Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us
June 18, 2009

Winning At The Waiting Game

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is a patient, methodical revolutionary. He is on the verge of winning a "waiting game" with the Society of Saint Pius X that has last for the past twenty-seven years, dating back to the time that he, as Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger, wrote the following in Principles of Catholic Theology:

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)

 

Ratzinger/Benedict wrote in his LETTER ON REMISSION OF EXCOMMUNICATION LEFEBVRE BISHOPS three months ago now that one of his goals was to "broaden the vistas" of the bishops, priests and lay members of the Society of Saint Pius X as had occurred with other traditionally-minded groups that had been "reconciled" to the counterfeit church of conciliarism:

So if the arduous task of working for faith, hope and love in the world is presently (and, in various ways, always) the Church's real priority, then part of this is also made up of acts of reconciliation, small and not so small. That the quiet gesture of extending a hand gave rise to a huge uproar, and thus became exactly the opposite of a gesture of reconciliation, is a fact which we must accept. But I ask now: Was it, and is it, truly wrong in this case to meet half-way the brother who 'has something against you' and to seek reconciliation? Should not civil society also try to forestall forms of extremism and to incorporate their eventual adherents - to the extent possible - in the great currents shaping social life, and thus avoid their being segregated, with all its consequences? Can it be completely mistaken to work to break down obstinacy and narrowness, and to make space for what is positive and retrievable for the whole? I myself saw, in the years after 1988, how the return of communities which had been separated from Rome changed their interior attitudes; I saw how returning to the bigger and broader Church enabled them to move beyond one-sided positions and broke down rigidity so that positive energies could emerge for the whole. Can we be totally indifferent about a community which has 491 priests, 215 seminarians, 6 seminaries, 88 schools, 2 university-level institutes, 117 religious brothers, 164 religious sisters and thousands of lay faithful? Should we casually let them drift farther from the Church? I think for example of the 491 priests. We cannot know how mixed their motives may be. All the same, I do not think that they would have chosen the priesthood if, alongside various distorted and unhealthy elements, they did not have a love for Christ and a desire to proclaim Him and, with Him, the living God. Can we simply exclude them, as representatives of a radical fringe, from our pursuit of reconciliation and unity? What would then become of them?

"Certainly, for some time now, and once again on this specific occasion, we have heard from some representatives of that community many unpleasant things - arrogance and presumptuousness, an obsession with one-sided positions, etc. Yet to tell the truth, I must add that I have also received a number of touching testimonials of gratitude which clearly showed an openness of heart. But should not the great Church also allow herself to be generous in the knowledge of her great breadth, in the knowledge of the promise made to her? Should not we, as good educators, also be capable of overlooking various faults and making every effort to open up broader vistas? And should we not admit that some unpleasant things have also emerged in Church circles? At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach them - in this case the Pope - he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint. (LETTER ON REMISSION OF EXCOMMUNICATION LEFEBVRE BISHOPS)

 

It was the "broadening" of the "vistas" of Bishop Fernando Areas Rifan and the priests of the Society of Saint John Mary Vianney that prompted them to mute their former criticism of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service and of the entire ethos of conciliarism once they had been "reconciled" to the counterfeit church of conciliarism on January 18, 2002 (which was presaged by a Letter from Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II to Bishop Licinio Rangel on December 25, 2001). Bishop Rifan's "broadened vistas" have included an grudging admission that he simulated the concelebration of a Novus Ordo service at the Shrine of Our Lady of Aparecida in Brazil on the Feast of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, September 8, 2004. Bishop Rifan has gone on to be quite a critic of those who are critical of the "Second" Vatican Council and the conciliar "pontiffs" (see A Bishop's Wonderland).

The "reconciliation" of the Society of Saint John Mary Vianney with the counterfeit church of conciliarism, the price of which was indeed very high and has involved silence about the evils of conciliarism, was critiqued quite severely by Father Peter Scott of the Society of Saint Pius X:

Dear Friends and Benefactors of the Society of Saint Pius X,

Many of you have heard of the reconciliation between the traditional priests of Bishop de Castro Mayer, of the diocese of Campos, Brazil, and Rome, and some of you have asked what we are to think of it. In effect, negotiations have been going on for several months between Rome and Fr. Rifan, representative of the Priestly Union of Saint John Mary Vianney, and its superior, Bishop Licinio Rangel, who had been consecrated by the Society’s bishops in 1991, after the death of Bishop De Castro Mayer. These negotiations were carried on without the knowledge, let alone the agreement, of the Society’s superiors. As far as Bishop Fellay was concerned, the negotiations ceased after Rome refused to even respond to his letter of June 22. That letter, published in the August 2001 issue of The Angelus, responded to Rome’s refusal to grant the conditions, namely that it be stated that all priests in the world have the right to celebrate the traditional Mass, and that the Society was never schismatic and never broke communion. In response to Cardinal Castrillon’s refusal to accept that we have the right to reject the errors of Vatican II, he explained the state of necessity that is the basis of our refusal of compromise. The response to those who attack the Society for working on a hidden agreement is that there have been no discussions since then, since there is no common ground to work from.

Last summer, the priests from Campos were united with the Society, and accepted our firm position, based upon principle. However, Cardinal Castrillon’s efforts to contact them, and induce them to overlook questions of doctrinal and principle, in order to come to an arrangement, bore fruit. It was on Friday, January 18, after months of negotiation, that Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos presided over the ceremony in the name of the Pope and in the presence of the Apostolic Nuncio and the Novus Ordo bishops of the region and of Novus Ordo priests of the diocese. The purpose of the ceremony, as advertised by Bishop Rangel in a joint communiqué with Bishop Guimaraes, the diocesan bishop of Campos, was to:

"sign the letter of entrance into full ecclesial communion of the priests of Campos from the Priestly Union of Saint John Mary Vianney and of the Catholic faithful they minister to, being then thus considered perfectly inserted in the Holy Roman Catholic Apostolic Church."

