Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us
May 24, 2012


Way, Way Over The Rainbow

by Thomas A. Droleskey

We lived in many places in our motor home over the course of the ten years that we owned it .Yes, it's been gone for over thirteen and one-half months now. We do not miss its multiple breakdowns, although it served its purpose quite well for us in the years when there was what the ancients would have called interest in my lecture programs.

As there were times when living in the confines of the motor home got just a little much, we did eat out on occasion to get a break away from the close quarters. We were homebodies when living in our manufactured house in Connecticut in 2010 until the snows, which had given me a case of severely frostbitten toes, drove us out into more southerly climes for a while before we wound up at the same manufactured house in Ohio from which he we had lived for a brief time in 2009. We continue, quite thankfully, to be homebodies. It was, however, good to have gotten out on occasion when we lived in the motor home.

As noted in my e-book on weight loss, There Is No Shortcut to Cure This Condition: A Catholic Man's Lifelong Battle With of the Bulge, one of the restaurants at which we dined in 2007-2008 was Conte's Ristorante on Boston Post Road in Milford, Connecticut. A very fine pianist played a repertoire of various soft music selections. Never known his last name, we addressed him by his first name, Ray. One of the songs in Ray's standard repertoire was "Somewhere Over the Rainbow," which Ray played very beautifully.

There are times when thoughts of "Mister Ray" playing "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" come to mind, particularly when those who seek to defend the apostasies, blasphemies and sacrileges of conciliarism as being perfect consistent with Catholic teaching by explaining that the "Second" Vatican Council just had to teach correct doctrine because it was, they contend, a legitimate council of the Catholic Church. In other words, the documents of the "Second" Vatican Council and the documents and allocutions of the conciliar "popes" must be Catholic because we must believe that they are Catholic no matter what appears to us simple-minded folk (boobs, rubes, morons, schismatics, integralists who have but a Protestant or Old Catholic view of the papacy and the Church) to be pure contradictions of the Received Teaching that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ entrusted exclusively to His Catholic Church for their eternal safekeeping and infallible explication.

The following excerpt from an analysis by Dr. Jeffrey Mirus of the state of the "doctrinal discussions" between the Society of Saint Pius X and the conciliar authorities is one of those times when one living in exile in the Midwest is transported over the Alleghenies and across the Hudson River and from there eastward to the sound of "Mister Ray" playing "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" melodically on the piano:


The perception that the modern Magisterium has issued teachings contrary to the Catholic tradition is widespread among Traditionalists. Some (most notably members of the Society of St. Pius V) have actually adopted a more consistent position than the Society of St. Pius X. The former have argued, in effect, that the difference in teaching is so dramatic that it is impossible that the Magisterium has really taught what has been taught; rather, it must be the case that recent popes are all imposters and that the See of Peter is actually vacant (this is called sede vacantism). Yes, this is a wild assertion, but it is theologically consistent.

On the other hand, for anyone who recognizes the absurdity of the sede vacantist claim, the problem with these alleged doctrinal anomalies is that they rest on an impossibility. The Magisterium of the Church is quite simply unable to contradict itself. For this reason, any apparent contradictions must be firmly located in the misunderstanding of the beholder. The actual teachings must be carefully explored in order to find out exactly what they require us to accept or reject, and we must probe more deeply in order to figure out how the doctrine in question can be understood so that all Magisterial requirements are met at the same time.

To take an obvious example, the proposition that Jesus Christ has a human nature only appears to contradict the proposition that Jesus Christ is a Divine person. And so it is with all teachings of the Magisterium which have been alleged to be contradictory. Thus the invocation of the necessity defense by the SSPX—the defense that holds their disobedience acceptable because it arises out of a rare and unforeseen necessity to preserve the Church—actually depends on a necessity which, with a proper understanding of the Church’s magisterium, we know by Faith can never exist. No matter how weak and sinful her members, the Church cannot cease to be herself, unless we wish to assert that Christ’s promise to be with her has returned to Him void (Mt 28:20; cf. Is 55:11).

The vast majority of orthodox Catholics have remained within the Church, recognizing that the problem we face is twofold. First, there has been a rapid cultural shift which has at one and the same time evoked a fresh response from the Church and weakened her discipline and undermined her theology. It will take a long time to sort all of this out, at which time the Church will no doubt have to move on to new problems, as has always been the case. Second, there have been a few doctrinal developments which have been wrongly and unnecessarily interpreted as contradictions by those who misunderstand the requirements of either the development or the prior teachings on the same issue. (The SSPX, Rome and Armchair Negotiatiators.)

Without any malice towards Dr. Mirus, whom I have met and at whose home I briefly visited prior to giving a lecture on the Social Reign of Christ the King at a parish in suburban Virginia in the late-1990s, this is really way, way over the rainbow, although he is correct when asserting that the sedevacantist position is more consistent than that of the Society of Saint Pius X. He is absolutely correct correct when rejecting out of hand the Society of Saint Pius X's "resist but recognize" position that has been discussed on this site numerous times and summarized as contrary to the Faith by Bishop Emile Bougaud,  the Bishop of Laval, France, from 1887 to 1888, as being contrary to the very nature of the papacy:

The violent attacks of Protestantism against the Papacy, its calumnies and so manifest, the odious caricatures it scattered abroad, had undoubtedly inspired France with horror; nevertheless the sad impressions remained. In such accusations all, perhaps, was not false. Mistrust was excited., and instead of drawing closer to the insulted and outraged Papacy, France stood on her guard against it. In vain did Fenelon, who felt the danger, write in his treatise on the "Power of the Pope," and, to remind France of her sublime mission and true role in the world, compose his "History of Charlemagne." In vain did Bossuet majestically rise in the midst of that agitated assembly of 1682, convened to dictate laws to the Holy See, and there, in most touching accents, give vent to professions of fidelity and devotedness toward the Chair of St. Peter. We already notice in his discourse mention no longer made of the "Sovereign Pontiff." The "Holy See," the "Chair of St. Peter," the "Roman Church," were alone alluded to. First and alas! too manifest signs of coldness in the eyes of him who knew the nature and character of France! Others might obey through duty, might allow themselves to be governed by principle--France, never! She must be ruled by an individual, she must love him that governs her, else she can never obey.

