catholic Church and have offended the honor and majesty and glory of God greatly and in multiple ways on repeated occasions demonstrates that they have been, to quote the late, murdered Father Eldred Leslie when speaking to a priest of the Society of Saint Pius X in South Africa two months ago, no more the "pope" than Cleopatra.

We must continue to cleave to true bishops and true priests who make no concessions to conciliarism or to the nonexistent legitimacy of its false shepherds who cater to the dictates of the ancient enemies of the Catholic Church at every turn, empowering the deniers of the one and only Holocaust, that which is re-presented in an unbloody manner on altars of Sacrifice by those true bishops and true priests in every valid offering of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, to have at least some "input" on various decision of doctrine and policy made by the lords of the false conciliar church.

We must give thanks to Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and to His Most Blessed Mother for sending us these shepherds. And while we pray for the conversion of the Modernists in the false church who have offended God mightily as we make reparation for our own many sins, we must nevertheless be firm and resolute in our complete and total rejection of concilairism and everything to do with it at all times, remembering this injunction of Saint Paul the Apostle in his Second Epistle to the Corinthians:

Bear not the yoke with unbelievers. For what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever?

And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God; as God saith: I will dwell in them, and walk among them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore, Go out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing: And I will receive you; and I will be a Father to you; and you shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. (2 Cor. 6: 14-18.)

 

We must pray many Rosaries in reparation for our sins and those of the whole world!

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!

 

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

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.

Saint Andrew Corsini, pray for us.

Saint Agatha, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints

 




© Copyright 2009, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.