The theme of this joint ceremony between modernists and traditionalists was "unity in diversity". In fact, such is the basis of the Indult Mass, as contained in John Paul II’s motu proprio of 1988 Ecclesia Dei adflicta, and such is the basis for this reconciliation as described in the joint statement of Bishops Rangel and Guimaraes:

"We further remember the invitation of the Holy Father, Pope John Paul II: ‘All pastors and other faithful must have a new consciousness not only of the legitimacy but also of the riches that the diversity of charisms, traditions, spirituality and apostolate represent for the Church. This diversity also constitutes the beauty of unity in diversity: this is the symphony that, under the action of the Holy Ghost, the earthly Church elevates to heaven’ (motu proprio, Ecclesia Dei adflicta). It is thus with intense happiness that we communicate to all this gesture of kindness of the Holy Father, the Pope, wishing an ever-increasing union among Catholics —‘unity in diversity’ —as the Holy Father wishes, for the greater glory of God and honor of the Holy Church".

Those of you who regularly read this letter will have no difficulty in drawing your own conclusion concerning such statements. The September letter explained that the cardinals in Rome had no intention of promoting Tradition and of disavowing the New Mass and the post-Conciliar revolution. The November letter showed how Archbishop Lefebvre’s clarity of vision in this time of crisis, based upon the spirit of the Church, as clearly taught by Saint Pius X and Blessed Pius IX, is the basis for our present superiors’ refusal to compromise. The December letter explained how firmly Bishop De Castro Mayer embraced the positions of Archbishop Lefebvre, refusing any third, intermediary position or Indult Mass as a liberal compromise of our duty to profess the Faith. Last month’s letter mentioned how the situation in Rome has worsened even further by the Pope’s own initiative, through the prayer meeting of all religions in Assisi.

We must certainly respect the good intentions of the priests from Campos, who have not attacked the Society’s refusal to make a deal, but simply stated that their situation is different, given that they are all in one diocese. We also must acknowledge that they have not compromised in the same way that the priests of the Fraternity of Saint Peter, who have accepted in principle the celebration of the New Mass and the post-Conciliar theology.

Nevertheless, it certainly saddens us that they have backed down on the clear position so well expressed in their 1999 book Catholic, Apostolic & Roman, and that this rift in tradition has come about for the sake of a canonical status, and that the priests of Campos have opted for the easy way out, the path of least resistance. So different were the heroic words of Bishop De Castro Mayer in a similar situation, on June 30, 1988:

"I want to manifest here my sincere and profound adherence to the position of His Excellency Archbishop Lefebvre, dictated by his fidelity to the Church of all centuries. Both of us, we have drunk at the same spring which is that of the Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church" (Archbishop Lefebvre & the Vatican, p. 124).

Different also were the words written by the same priests on the occasion of the episcopal consecration of Bishop Rangel:

"Given the present situation of extraordinary crisis through which the Church is passing, with its hierarchy directly and indirectly bringing about its destruction —‘auto-demolition’ —and for this very reason systematically and only naming bishops that have compromised with progressism, this extraordinary episcopal consecration is imposed upon us as an act that we call ‘Operation Survival of Tradition’".

Dom Laurenço Fleichman, OSB, formerly of the monastery in Barroux, France, in an open letter to Bishop Rangel and the priests of Campos, dated October 30, 2001, draws a sad parallel between Dom Gerard’s betrayal of Archbishop Lefebvre and this decision by the priests of Campos. The full text will be published in the February issue of the Angelus. Allow me simply to quote his conclusion here:

"In 1988 I said to Dom Gérard, and I repeat it to you today: thousands of Catholics wait anxiously for you to confirm them in the Catholic Faith, in the combat required of us by Divine Providence, without allowing yourselves to be overcome by tiredness, weakness or without becoming entrapped by the chant of the bewitching singers of legality. Our Lord requires martyrdom, drop by drop, and the full and clear profession of the Catholic Faith, without compromise with the modernists in the Vatican.

"Yes, we are for the Papacy, and yes we are for juridical legality. But above all else, let us respond to the clear call of God for the combat for the Faith. The day the Pope truly converts, it will appear more clearly than the light of the sun. Clearly, it is not by kissing the Koran or by going to pray in a mosque that he shows us this conversion…"

Furthermore, we cannot help but deplore their implicit acknowledgement that they were outside of full ecclesial communion until this ceremony took place. The Society had insisted, as a matter of principle, on a statement that the excommunications were null and void, that Archbishop Lefebvre had sufficient reason to consecrate bishops and that we are and have always been Catholics in good standing, as a pre-condition for any arrangement to be even discussed. This principle has been abandoned. Moreover, the modernist concept of degrees of communion has been accepted in the place of the traditional teaching of being either inside or outside the Church contained in the dogma "Outside the Church no salvation". Before Vatican II, there was no such thing as perfect or imperfect ecclesial communion. One was either a Catholic, inside the Church, or excommunicated, outside the Church, on the way to eternal perdition. There is no in between. However, for the modernists other Christians and other believers are in various degrees of imperfect communion although not actually members of the Roman Catholic Church. This is the concept that destroys the whole idea of one true Church that underlies the statement that the Campos priest are only now in full communion.

However, worst of all is the acceptation of the Indult principle of "unity in diversity", namely that we can be one with other "Catholics" in their diverse expressions of religious experience, including charismatics and modernists of all kinds. The principle of unity is not diversity. This is a pure contradiction for anybody who does not hold to the modernist conception of religion is the collection of everybody’s personal experiences from within. To the contrary, the principle of unity is Catholic Tradition, as expressed in the catechism, namely "to profess the same Faith, have the same sacrifice and sacraments, united under one and the same visible head, the Pope". We are only one with Novus Ordo Catholics inasmuch as they hold fast to these truths, despite the revolutionary direction given by the modernists in the Church, and we are certainly in no way one with any that knowingly and willingly depart from any one of them.