These weaknesses should at least have been hidden in the shadow of the sanctuary, to await the time in which some sincere and honest solution of the misunderstanding could be given. But no! parliaments took hold of it, national vanity was identified with it. A strange spectacle was now seen. A people the most Catholic in the world; kings who called themselves the Eldest Sons of the Church and who were really such at heart; grave and profoundly Christian magistrates, bishops, and priests, though in the depths of their heart attached to Catholic unity,--all barricading themselves against the head of the Church; all digging trenches and building ramparts, that his words might not reach the Faithful before being handled and examined, and the laics convinced that they contained nothing false, hostile or dangerous. (Right Reverend Emile Bougaud, The Life of Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque. Published in 1890 by Benziger Brothers. Re-printed by TAN Books and Publishers, 1990, pp. 24-29.)


Rejecting the false position of the Society of Saint Pius X, however, is as far as Dr. Mirus is correct in his commentary.

Dr. Mirus is even at odds with a man whom he would have accepted as the legitimate Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, Mario Francesco "Cardinal" Pompedda, from 1999 to 2004, who stated the following just two months before the death of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II in 2005:


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; see also see also Gregorius's The Chair is Still Empty.)

Obviously, the late "Cardinal" Pompedda did not believe that this doctrine applied to the conciliar "pontiff" who was dying of Stage Three Parkinson's disease when he made this statement on February 8, 2005. However, he was intellectually honest enough to have admit that the See of Saint Peter would be vacant in the event that the man who claims to be a true Sovereign Pontiff at a given time has defected from the Catholic Faith as a result of holding, no less expressly publicly in books and addresses and articles, even one position that is contrary to the Catholic Faith.

Pope Leo XIII, drawing upon no less an authority than Saint Augustine himself, explained that anyone who rejects a single doctrine of the Catholic Church has expelled himself from the Faith:


The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a certain portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. "There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition" (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos).

The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodore :, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. "No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic" (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88).

The need of this divinely instituted means for the preservation of unity, about which we speak is urged by St. Paul in his epistle to the Ephesians. In this he first admonishes them to preserve with every care concord of minds: "Solicitous to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Eph. iv., 3, et seq.). And as souls cannot be perfectly united in charity unless minds agree in faith, he wishes all to hold the same faith: "One Lord, one faith," and this so perfectly one as to prevent all danger of error: "that henceforth we be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive" (Eph. iv., 14): and this he teaches is to be observed, not for a time only - "but until we all meet in the unity of faith...unto the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ" (13). But, in what has Christ placed the primary principle, and the means of preserving this unity? In that - "He gave some Apostles - and other some pastors and doctors, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ" (11-12). (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896.)


A canonical penalty, such as a formal decree of excommunication, is a juridical finding that one holds to a position that is contrary to the Faith or that one has acted in a manner contrary to Canon Law. The decree itself is not what excommunicates a person from the Church. It is the condemned belief or the proscribed action that does so.

To wit, even many "conservative" Catholics, referred by Dr. Mirus as "orthodox Catholics," concluded quite openly that the late United States Senator Edward Moore Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) had excommunicated himself from the Catholic Church by virtue of his openly support the nonexistent "right" of women to kill their innocent preborn children, both by chemical and surgical means, under cover of the civil law even though what they believe to be the Catholic Church never formally excommunicated him and gave him, quite instead, quite an elaborate "send off" on Saturday, August 29, 2009, the Feast of the Beheading of Saint John the Baptist, at the Basilica of Our Lady of Perpetual Help. (See Another Victim of Americanism; Behold The Free Rein Given to Error; Behold The Free Rein Given to Error; Unfortunate Enough to Be A Baby; Unfortunate Enough to Be A Baby; Beacon of Social Justice?; Spotlight On The Ordinary; What's Good For Teddy Is Good For Benny; Sean O'Malley: Coward and Hypocrite: More Rationalizations and Distortions)

The doctrinal underpinnings of what is called for want of a better term the "sedevacantist" position have been explained many times by others with great precision. Dr. Mirus (and the editors of the Rorate Caeli blogspot, who have referred to sedevacantist in very unpleasant terms while printing not one blessed word about Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's esteeming the symbols of false religions with his own priestly hands; yes, of course, this would be too much for the "suffering 'pope'") would do well to examine the cogent arguments set forth by Gregorius in The Chair is Still Empty before dismissing the position as being "impossible" because the conciliar doctrines only appear to be in contradiction to the patrimony of the Catholic Church. 

Unfortunately for Dr. Mirus, however, there is no "apparent" contradiction between what Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, a key peritus (expert) at the "Second" Vatican Council, has long held and has publicly taught, yes, even as "Pope" Benedict XVI, and the Catholic Faith. Ratzinger/Benedict believes in things that have been condemned by the authority of Holy Mother Church, thereby demonstrating that he had long ago expelled himself from her loving maternal bosom:.