The coincidence of Assisi II, last month’s world prayer meeting for all religions, with this ceremony of regularization, just adds to our sorrow. If it was Assisi, in 1986, that convinced Archbishop Lefebvre of the destruction of the sense of the Faith and the gravity of the crisis in the Church and decided him to consecrate bishops, it is Assisi II that is our wake up call that ecumenism is still alive and well, that it continues to destroy the Church within, at its very marrow, and that it is our duty to stand firm and make reparation for it. It is certainly not by accepting to be united in diversity with ecumenists that we will do this. It is for this reason that Bishop Fellay has asked that in our priories and principal chapels a day of reparation be held. Since it is the duty of adoring the one true God, contained in the first commandment, that this ecumenical prayer meeting denies, the best reparation is an hour of adoration before the Blessed Sacrament. If all of us would do this, it would have a powerful effect on the all-merciful Sacred Heart to pour forth in abundance the divine light needed to overcome the blindness and paralysis of ecumenism, and the pretension that we can please God in any religion. I do hope that all of you will take this to heart.

Yours faithfully in the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, Fr. Peter R. Scott (Letter to Friends and Benefactors Regarding the "reconciliation" in Campos, January 15, 2002.

Leaving aside the simple fact that a true pope does not have to "convert" to the a "correct" understanding of the Catholic Faith, Father Peter Scott's letter about the surrender of the Society of Saint John Mary Vianney applies just as much now to the situation of the Society of Saint Pius X, which has, according to its Superior-General, Bishop Bernard Fellay, who said in Toronto, Canada, on June 15, 2009, "If Rome gives us enough guarantee, so to say, of survival, I think probably we would certainly consider it. We have no problem with the Church recognizing us, of course" (Pius X Society: Restructuring of Ecclesia Dei Imminent).

This passage from Father Scott's January 15, 2002, letter shows that Bishop Fellay's comments of three days ago are a remarkable turn-around on the part of the Society of Saint Pius X in just eighty-nine months:

Nevertheless, it certainly saddens us that they have backed down on the clear position so well expressed in their 1999 book Catholic, Apostolic & Roman, and that this rift in tradition has come about for the sake of a canonical status, and that the priests of Campos have opted for the easy way out, the path of least resistance. So different were the heroic words of Bishop De Castro Mayer in a similar situation, on June 30, 1988:

"I want to manifest here my sincere and profound adherence to the position of His Excellency Archbishop Lefebvre, dictated by his fidelity to the Church of all centuries. Both of us, we have drunk at the same spring which is that of the Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church" (Archbishop Lefebvre & the Vatican, p. 124).

 

Bishop Fellay was himself very critical of Bishop Rifan's "simulation" of a Novus Ordo service as the price of the the Society of Saint John Mary Vianney's 2002 "reconciliation" with the counterfeit church of conciliarism:

I just would like to give you some steps on one person who is the head of Campos. Before he was consecrated a bishop, Fr. Rifan, just a few months before, said in Rome to the Vicar General —who repeated it to Fr. Schmidberger, so we have it from a direct source —said, "I have no problem with celebrating the New Mass, but I don’t do it because it would cause trouble to the faithful." So when Rome is consecrating Rifan a bishop, they know already that he has no objection to celebrating the New Mass. I think it is important to see that. That is the first step.

I may say that there is even a step before. Before that, he goes with the diocesan Corpus Christi procession, and he says to those who oppose it, "If we would not have done that, we would have jeopardized the agreement with Rome." It shows you the direction.

The next step will be the jubilee of the diocese of Campos. For that occasion, of course, the local bishop is having a great ceremony, and Rome invites Bishop Rifan to go to that New Mass, to be there. And Bishop Rifan goes there. He does not participate in the sense of concelebrating the Mass, but he is there present with all his ecclesiastical ornaments, with a surplice and so on. He is really there at this New Mass.

The next step will be the Requiem [i.e., the Novus Ordo "Resurrection"] Mass for the bishop who had kicked them out, Bishop Navarro. At that Requiem Mass, you have Bishop Rifan there, and also the nuncio. The nuncio invites Bishop Rifan to go to Communion, and Bishop Rifan receives Communion at this New Mass.

The next step will be the Mass of Thanksgiving of the new cardinal of Sao Paolo. This time, Bishop Rifan is there again present at that New Mass; he is in the choir. He is not in his surplice; nevertheless, at the time of consecration, with the other priests and bishops celebrating, he raises his hands and says the words of consecration. A seminarian saw him.

And now, the 8th of September this year, we have photos and even a video of the Mass concelebrated by Bishop Rifan on the occasion of the centennial of the coronation of Our Lady of the Aparecida, who is the patroness of Brazil. He is concelebrating the New Mass, a New Mass where you have really scandalous happenings: ladies giving Communion in the hand, a ceremony of coronation where, among all the cardinals and bishops, there is a lady who is crowning our Lady, and so on. Trying to defend himself, he said "But I did not say the words of consecration." I may say, that makes it even worse, because that means he is cheating.

That’s the evolution: now he is two years a bishop, and he is already concelebrating the New Mass. You see, and that is the natural development which was announced from the start by the officials in Rome, Cottier, now Cardinal Cottier and Msgr. Perl. At the time of the agreement between Campos and Rome, Cottier said: "Now they have recognized the Council. The next step will be the new Mass." He even said, "There is a natural, psychological dynamic." And you see in Bishop Rifan a real, natural, clear demonstration of this phrase. EXTRACT from Bishop Fellay's November 10, 2004 conference in Kansas City, MO regarding Bishop Rifan's actions

 

We see in Bishop Bernard Fellay a "real, natural, clear demonstration" of his own willingness to be as silent about the very kind of Assisi-like sacrileges committed by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI during his pilgrimage to Jordan and Israel between May 8, 2009, and May 15, 2009, that were committed by Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II as priests in the indult communities have been about these travesties. Did Bishop Fellay raise his voice to defend the honor and glory and majesty of God as Ratzinger/Benedict called one "mosque" a jewel and another as a "sacred" place? No. He was silent. He has learned to dance to the conciliar tunes as Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict wins at his waiting game of offering the Society of Saint Pius X a "place" in the One World Church of conciliarism while insisting on a full adherence to the "Second" Vatican Council and the "magisterium of the post-conciliar 'popes.'"