To accept the the false claim that there has been no rupture between the immemorial teaching of the Catholic Church on such matters as the new ecclesiology, false ecumenism, inter-religious dialogue and prayer services, the "new" definition between what purports to be the Catholic Church and "the faith of Israel," religious liberty, separation of Church and State and methodologies of interpreting Sacred Scripture that have been condemned repeatedly by true pope after true pope, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI coined a slogan, "the hermeneutic of continuity," as a means of repackaging his philosophically absurd and dogmatically condemned notions concern the nature of dogmatic truth. He has done this to justify the "teaching" of the "Second" Vatican Council and the "magisterium" of the conciliar "popes" even though his own whole approach has been condemned repeatedly by Holy Mother Church.


1971: "In theses 10-12, the difficult problem of the relationship between language and thought is debated, which in post-conciliar discussions was the immediate departure point of the dispute.

The identity of the Christian substance as such, the Christian 'thing' was not directly ... censured, but it was pointed out that no formula, no matter how valid and indispensable it may have been in its time, can fully express the thought mentioned in it and declare it unequivocally forever, since language is constantly in movement and the content of its meaning changes. (Fr. Ratzinger: Dogmatic formulas must always change.)

1990: The text [of the document Instruction on the Theologian's Ecclesial Vocation] also presents the various types of bonds that rise from the different degrees of magisterial teaching. It affirms - perhaps for the first time with this clarity - that there are decisions of the magisterium that cannot be the last word on the matter as such, but are, in a substantial fixation of the problem, above all an expression of pastoral prudence, a kind of provisional disposition. The nucleus remains valid, but the particulars, which the circumstances of the times influenced, may need further correction.

In this regard, one may think of the declarations of Popes in the last century [19th century] about religious liberty, as well as the anti-Modernist decisions at the beginning of this century, above all, the decisions of the Biblical Commission of the time [on evolutionism]. As a cry of alarm in the face of hasty and superficial adaptations, they will remain fully justified. A personage such as Johann Baptist Metz said, for example, that the Church's anti-Modernist decisions render the great service of preserving her from falling into the liberal-bourgeois world. But in the details of the determinations they contain, they became obsolete after having fulfilled their pastoral mission at their proper time

(Joseph Ratzinger, "Instruction on the Theologian's Ecclesial Vocation," published with the title "Rinnovato dialogo fra Magistero e Teologia," in L'Osservatore Romano, June 27, 1990, p. 6, cited at Card. Ratzinger: The teachings of the Popes against Modernism are obsolete)

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.)

These are direct contradictions of the following statements issued by the authority of the Catholic Church:

  • 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 1.)


Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical' misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. . . .

Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.

I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God. (The Oath Against Modernism, September 1, 1910; see also Nothing Stable, Nothing Secure.)

Hence it is quite impossible [the Modernists assert] to maintain that they [dogmatic statements] absolutely contain the truth: for, in so far as they are symbols, they are the images of truth, and so must be adapted to the religious sense in its relation to man; and as instruments, they are the vehicles of truth, and must therefore in their turn be adapted to man in his relation to the religious sense. But the object of the religious sense, as something contained in the absolute, possesses an infinite variety of aspects, of which now one, now another, may present itself. In like manner he who believes can avail himself of varying conditions. Consequently, the formulas which we call dogma must be subject to these vicissitudes, and are, therefore, liable to change. Thus the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of dogma. Here we have an immense structure of sophisms which ruin and wreck all religion.

It is thus, Venerable Brethren, that for the Modernists, whether as authors or propagandists, there is to be nothing stable, nothing immutable in the Church. Nor, indeed, are they without forerunners in their doctrines, for it was of these that Our predecessor Pius IX wrote: 'These enemies of divine revelation extol human progress to the skies, and with rash and sacrilegious daring would have it introduced into the Catholic religion as if this religion were not the work of God but of man, or some kind of philosophical discovery susceptible of perfection by human efforts.' On the subject of revelation and dogma in particular, the doctrine of the Modernists offers nothing new. We find it condemned in the Syllabus of Pius IX, where it is enunciated in these terms: ''Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the progress of human reason'; and condemned still more solemnly in the Vatican Council: ''The doctrine of the faith which God has revealed has not been proposed to human intelligences to be perfected by them as if it were a philosophical system, but as a divine deposit entrusted to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence also that sense of the sacred dogmas is to be perpetually retained which our Holy Mother the Church has once declared, nor is this sense ever to be abandoned on plea or pretext of a more profound comprehension of the truth.' Nor is the development of our knowledge, even concerning the faith, barred by this pronouncement; on the contrary, it is supported and maintained. For the same Council continues: 'Let intelligence and science and wisdom, therefore, increase and progress abundantly and vigorously in individuals, and in the mass, in the believer and in the whole Church, throughout the ages and the centuries -- but only in its own kind, that is, according to the same dogma, the same sense, the same acceptation.' (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

Some more audacious affirm that this can and must be done, because they hold that the mysteries of faith are never expressed by truly adequate concepts but only by approximate and ever changeable notions, in which the truth is to some extent expressed, but is necessarily distorted. (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, August 12, 1950.)


Night and day, Dr. Mirus. Night and day.

"Pope" Benedict XVI's concept of the nature of dogmatic truth is both philosophically absurd on its very face and dogmatically condemned. Yet it is that this Modernist conception of the nature of dogmatic truth, which is at its very roots an attack upon the nature of God Himself and the Divine Constitution of Holy Mother Church, is the foundation by which "conservatives" and traditionally-minded Catholics attached to the structures of the conciliar church seek to "reconcile" conciliar doctrines with those of the Catholic Faith. It is impossible to do so.

Although regular readers of this site may be quite bored by now, I am nevertheless conscious of the fact that there are those who come to this site for the first time on any given day and may not have any inclination to search other articles. It is with this in mind that I find it useful to point out just a few, mind you, more examples of Ratzinger/Benedict's defections from the Catholic Faith.