Joseph Ratzinger, who believes in the false ecclesiology of "unity-in-diversity" critiqued by Father Peter Scott in 2002, showed as early as 1987 that he was willing to overlook the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre's spirited defense of the Social Kingship of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in order to "make a deal" so as to mute criticism about the Novus Ordo and conciliarism from the Society of Saint Pius X:

 

Under pressure, Rome gave in. On July 14, Cardinal Ratzinger received Archbishop Lefebvre at the Holy Office. At first the Cardinal persisted in arguing that "the State is competent in religious matters."

"But the State must have an ultimate and eternal end," replied the Archbishop.

"Your Grace, that is the case for the Church, not the State. By itself the State does not know."

Archbishop Lefebvre was distraught: a Cardinal and Prefect of the Holy Office wanted to show him that the State can have no religion and cannot prevent the spread of error. However, before talking about concessions, the Cardinal made a threat: the consequence of an illicit episcopal consecration would be "schism and excommunication."

"Schism?" retorted the Archbishop. "If there is a schism, it is because of what the Vatican did at Assisi and how you replied to our Dubiae: the Church is breaking with the traditional Magisterium. But the Church against her past and her Tradition is not the Catholic Church; this is why being excommunicated by a liberal, ecumenical, and revolutionary Church is a matter of indifference to us."

As this tirade ended, Joseph Ratzinger gave in: "Let us find a practical solution. Make a moderate declaration on the Council and the new missal a bit like the one that Jean Guitton has suggested to you. Then, we would give you a bishop for ordinations, we could work out an arrangement with the diocesan bishops, and you could continue as you are doing. As for a Cardinal Protector, and make your suggestions."

How did Marcel Lefebvre not jump for joy? Rome was giving in! But his penetrating faith went to the very heart of the Cardinal's rejection of doctrine. He said to himself: "So, must Jesus no longer reign? Is Jesus no longer God? Rome has lost the Faith. Rome is in apostasy. We can no longer trust this lot!" To the Cardinal, he said:

"Eminence, even if you give us everything--a bishop, some autonomy from the bishops, the 1962 liturgy, allow us to continue our seminaries--we cannot work together because we are going in different directions. You are working to dechristianize society and the Church, and we are working to Christianize them.

"For us, our Lord Jesus Christ is everything. He is our life. The Church is our Lord Jesus Christ; the priest is another Christ; the Mass is the triumph of Jesus Christ on the cross; in our seminaries everything tends towards the reign of our Lord Jesus Christ. But you! You are doing the opposite: you have just wanted to prove to me that our Lord Jesus Christ cannot, and must not, reign over society.

Recounting this incident, the Archbishop described the Cardinal's attitude" "Motionless, he looked at me, his eyes expressionless, as if I had just suggested something incomprehensible or unheard of." Then Ratzinger tried to argue that "the Church can still say whatever she wants to the State," while Lefebvre, the intuitive master of Catholic metaphysics, did not lose sight of the true end of human societies: the Reign of Christ." Fr. de Tinguy hit the nail on the head when he said of Marcel Lefebvre: "His faith defies those who love theological quibbles." (His Excellency Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, The Biography of Marcel Lefebvre, Kansas City, Missouri: Angelus Press, 2004, pp. 547-548.)

 

Ratzinger, as Benedict XVI, is still intent on making such a "practical" agreement. As noted in "Smashing Through the Conciliar Looking Glass" eight days ago now, Ratzinger/Benedict is not even committed to standing behind his own words to the conciliar "bishops" that reassured them that the Society of Saint Pius X had no "canonical status" within the structures of his false church:

The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church. There needs to be a distinction, then, between the disciplinary level, which deals with individuals as such, and the doctrinal level, at which ministry and institution are involved. In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers - even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty - do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church. (LETTER ON REMISSION OF EXCOMMUNICATION LEFEBVRE BISHOPS)

 

To wit, Ratzinger/Benedict had his spin-doctor, Father Federico Lombardi, S.J., issue the follow Bulletin yesterday, Wednesday, June 17, 2009, to indicate that the priestly ordinations that will be performed by three of the bishops of the Society of Saint Pius X in Europe and the United States of America in the next two weeks are "illegitimate," leaving the matter of "discipline" for another time given the fact that it appears that the Society's bishops may be close to reaching a "provisional" "canonical" agreement with the conciliar authorities:

 

In response to the frequent questions posed in recent days regarding the priestly ordinations of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X, scheduled for the end of June, there is nothing to add to what was affirmed by the Holy Father in his Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church of past March 10: "As long as the Society (of Saint Pius X) does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church (...) until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers (...) do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church". The ordinations are, thus, still to be considered illegitimate.


In the same letter, the Pope announced his intention to provide a new status for the Commission "Ecclesia Dei", joined to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. There are reasons to believe that the definition of this new status is close. This constitutes the premise for the beginning of the dialogue with those responsible for the Fraternity of Saint Pius X in view of the desired clarification of the doctrinal, and, in consequence, of the disciplinary questions which still remain open. [Source: Bollettino] (As found on RORATE CĂLI, a website that censors any and all of Ratzinger/Benedict's praise of false religions.)

 

In other words, the "pope" meant what he wrote to the conciliar "bishops" on March 10, 2009, at least in the theoretical realm. The practical realm is different.

That is, what Ratzinger/Benedict wrote on March 10, 2009, does not mean that he has any intention of imposing any new "canonical" penalties upon the Society of Saint Pius X for defying his "papal" authority as long as the process to "clarify" the open "doctrinal" and "disciplinary" issues is ongoing. This is somewhat akin to the fictional Judge Henry X. Harper, played by the late Gene Lockhart, in Miracle on 34th Street that he was going to keep an "open mind" about the existence of Santa Claus given the debate over the matter in his courtroom (see the brief appendix at the end of this article).

A "practical" arrangement will indeed emerge as a result of the absurd process of "negotiations" between the representatives of the Society of Saint Pius X and William "Cardinal" Levada, the prefect of the conciliar Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, concerning how to "understand" the "Second" Vatican Council in "light of tradition." Bishop Fellay, who has, as noted before, learned how to be most silent about Ratzinger/Benedict's blatant offenses given to the honor and glory and majesty of God, will then take his place pantheon of "diverse" "movements" within the counterfeit church of conciliarism, finding himself "reconciled" with Bishop Fernando Areas Rifan himself.

The "practical" arrangement that will emerge as a result of the "negotiations" between the representatives of the Society of Saint Pius X and those of the counterfeit church of conciliarism will have a few juridical details that will be different from the arrangement that the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre signed with the then "Cardinal" Ratzinger on May 5, 1988, starting with the fact that the Society will be erected, as it appears now, as a "personal prelature" along the lines of Opus Dei and will thus have a degree of autonomy from the local conciliar "bishops." In many other respects, however, what was offered to and accepted by Archbishop Lefebvre twenty-one years ago will be the exact same agreement that will be concluded following the current "negotiations."

Here are the doctrinal terms of the 1988 that Archbishop Lefebvre signed on May 5, 1988, and then reneged on four days later:

I, Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop-Bishop Emeritus of Tulle, as well as the members of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X founded by me:

a)   Promise to be always faithful to the Catholic Church and the Roman Pontiff, its Supreme Pastor, Vicar of Christ, Successor of Blessed Peter in his primacy as head of the body of bishops.

b)   We declare our acceptance of the doctrine contained in §2541 of the dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium of Vatican Council II on the ecclesiastical magisterium and the adherence which is due to it.

c)    Regarding certain points taught by Vatican Council II or concerning later reforms of the liturgy and law, and which do not appear to us easily reconcilable with Tradition, we pledge that we will have a positive attitude of study and communication with the Apostolic See, avoiding all polemics.

d)    Moreover, we declare that we recognize the validity of the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments celebrated with the intention of doing what the Church does, and according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Rituals of the Sacraments promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II.

e)    Finally, we promise to respect the common discipline of the Church and the ecclesiastical laws, especially those contained in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II, without prejudice to the special discipline granted to the Society by particular law. (Archbishop Lefebvre & the Vatican. Go to "Contents" at the bottom of this link and then to "Documents" on the next page. This is where you will find the May 5, 1988, Protocol.)

 

This agreement, which the Archbishop signed one day before backing out of it the next after refusing to accept an "episcopal" candidate selected by Wojtyla/John Paul II, came just twelve years after the Archbishop had called the conciliar sacraments to be "illegitimate" rites and the conciliar church a "schismatic church." (Please see Bishop Donald Sanborn's The Mountains of Gelboe for a review of the incredible flip-flopping that occurred in the space of several weeks in 1988, the sort of flip-flopping that has made it possible for Bishop Fellay to criticize Bishop Rifan in 2004 and then to as mute as his former and future Brazilian compatriot in the wake of "papal" sacrileges and acts of apostasy.)

While the leaders of the Society of Saint Pius X might claim that their "negotiations" with the conciliar Vatican will be reach "specific" agreements on various problem areas other than those posed by Lumen Gentium, the very fact that such "negotiations" on articles contained in the Deposit of Faith are necessary to convince a true Roman Pontiff about doctrinal matters is ludicrous. The Society of Saint Pius X remains steeped in the errors that were critiqued so well a few months ago by Mr. Michael Creighton:

To briefly enumerate some of the problems in the SSPX, they are:

1  A rejection of the of the ordinary magisterium (Vatican I; Session III - Dz1792) which must be divinely revealed. For instance Paul VI claimed that the new mass and Vatican II were his “Supreme Ordinary Magisterium” and John Paul II promulgated his catechism which contains heresies and errors in Fide Depositum by his “apostolic authority” as “the sure norm of faith and doctrine” and bound everyone by saying who believes what was contained therein is in “ecclesial communion”, that is in the Church.

2  A rejection of the divinely revealed teaching expressed in Vatican I , Session IV, that the faith of Peter [the Pope] cannot fail. Three ancient councils are quoted to support this claim. (2nd Lyons, 4th Constantinople & Florence). Pope Paul IV’s bull Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio teaches the same in the negative sense of this definition.

3  A distortion of canon law opposed to virtually all the canonists of the Church prior to Vatican II which tell us a heretical pope ipso facto loses his office by the operation of the law itself and without any declaration. This is expressed in Canon 188.4 which deals with the divine law and footnotes Pope Paul IV’s bull, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio. The SSPX pretends that sections of the code on penalties somehow apply to the pope which flatly contradicted by the law itself. The SSPX pretends that jurisdiction remains in force when the code clearly says jurisdiction is lost and only ‘acts’ of jurisdiction are declared valid until the person is found out (canons 2264-2265). This is simply to protect the faithful from invalid sacraments, not to help heretics retain office and destroy the Church. Charisms of the office, unlike indelible sacraments, require real jurisdiction. The SSPX pretends that penalties of the censure of ipso facto excommunication cannot apply to cardinals since it reserved to Holy See (canon 2227). This is another fabrication since the law does not refer to automatic (latae sententiae) penalties but only to penalties in which a competent judge is needed to inflict or declare penalties on offenders. Therefore it only refers to condemnatory and declaratory sentences but not automatic sentences. To say that ipso facto does not mean what it says is also condemned by Pope Pius VI in Auctorem Fidei.

4  The SSPX holds a form of the Gallican heresy that falsely proposes a council can depose a true pope. This was already tried by the Council of Basle and just as history condemned those schismatics, so it will condemn your Lordship. This belief also denies canon 1556 “The First See is Judged by no one.” This of course means in a juridical sense of judgment, not remaining blind to apostasy, heresy and crime which automatically takes effect.