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has rejected what he calls, most disparagingly, it should be noted, the "ecumenism of the return," even though true pope after true pope has said precisely that those who are outside of her maternal bosom must be converted to the true Faith lest their perish for all eternity:

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI: "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)


This is, of course, not the teaching of the Catholic Church:

"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.)

"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. . . .  Let, therefore, the separated children draw nigh to the Apostolic See, set up in the City which Peter and Paul, the Princes of the Apostles, consecrated by their blood; to that See, We repeat, which is 'the root and womb whence the Church of God springs,' not with the intention and the hope that 'the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth' will cast aside the integrity of the faith and tolerate their errors, but, on the contrary, that they themselves submit to its teaching and government. Would that it were Our happy lot to do that which so many of Our predecessors could not, to embrace with fatherly affection those children, whose unhappy separation from Us We now bewail. Would that God our Savior, "Who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth," would hear us when We humbly beg that He would deign to recall all who stray to the unity of the Church! In this most important undertaking We ask and wish that others should ask the prayers of Blessed Mary the Virgin, Mother of divine grace, victorious over all heresies and Help of Christians, that She may implore for Us the speedy coming of the much hoped-for day, when all men shall hear the voice of Her divine Son, and shall be 'careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.'" (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)


No rupture? No rupture? It does not get much clearer.

The Catholic Church has always condemned "fellowship" in matters concerning religion with adherents of false religions:


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.)

Were the apostolical canons wrong? How is what the conciliar "pontiffs" have done by entering Protestant assembly halls (which they think are churches) and mosques and synagogues not a rupture with the consistent doctrine and canon law of the Catholic Church? How?


Our Lady even sought the conversion of the Catholic-hating Jewish man by the name of Alphonse Ratisbonne, did she not? She sought the conversion of all of the Americas when she appeared to Juan Diego on December 9, 10, and 12, 1531. What does this mean to Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI?. Nothing. Nothing at all. Remember, Ratzinger made not one public exhortation to anyone to pray Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary while he visited the United States of America fifty-three months ago now. After a few brief references to Our Lady in his address to the conciliar "bishops" on Wednesday, April 16, 2008, Ratzinger mentioned not one word about the Mother of God publicly. Not one word. He didn't even make the Sign of the Cross before or after his Masonic prayer at "Ground Zero" on Sunday, April 20, 2008. Every Catholic makes the Sign of the Cross before and after he prays. But that is the point, you see. Making the Sign of the Cross is something that comes naturally to a Catholic. Seeking the conversion of non-Catholics also comes naturally to a Catholic.


Contrast Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's praise of "separation of Church and State" in Portugal in 2010 with Pope Saint Pius X's condemnation of it in 1911:


Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI: From a wise vision of life and of the world, the just ordering of society follows. Situated within history, the Church is open to cooperating with anyone who does not marginalize or reduce to the private sphere the essential consideration of the human meaning of life. The point at issue is not an ethical confrontation between a secular and a religious system, so much as a question about the meaning that we give to our freedom. What matters is the value attributed to the problem of meaning and its implication in public life. By separating Church and State, the Republican revolution which took place 100 years ago in Portugal, opened up a new area of freedom for the Church, to which the two concordats of 1940 and 2004 would give shape, in cultural settings and ecclesial perspectives profoundly marked by rapid change. For the most part, the sufferings caused by these transformations have been faced with courage. Living amid a plurality of value systems and ethical outlooks requires a journey to the core of one’s being and to the nucleus of Christianity so as to reinforce the quality of one’s witness to the point of sanctity, and to find mission paths that lead even to the radical choice of martyrdom. (Official Reception at Lisbon Portela International Airport, Tuesday, May 11, 2010.)

Pope Saint Pius X:  2. Whilst the new rulers of Portugal were affording such numerous and awful examples of the abuse of power, you know with what patience and moderation this Apostolic See has acted towards them. We thought that We ought most carefully to avoid any action that could even have the appearance of hostility to the Republic. For We clung to the hope that its rulers would one day take saner counsels and would at length repair, by some new agreement, the injuries inflicted on the Church. In this, however, We have been altogether disappointed, for they have now crowned their evil work by the promulgation of a vicious and pernicious Decree for the Separation of Church and State. But now the duty imposed upon Us by our Apostolic charge will not allow Us to remain passive and silent when so serious a wound has been inflicted upon the rights and dignity of the Catholic religion. Therefore do We now address you, Venerable Brethren, in this letter and denounce to all Christendom the heinousness of this deed.

3. At the outset, the absurd and monstrous character of the decree of which We speak is plain from the fact that it proclaims and enacts that the Republic shall have no religion, as if men individually and any association or nation did not depend upon Him who is the Maker and Preserver of all things; and then from the fact that it liberates Portugal from the observance of the Catholic religion, that religion, We say, which has ever been that nation's greatest safeguard and glory, and has been professed almost unanimously by its people. So let us take it that it has been their pleasure to sever that close alliance between Church and State, confirmed though it was by the solemn faith of treaties. Once this divorce was effected, it would at least have been logical to pay no further attention to the Church, and to leave her the enjoyment of the common liberty and rights which belong to every citizen and every respectable community of peoples. Quite otherwise, however, have things fallen out. This decree bears indeed the name of Separation, but it enacts in reality the reduction of the Church to utter want by the spoliation of her property, and to servitude to the State by oppression in all that touches her sacred power and spirit. . . .

Accordingly, under the admonition of the duty of Our Apostolic office that, in the face of such audacity on the part of the enemies of God, We should most vigilantly protect the dignity and honor of religion and preserve the sacred rights of the Catholic Church, We by our Apostolic authority denounce, condemn, and reject the Law for the Separation of Church and State in the Portuguese Republic. This law despises God and repudiates the Catholic faith; it annuls the treaties solemnly made between Portugal and the Apostolic See, and violates the law of nature and of her property; it oppresses the liberty of the Church, and assails her divine Constitution; it injures and insults the majesty of the Roman Pontificate, the order of Bishops, the Portuguese clergy and people, and so the Catholics of the world. And whilst We strenuously complain that such a law should have been made, sanctioned, and published, We utter a solemn protest against those who have had a part in it as authors or helpers, and, at the same time, We proclaim and denounce as null and void, and to be so regarded, all that the law has enacted against the inviolable rights of the Church. (Pope Saint Pius X, Iamdudum, May 24, 1911.)

That the Holy See made an accommodation to the reality caused by the Portuguese decree of separation of Church and State and had its property and many of its privileges restored in the Concordat  of 1940 in no way justifies the revolution against the Social Reign of Christ the King in Portugal wrought by the Masonic and socialistic forces there one hundred years ago. Holy Mother Church has long sought to accommodate herself to the concrete realities of any given situation in which her children find themselves so that she can continue her work of teaching and preaching and sanctification without the hindrance of the civil state. To reach a concordat that recognizes the reality of a forced separation of Church and State is not the same thing as endorsing that false thesis or to praise the free flow of false ideas and organizations that have occurred in its wake.

It was just five years prior to the issuance of Iamdudum that Pope Saint Pius X reiterated the constant teaching of the Catholic Church condemning the "separation of Church and State," distinctions about which have been made in close to seven hundred articles on this site and in Conversion in Reverse: How the Ethos of Americanism Converted Catholics and Contributed to Conciliarism, as he condemned in the most forceful terms imaginable the French law of separation:


That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him. Besides, this thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits the action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during this life only, which is but the proximate object of political societies; and it occupies itself in no fashion (on the plea that this is foreign to it) with their ultimate object which is man's eternal happiness after this short life shall have run its course. But as the present order of things is temporary and subordinated to the conquest of man's supreme and absolute welfare, it follows that the civil power must not only place no obstacle in the way of this conquest, but must aid us in effecting it.

How can something absolutely false in 1906 and that had been condemned repeatedly by pope after pope become true, good, virtuous and even necessary sixty years thereafter? How? That the conciliar "popes" have ceased condemning the doctrine of separation of Church and State and have, quite instead, embraced and defended and promoted it is yet another proof that have not the Mind of the Divine Redeemer, Christ the King, but are possessed of Modernist heart and soul that is intent on "reconciling" with the anti-Incarnational, religiously indifferentist, naturalist and semi-Pelagian principles of Modernity that are from the devil himself.

As Pope Leo XIII put it in Custodi Di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892:


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.)

Some might try to take refuge in the belief that Pope Saint Pius X's reiteration of the Church's consistent teaching that the civil state has a duty to recognize the true religion and to seek to foster those conditions in society that are conducive to the sanctification and salvation of the souls off its citizens is not "binding," that Catholics are "free" to dissent from such teaching and/or to re-define it. Oh, really? The Catholic Church says no to such contentions:

Many believe in or claim that they believe in and hold fast to Catholic doctrine on such questions as social authority, the right of owning private property, on the relations between capital and labor, on the rights of the laboring man, on the relations between Church and State, religion and country, on the relations between the different social classes, on international relations, on the rights of the Holy See and the prerogatives of the Roman Pontiff and the Episcopate, on the social rights of Jesus Christ, Who is the Creator, Redeemer, and Lord not only of individuals but of nations. In spite of these protestations, they speak, write, and, what is more, act as if it were not necessary any longer to follow, or that they did not remain still in full force, the teachings and solemn pronouncements which may be found in so many documents of the Holy See, and particularly in those written by Leo XIII, Pius X, and Benedict XV.

There is a species of moral, legal, and social modernism which We condemn, no less decidedly than We condemn theological modernism.

It is necessary ever to keep in mind these teachings and pronouncements which We have made; it is no less necessary to reawaken that spirit of faith, of supernatural love, and of Christian discipline which alone can bring to these principles correct understanding, and can lead to their observance. This is particularly important in the case of youth, and especially those who aspire to the priesthood, so that in the almost universal confusion in which we live they at least, as the Apostle writes, will not be "tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive." (Ephesians iv, 14) (Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922.)

Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me"; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians. (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, August 12, 1950.)

Assuming false and unjust premises, they are not afraid to take a position which would confine within a narrow scope the supreme teaching authority of the Church, claiming that there are certain questions -- such as those which concern social and economic matters -- in which Catholics may ignore the teachings and the directives of this Apostolic See.

This opinion -- it seems entirely unnecessary to demonstrate its existence -- is utterly false and full of error because, as We declared a few years ago to a special meeting of Our Venerable Brethren in the episcopacy:

"The power of the Church is in no sense limited to so-called 'strictly religious matters'; but the whole matter of the natural law, its institution, interpretation and application, in so far as the moral aspect is concerned, are within its power.

"By God's appointment the observance of the natural law concerns the way by which man must strive toward his supernatural end. The Church shows the way and is the guide and guardian of men with respect to their supernatural end."

This truth had already been wisely explained by Our Predecessor St. Pius X in his Encyclical Letter Singulari quadam of September 24, 1912, in which he made this statement: "All actions of a Christian man so far as they are morally either good or bad -- that is, so far as they agree with or are contrary to the natural and divine law -- fall under the judgment and jurisdiction of the Church."