5  The SSPX denies the visible Church must manifest the Catholic faith. They claim that somehow these men who teach heresy can’t know truth. This is notion has been condemned by Vatican I, Session III, Chapter 2. It is also condemned by canon 16 of the 1917 code of canon law. Clearly LaSalette has been fulfilled. Rome is the seat of anti-Christ & the Church is eclipsed. Clearly, our Lords words to Sr. Lucy at Rianjo in 1931 have come to pass. His “Ministers [Popes] have followed the kings of France into misfortune”.

6  The SSPX reject every doctor of the Church and every Church father who are unanimous in stating a heretic ipso facto is outside the Church and therefore cannot possess jurisdiction & pretends that is only their opinion when St. Robert states “... it is proven, with arguments from authority and from reason, that the manifest heretic is ipso facto deposed.” The authority he refers to is the magisterium of the Church, not his own opinion.

7  Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis is misinterpreted by the SSPX to validly elect a heretic to office against the divine law. A public heretic cannot be a cardinal because he automatically loses his office. This decree only refers to cardinals and hence it does not apply to ex-cardinals who automatically lost their offices because they had publicly defected from the Catholic faith. The cardinals mentioned in this decree who have been excommunicated are still Catholic and still cardinals; hence their excommunication does not cause them to become non-Catholics and lose their offices, as does excommunication for heresy and public defection from the Catholic faith. This is what the Church used to call a minor excommunication. All post 1945 canonists concur that Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis does not remove ipso facto excommunication: Eduardus F. Regatillo (1956), Matthaeus Conte a Coronata (1950), Serapius Iragui (1959), A. Vermeersch - I. Creusen (1949), Udalricus Beste (1946) teach that a pope or cardinal or bishop who becomes a public heretic automatically loses his office and a public heretic cannot legally or validly obtain an office. Even supposing this papal statement could apply to non-Catholics (heretics), Pope Pius XII goes on to say “at other times they [the censures] are to remain in vigor” Does this mean the Pope intends that a notorious heretic will take office and then immediately lose his office? It is an absurd conclusion, hence we must respect the interpretation of the Church in her canonists.

Errors/Heresies typical of an SSPX chapel attendees & priests:

1)  We are free to reject rites promulgated by the Church. [Condemned by Trent Session VII, Canon XIII/Vatican I, Session II]

2)  The Pope can’t be trusted to make judgments on faith and morals. We have to sift what is Catholic. [Condemned by Vatican I, Session IV, Chapter III.]

3) We are free to reject or accept ordinary magisterial teachings from a pope since they can be in error. This rejection may include either the conciliar ‘popes’ when teach heresy or the pre-conciliar popes in order to justify the validity of the conciliar popes jurisdiction, sacraments, etc [Condemned by Vatican I (Dz1792)/Satis Cognitum #15 of Leo XIII]

4)  The Kantian doctrine of unknowability of reality. We can’t know what is heresy, therefore we can’t judge. [Condemned by Vatican I, Session III, Chapter 2: On Revelation, Jn7:24].

5)  The faith of the Pope can fail. Frequently this is expressed as “we work for” or “we pray for the Popes conversion to the Catholic faith”. [condemned by Vatican I and at least 3 earlier councils mentioned above].

6)  Universal salvation, ecumenism, religious liberty, validity of the Old Covenant, etc. can be interpreted in a Catholic sense. [Condemned by every saint, every doctor of the Church and every Pope who comments on such issues; for instance Pope Eugene IV (Cantate Domino – Council of Florence)]

7)  Contraries can be true. [Hegelian doctrine against Thomistic Philosophy]. If these positions appear to be contradictory, they are.

When I point out these positions are against the Faith, frequently the Hegelian doctrine is employed by those in attendance at the SSPX chapel. (Please also listen, yes, once again, to Father Anthony Cekada's The Errors of the Society of St Pius X and read His Excellency Bishop Donald Sanborn's Logical Chickens Coming Home to Roost: A Commentary on Recent Events in SSPX)

 

Some of these errors are on full display in a justification, found on the RORATE CÆLI website, of the upcoming priestly ordinations that will be performed by three of the bishops of the Society of Saint Pius X. As noted last month in One Sentence Says It All, Pope Pius IX himself condemned the the following proposition in The Syllabus of Errors concerning a limitation upon the infallibility of the Church:

22. The obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are strictly bound is confined to those things only which are proposed to universal belief as dogmas of faith by the infallible judgment of the Church. -- Letter to the Archbishop of Munich, "Tuas libenter," Dec. 21, 1863. (Proposition condemned by Pope Pius IX, The Syllabus of Errors, December 8, 1864.)

 

The Society of Saint Pius X has reversed for itself the "right" to sift the teachings of the conciliar "popes," and its founder and other bishops and priests have issued withering criticisms of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service  Here is a passage from Archbishop Lefebvre's An Open Letter to Confused Catholics:

Now we can see that the Novus Ordo Missae, that is to say, the New Order adopted after the Council, has been drawn up on Protestant lines, or at any rate dangerously close to them. For Luther,  the Mass was a sacrifice of praise, that is to say, an act of praise, an act of thanksgiving, but certainly not an expiatory sacrifice which renews and applies the Sacrifice of the Cross. For him, the Sacrifice of the Cross took place at a given moment of history, it is the prisoner of that history; we can only apply to ourselves Christ's merits by our faith in His death and resurrection. Contrarily, the Church maintains that this Sacrifice is realized mystically upon our altars at each Mass, in an unbloody manner by the separation of the Body and the Blood under the species of bread and wine.  This renewal allows the merits of the Cross to be applied to the faithful there present, perpetuating this source of grace in time and in space.  The Gospel of St. Matthew ends with these words: “And behold, I am with you all days, even until the end of the world.”