Moreover, even when those who arbitrarily set and defend these narrow limits profess a desire to obey the Roman Pontiff with regard to truths to be believed, and to observe what they call ecclesiastical directives, they proceed with such boldness that they refuse to obey the precise and definite prescriptions of the Holy See. They protest that these refer to political affairs because of a hidden meaning by the author, as if these prescriptions took their origin from some secret conspiracy against their own nation. (Pope Pius XII, Ad Apostolorum Principis, June 29, 1958.)


What is false in 2006 cannot be made "true" in 2012. Although Holy Mother Church adapts herself to the actual circumstances in which her children live, even making use of so-called "liberties" afforded her by the civil law that belong to her and to no other religious belief, and will tolerate the dissemination of error when the common good would be harmed by seeking to interfere with it, she has never---and is completely incapable of--conceding that such dissemination of error is good in se and/or is a "right" that comes from God, Who does not want His rational creatures steeped in a morass of confusion and contradiction.

As Pope Gregory XVI, whose writings were never cited in Dignitatis Humanae, December 7, 1965, noted in Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832:

This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. "But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error," as Augustine was wont to say. When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly "the bottomless pit" is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws -- in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty.

Here We must include that harmful and never sufficiently denounced freedom to publish any writings whatever and disseminate them to the people, which some dare to demand and promote with so great a clamor. We are horrified to see what monstrous doctrines and prodigious errors are disseminated far and wide in countless books, pamphlets, and other writings which, though small in weight, are very great in malice. We are in tears at the abuse which proceeds from them over the face of the earth. Some are so carried away that they contentiously assert that the flock of errors arising from them is sufficiently compensated by the publication of some book which defends religion and truth. Every law condemns deliberately doing evil simply because there is some hope that good may result. Is there any sane man who would say poison ought to be distributed, sold publicly, stored, and even drunk because some antidote is available and those who use it may be snatched from death again and again? (Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832.)

Never before have Catholics had to "strain" to find "continuity" in her teaching. As a traditional Catholic bishop in Holy Week of 2007, an examination of Church documents in Denziger shows that she spoke with "one voice." There was a seamless quality to her teaching. The same has not been true since 1958. A different language has been spoken since that time, one that is in sharp contrast to the plain language of our true popes, and God the Holy Ghost does not contradict Himself and He does not lead Holy Mother Church to adopt a "new language." Anyone who asserts this is a blasphemer.


As the hour is late, one final example will suffice.

Many "conservatives" in the conciliar structures, Dr. Jeffrey Mirus included, have sought to justify the teaching in Lumen Gentium, November 21, 1964, that the "Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church" with the Church's perennial teaching that she and she alone is the sole Church of Christ. The sad truth is, of course, that Father Joseph Ratzinger, upon the suggestion made to him by a Lutheran "theologian," proposed that this new definition appear in the text of the decree of the conciliar church's constitution. Never mind the fact that contention that the "Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church" is completely contrary to what the Church has always taught:


Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. "For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free." As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered - so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit. (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943.)

Just an apparent rupture? Sure, go on believing that. I am going to try to get some sleep.

The God "would never permit" argument is fallacious. Let's review what God has permitted since He created Adam out of the dirt of the earth and Eve out of Adam's side and then placed them in the Garden of Eden:

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

God permitted all but eight members of the human race to be deceived and deluded prior to the Great Flood prior to their being wiped off of the face of the earth.

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

God permitted all but a handful of people to stand by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as He suffered and died for us on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday.

God permitted most of the world's bishops and many Catholics to be deceived by the Arian heresy.

God permitted all but one bishop, Saint John Fisher of Rochester, England, and thousands upon thousands of ordinary Catholics to defect from the Faith at the time of the Protestant Revolt in England when King Henry VIII took this thoroughly Catholic country out of the Church.

God permitted all but thirty bishops to defect from the Faith at the time Queen Elizabeth I took England out of the Church once again in the 1660s following the brief restoration that took place under the reign of her half-sister, Queen Mary, from 1553 to 1558.

God permitted millions upon millions of souls to be deceived by the likes of Martin Luther and John Calvin and Thomas Cranmer and John Wesley and Ulrich Zwingli and John Knox and Oliver Cromwell, et al. Entire generations of families have been lost to the true Faith as a result, dating as far back as the Sixteenth Century.

There is a special irony here. For Catholics such as Dr. Mirus to be correct, God is permitting billions of people on the face of the earth to be deceived by a true Successor of Saint Peter into thinking that He looks favorably upon the symbols of false religions. Why? It's very simple. Joseph Ratzinger, accepted by all but a handful of people in the world as "Pope" Benedict XVI, stood up from his "papal" chair at the "Pope" John Paul II Cultural Center in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, April 17, 2008, to receive the symbols of those false religions. This clearly communicates the belief, albeit false and repugnant to God and injurious to souls, that the Catholic Church looks with kindness upon those false religions. She does not.

For  "conservative" Catholics to be right, God is permitting billions of people on the face of the earth to be deceived by a true pope into believing that a dead, superseded religion, Judaism (more accurately, of course, the Talmudic version of Judaism that is not the same thing as the superseded Judaism of the Old Covenant), is esteemed by God and presents a valid means by which adherents of the Talmud may actually please God and save their souls. Why? Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict, the putative Vicar of Jesus Christ, the God-Man, the very Second Person of the Blessed Trinity made Man in the Virginal and Immaculate Womb by the power of God the Holy Ghost at the Annunciation, walked into the Park East Synagogue on Friday, April 18, 2008, to be treated as an inferior to Rabbi Arthur Schneier and listened with equanimity to a song that professed the Talmudic "faith" in its denial of the fact that the Messias has come in the Person of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Or do "conservative" Catholics simply not see such actions, to say nothing of "popes" giving joint "blessings" with Protestant laity dressed up as clergymen, on the part of the man he recognizes as a true pope as offending the honor and majesty of God grievously and deceiving billions of souls in the process, reaffirming adherents of false religions unto their very deaths, a crime against God and against the souls of these adherents of false religions?


God cannot contradict Himself. The counterfeit church of conciliarism's "permission" for "inter-religious prayer" a direct and undeniable contradiction of the doctrine of the Catholic Church. Anyone who minimizes this participates in justifying grave offenses against the First Commandment.

Indeed, won't the Great Apostasy be characterized by a "strategic silence" on the part of those who believe that it is impossible for them to be deceived, that they have things "all figured out," and that there is no danger of them misleading others by their silence in the face of such outrages against God and souls as those perpetrated by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI during trips into Protestant churches and Talmudic synagogues and Mohammedan mosques and treating these places as "sacred" to the true God of Divine Revelation?

As I have noted many times before,, I was deceived for a long time. I was also silent for a long time about those things during the "reign" of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II that troubled me.

Look, I am no better than anyone else in this regard. As I do have a fair degree of reparation to make for permitting myself for being deceived for so long and for my willfulness in refusing to listen to those who knew more than I did, I am simply imploring others at the present time to take a new look at the evidence that has been put forth by the conciliarists themselves as to the depth of their contempt for the Catholic Faith as it has been handed down to us from time immemorial. This is not a "game" about who can "prove" his case. This is about life and death truth, eternal life and death truth.

Those who bury their heads in the sands and refuse to speak out and to denounce apostate acts might want to consider, yes, once again, these words of Pope Saint Leo the Great:

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 )


Those who take refuge in silence or, worse yet, seek to justify the apostasies of the present moment that have led to such a loss of Faith on the part of millions of Catholics worldwide. Silence is not an option for a Catholic, as Pope Leo XIII made plain in Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890:

But in this same matter, touching Christian faith, there are other duties whose exact and religious observance, necessary at all times in the interests of eternal salvation, become more especially so in these our days. Amid such reckless and widespread folly of opinion, it is, as We have said, the office of the Church to undertake the defense of truth and uproot errors from the mind, and this charge has to be at all times sacredly observed by her, seeing that the honor of God and the salvation of men are confided to her keeping. But, when necessity compels, not those only who are invested with power of rule are bound to safeguard the integrity of faith, but, as St. Thomas maintains: "Each one is under obligation to show forth his faith, either to instruct and encourage others of the faithful, or to repel the attacks of unbelievers.'' To recoil before an enemy, or to keep silence when from all sides such clamors are raised against truth, is the part of a man either devoid of character or who entertains doubt as to the truth of what he professes to believe. In both cases such mode of behaving is base and is insulting to God, and both are incompatible with the salvation of mankind. This kind of conduct is profitable only to the enemies of the faith, for nothing emboldens the wicked so greatly as the lack of courage on the part of the good. Moreover, want of vigor on the part of Christians is so much the more blameworthy, as not seldom little would be needed on their part to bring to naught false charges and refute erroneous opinions, and by always exerting themselves more strenuously they might reckon upon being successful. After all, no one can be prevented from putting forth that strength of soul which is the characteristic of true Christians, and very frequently by such display of courage our enemies lose heart and their designs are thwarted. Christians are, moreover, born for combat, whereof the greater the vehemence, the more assured, God aiding, the triumph: "Have confidence; I have overcome the world." Nor is there any ground for alleging that Jesus Christ, the Guardian and Champion of the Church, needs not in any manner the help of men. Power certainly is not wanting to Him, but in His loving kindness He would assign to us a share in obtaining and applying the fruits of salvation procured through His grace. (Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890.)


Sedevacantism is not a heresy. It is the canonical doctrine of the Catholic Church. Those who do not accept that it applies at this time are free to persist in their belief that we are not in the Great Apostasy. To so believe, however, one must spend his entire life either being silent--or at least muting his criticism--about things one knows to be wrong or actually attempts to convince Catholics that contradictions of the Faith represent no contradiction at all, an exercise in complete and utter insanity.

Pope Gregory XVI, who is not exactly much quoted by the conciliarists, put the matter this way in Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832:

Indeed you will accomplish this perfectly if, as the duty of your office demands, you attend to yourselves and to doctrine and meditate on these words: "the universal Church is affected by any and every novelty" and the admonition of Pope Agatho: "nothing of the things appointed ought to be diminished; nothing changed; nothing added; but they must be preserved both as regards expression and meaning." Therefore may the unity which is built upon the See of Peter as on a sure foundation stand firm. May it be for all a wall and a security, a safe port, and a treasury of countless blessings. To check the audacity of those who attempt to infringe upon the rights of this Holy See or to sever the union of the churches with the See of Peter, instill in your people a zealous confidence in the papacy and sincere veneration for it. As St. Cyprian wrote: "He who abandons the See of Peter on which the Church was founded, falsely believes himself to be a part of the Church." (Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832.)


Who are the ones who have severed themselves from the See of Peter? It is the conciliarists, not the sedevacantists. It is the conciliarists who have dared to diminish, change and add things, refusing to preserve the expression and meaning of the Church's doctrine as it has been handed down to us from time immemorial unchanged, defying anathematized propositions and sanctioning liturgical abominations that no true pope has ever--or would ever--do anything other than denounce as unbridled exercises in paganism.

Why would God permit millions of Catholics to be misled by a false pope and be denied the true sacraments? Chastisement. Chastisement is an important element of the Great Apostasy, as is taught in any course in Eschatology (the one that I took at Holy Apostles Seminary in Cromwell, Connecticut, was taught the late, great Father John Joseph Sullivan, Jackie Boy Remembered Yet Again). God is permitting the Church Militant on earth, which must experience every phase of His own life on earth, to undergo its Mystical Passion, Death and Burial.