The difference in conception is not slender. Efforts are being made to reduce it, however, by the alteration of Catholic doctrine of which we can see numerous signs in the liturgy.

Luther said, “Worship used to be addressed to God as a homage. Henceforth it will be addressed to man to console and enlighten him. The sacrifice used to have pride of place but the sermon will supplant it.” That signified the introduction of the Cult of Man, and, in the Church,  the importance accorded to the “Liturgy of the Word.” If we open the new missals, this revolution has been accomplished in them too.  A reading has been added to the two which existed, together with a “universal prayer” often utilized for propagating political or social ideas; taking the homily into account, we often end up with a shift of balance towards the “word.” Once the sermon is ended, the Mass is very close to its end.

Within the Church, the priest is marked with an indelible character which makes of him an alter Christus: he alone can offer the Holy Sacrifice. Luther considered the distinction between clergy and laity to the “first wall raised up by the Romanists”; all Christians are priests, the pastor is only exercising a function in presiding at the Evangelical Mass. In the Novus Ordo, the “I” of the celebrant has been replaced by “we”; it is written everywhere that the faithful “celebrate,” they are associated with the acts of worship, they read the epistle and occasionally the Gospel, give out Communion, sometimes preach the homily, which may be replaced by “a dialogue by small groups upon the Word of God,” meeting together beforehand to “construct” the Sunday celebration. But this is only a first step; for several years we have heard of those responsible for diocesan organizations who have been putting forward propositions of this nature: “It is not the ministers but the assembly who celebrate” (handouts by the National Center for Pastoral Liturgy), or “The assembly is the prime subject of the liturgy”; what matters is not the “functioning of the rites but the image the assembly gives to itself and the relationship the concelebrants create between themselves” (P. Gelineau, architect of the liturgical reform and professor at the Paris Catholic Institute). If it is the assembly which matters then it is understandable that private Masses should be discredited, which means that priests no longer say them because it is less and less easy to find an assembly, above all during the week.  It is a breach with the unchanging doctrine: that the Church needs a multiplicity of Sacrifices of the Mass, both for the application of the Sacrifice of the Cross and for all the objects assigned to it, adoration, thanksgiving, propitiation, and impetration.

As if that were not enough, the objective of some is to eliminate the priest entirely, which has given rise to the notorious SAAP (Sunday Assemblies in the Absence of the Priest). We can imagine the faithful gathering to pray together in order to honor the Lord's Day; but these SAAP are in reality a sort of “dry Mass,” lacking only the consecration; and the lack, as one can read in a document of the Regional Center for Social and Religious Studies at Lille, is only because “until further instructions lay people do not have the power to carry out this act.” The absence of the priest may even be intentional  “so that the faithful can learn to manage for themselves.” Father Gelineau in Demain la Liturgie writes that the SAAP are only an “educational transition until such time as mentalities have changed,” and he concludes with disconcerting logic that there are still too many priests in the Church, “too many doubtless for things to evolve quickly.”

Luther suppressed the Offertory;  Why offer the pure and Immaculate Host if there is no more sacrifice? In the French Novus Ordo the Offertory is practically non-existent; besides which it no longer has this name.  The New Sunday Missal speaks of the “prayers of presentation.” The formula used reminds one more of a thanksgiving,  a thank-you,  for the fruits of the earth.  To realize this fully, it is sufficient to compare it with the formulas traditionally used by the  Church in which clearly appears the propitiatory and expiatory nature of the Sacrifice “which I offer Thee for my innumerable sins, offenses and negligences, for all those here  present and for all Christians living and dead, that it may avail for my salvation and theirs for eternal life.” Raising  the chalice, the priest then says, “We offer Thee, Lord, the chalice of Thy redemption, imploring Thy goodness to accept it like a sweet perfume into the presence of  Thy divine Majesty for our salvation and that of the whole world.”

What remains of that in the New Mass? This: “Blessed  are You, Lord, God of the universe,  You who give us this bread, fruit of the earth and work of human hands.  We offer it to You; it will become the bread of life,” and the same for the wine which will become “our spiritual drink.”  What purpose is served by adding, a little further on: “Wash me of my faults, Lord. Purify me of my sin,” and “may our sacrifice today find grace before You”? Which sin? Which sacrifice? What connection can the faithful make between this vague presentation of the offerings and the redemption that he is looking forward to? I will ask another question:  Why substitute for a text that is clear and whose meaning is complete, a series of enigmatic and loosely bound phrases? If a need is found for change, it should be for something better. These incidental phrases which seem to make up for the insufficiency of the “prayers of presentation” remind us of Luther, who was at pains to arrange the changes with caution. He retained as much as possible of the old ceremonies, limiting himself to changing their meaning.  The Mass, to a great extent, kept its external appearance, the people found in the churches nearly the same setting, nearly the same rites, with slight changes made to please them, because from then on people were consulted much more than before; they were much more aware of their importance in matters of worship, taking a more active part by means of chant and praying aloud. Little by little Latin gave way to German.

Doesn't all this remind you of something? Luther was also anxious to ceate new hymns to replace “all the mumblings of popery”. Reforms always adopt the appearance of a cultural revolution.

In the Novus Ordo the most ancient parts of the Roman Canon which goes back to apostolic times has been reshaped to bring it closer to the Lutheran formula of consecration, with both an addition and a suppression. The translation in French has gone even further by altering the meaning of the words pro multis. Instead of “My blood which shall be shed for you and for many,” we read “which shall be shed for you and for the multitude.” This does not mean the same thing and theologically is not without significance.