Saint John Eudes spoke of a chastisement involving men who were priests more in name than in deed:

The most evident mark of God’s anger and the most terrible castigation He can inflict upon the world are manifested when He permits His people to fall into the hands of clergy who are priests more in name than in deed, priests who practice the cruelty of ravening wolves rather than charity and affection of devoted shepherds ... “When God permits such things, it is a very positive proof that He is thoroughly angry with His people, and is visiting His most dreadful anger upon them. That is why He cries unceasingly to Christians, ‘Return O ye revolting children ... and I will give you pastors according to My own heart’. (Jer. 3:14,15) Thus, irregularities in the lives of priests constitute a scourge upon the people in consequence of sin.” ( Saint John Eudes, The Priest: His Dignity and Obligations, P. J. Kenedy and Sons, 1947, pp. 9-10.)

Yes, God could indeed chastise His people with not only true priests who are moral reprobates and/or heretics. God can chastise us with bogus bishops and priests who appear to represent Him but who are, whether wittingly or unwittingly, but precursors of the Antichrist. May others have provided solid evidence in this regard. Such evidence cannot be dismissed by the use of gratuitous claims that beg the question repeatedly.

In the midst of this era of apostasy and betrayal, therefore, we have recourse, as always, to the Mother of God, Our Lady, especially by means of her Most Holy Rosary and by total consecration to her Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart. She promised us at Fatima that her Immaculate Heart would triumph in the end. It will. We can be assured of this. And that triumph will be glorious beyond all telling.

We must, until that Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit, making no concessions to conciliarism or to the nonexistent legitimacy of its false shepherds, being sure, of course, to make reparation for our own many sins, which have worsened the state of the Church Militant on earth and thus of the world-at-large, to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through that same Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart as we to pray as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits.

We must also be most assiduous in commending our fellow Catholics, including those from whom were are estranged at the present moment because of situation created by the doctrinal and liturgical revolutionaries of conciliarism, to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Immaculate Heart of Mary. The conciliar revolutionaries have succeeded in pitting believing Catholics against each other, affording them the luxury of getting bolder and bolder in their attacks on the Faith and more and more open in their offenses given quite publicly to the honor and majesty of the Most Holy Trinity. This is one of the greatest tragedies of the past fifty years. Believing Catholics should not be pitted against each other as men posing as representatives of the Catholic Church do and say things that were never done and said by Catholics in the past.

Such is our situation, however. God has known from all eternity that we would be living in these times. The graces that He won for us on Calvary by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross and that flow into our hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, the Mediatrix of All Graces, are sufficient for us to bear the crosses of the present time and to prosper under them as His consecrated slaves through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Pope Pius XI explained why God permits such trials to occur:

History, in fact, tells us that in the course of ages these festivals have been instituted one after another according as the needs or the advantage of the people of Christ seemed to demand: as when they needed strength to face a common danger, when they were attacked by insidious heresies, when they needed to be urged to the pious consideration of some mystery of faith or of some divine blessing. Thus in the earliest days of the Christian era, when the people of Christ were suffering cruel persecution, the cult of the martyrs was begun in order, says St. Augustine, "that the feasts of the martyrs might incite men to martyrdom." The liturgical honors paid to confessors, virgins and widows produced wonderful results in an increased zest for virtue, necessary even in times of peace. But more fruitful still were the feasts instituted in honor of the Blessed Virgin. As a result of these men grew not only in their devotion to the Mother of God as an ever-present advocate, but also in their love of her as a mother bequeathed to them by their Redeemer. Not least among the blessings which have resulted from the public and legitimate honor paid to the Blessed Virgin and the saints is the perfect and perpetual immunity of the Church from error and heresy. We may well admire in this the admirable wisdom of the Providence of God, who, ever bringing good out of evil, has from time to time suffered the faith and piety of men to grow weak, and allowed Catholic truth to be attacked by false doctrines, but always with the result that truth has afterwards shone out with greater splendor, and that men's faith, aroused from its lethargy, has shown itself more vigorous than before.. . .

It would be the duty of Catholics to do all they can to bring about this happy result [that is, the Triumph of Christ the King]. Many of these, however, have neither the station in society nor the authority which should belong to those who bear the torch of truth. This state of things may perhaps be attributed to a certain slowness and timidity in good people, who are reluctant to engage in conflict or oppose but a weak resistance; thus the enemies of the Church become bolder in their attacks. But if the faithful were generally to understand that it behooves them ever to fight courageously under the banner of Christ their King, then, fired with apostolic zeal, they would strive to win over to their Lord those hearts that are bitter and estranged from him, and would valiantly defend his rights. (Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas, December 23, 1925.)


We may not see the restoration with our own eyes. May it be our privilege as the consecrated slaves of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary to plant a few seeds for the restoration to occur sooner rather than later.

Our Lady was in the Upper Room in Jerusalem when God the Holy Ghost descended in tongues of flame upon her and the Apostles who were gathered together with her on Pentecost Sunday. She prayed for Saint Peter, the first Pope, as He preached His discourse that day to seek the unconditional conversion of the Jews. She prayed for each of the other Apostles as they commenced their work to convert men and nations in total fidelity to the mission that had been entrusted to them by her Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, before He Ascended to His Father's right hand in glory on Ascension Thursday. She is praying for us as we seek to give to her Divine Son's Most Sacred Heart through her own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart all of our poor efforts at this moment to plant seeds for the day when the men of all nations everywhere will exclaim with joy:

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Our Lady Help of Christians, 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.

See also: A Litany of Saints

© Copyright 2012, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.