You may have noticed that most priests nowadays recite as one continuous passage the principal part of the Canon which begins, “the night before the Passion He took bread in His holy hands,” without observing the pause implied by the rubric of the Roman Missal:  “Holding with both hands the host between the index finger and the thumb, he pronounces the words of the Consecration in a low but distinct voice and attentively over the host.” The tone changes, becomes intimatory, the five words “Hoc est enim Corpus Meum,” operate the miracle of transubstantiation, as do those that are said for the consecration of the wine.  The new Missal asks the celebrant to keep to the narrative tone of voice as if he were indeed proceeding with a memorial. Creativity being now the rule, we see some celebrants who recite the text while showing the Host all around or even breaking it in an ostentatious manner so as to add the gesture to their words and better illustrate their text.  The two genuflections out of the four having been suppressed, those which remain being sometimes omitted, we have to ask ourselves if the priest in fact has the feeling of consecrating, even supposing that he really does have the intention to do so.

Then, from being puzzled Catholics you become worried Catholics: is the Mass at which you have assisted valid? Is the Host you have received truly the Body of Christ?

It is a grave problem.  How can the ordinary faithful decide? For the validity of a Mass there exists essential conditions: matter, form, intention and the validly ordained priest. If these conditions are filled one cannot see how to conclude invalidity.  The prayers of the Offertory, the Canon and the Priest's Communion are necessary for the integrity of the Sacrifice and the Sacrament, but no, for its validity. Cardinal Mindzenty pronouncing in secret in his prison the words of Consecration over a little bread and wine, so as to nourish himself with the Body and Blood of Our Lord without being seen by his guards, was certainly accomplishing the Sacrifice and the Sacrament.

A Mass celebrated with the American bishop's honeycakes of which I have spoken is certainly, invalid, like those where the words of the Consecration are seriously altered or even omitted. I am not inventing anything, a case has been recorded where a celebrant went to such an extent of creativity that he quite simply forgot the Consecration! But how can we assess the intention of the priest? It is obvious that there are fewer and fewer valid Masses as the faith of priests becomes corrupted and they no longer have the intention to do what the Church--which cannot change her intention--has always done.  The present-day training of those who are called seminarians does not prepare them to accomplish valid Masses.  They are no longer taught to consider the Holy Sacrifice as the essential action of their priestly life.

Furthermore it can be said without any exaggeration whatsoever, that the majority of Masses celebrated without altar stones, with common vessels, leavened bread, with the introduction of profane words into the very body of the Canon, etc., are sacrilegious, and they prevent faith by diminishing it. The desacralization is such that these Masses can come to lose their supernatural character, “the mystery of faith,” and become no more than acts of natural religion. (The Mass of All Times versus the Mass of Our Time.)

 

Although the late Archbishop's criticism of the Novus Ordo was very solid in most respects, the plain truth of the matter is, of course, that it is impossible for the Catholic Church to give us liturgical rites that are defective in any way, rites that are incentives to impiety. Indeed, the Twenty-second Session of the Council of Trent condemned such a belief:

CANON VII.--If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema. (Session Twenty-Two, Chapter IX, Canon VII, Council of Trent, September 17, 1562, CT022.)

 

The issues raised by "The Nine" twenty-six years ago (see Letter of 'the Nine' to Abp. Marcel Lefebvre) concerning the Society of Saint Pius X's acceptance of conciliar presbyters (while occasionally treating the conciliar rite of ordination as doubtful by subjecting conciliar presbyters to conditional ordination ceremonies) and magisterial authority and the sanctity of marriage are the same ones that plague the Society today. The Nine were right then. They remain correct today, and we are grateful that we have been able to respond to the graces sent to us by Our Lady to recognize the truth of the stand taken by these good priests in 1983.

Although Ratzinger/Benedict is interested in s "practical" solution that permits the Society of Saint Pius X to take its place in the pantheon of "movements" in the conciliar church, it remains to be seen whether conciliar officials will insist that conciliar presbyters who have left their diocesan "bishops" to work with the Society of Saint Pius X will be forced back into their dioceses or forced to get an "official" letter of permission from a conciliar "bishop" or whether those who have been conditionally ordained will suffer any "canonical "penalties" for putting into doubt what is presented by the conciliar "popes" to be, albeit falsely, a legitimate and valid sacramental rite of the Catholic Church. It also remains to be seen whether conciliar officials will accept the "decrees of nullity" issued by the "tribunals" of the Society of Saint Pius X as valid. Ah, just more fodder for "negotiations."

Alas, this is madness. Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI defects from the Faith in any number of ways (see Ratzinger's War Against Catholicism). He is, as the late, murdered Father Eldred Leslie noted to a Society of Saint Pius X priest in South Africa before Christmas of last year, no more the "pope" than Cleopatra. One either sees this or he does not, and those who don't see how a man who praises false religions and esteems their idols has expelled himself from the Catholic Church will probably never see the a figure of Antichrist himself pretends to sit on the Throne of Saint Peter.

The doctrinal truth of sedevacantism was admitted even by the late Mario Francesco "Cardinal" Pompedda 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.)

 

That this doctrinal truth applies in our circumstances hinges on conciliarism's apostasies and the personal defections from the Faith on the part of the conciliar "popes" (see Embracing The Faith No Matter the Consequences), not on private locutions, such as those enjoyed by the late Father Vincent Bowes, O.C.D. (see Bookended From Birth to Birth), or on the consolations received by some in answers to prayers and/or fervent desires, it is also true that such locutions and personal consolations can be an assurance to those who want to be absolutely sure that they are not making a mistake about the identity of the Roman Pontiff--or the lack thereof, a matter about which we had better be very certain.

Mr. Michael Reardon, a pioneering traditional Catholic, has given me permission to publish his own personal consolation that he received to affirm him in his belief that Joseph Ratzinger is an antipope:

As you know, the late, great Michael Davies believed that the Conciliar “popes” are true popes. And he seemed to have little interest in discussing the matter with others of a different persuasion, considering it a non-issue. He once wrote an article entitled, “The Pope is the Pope is the Pope and the Pope is John-Paul II.”  He told me very early on in our correspondence that God did not want us to attend Masses by priests that hold the sedevacantist  position.  But Michael was also a great friend who never refused me anything, not from the early days in 1979 when I asked him to write articles that I could use as newspaper ads for Our Lady of Fatima Chapel in Richmond, or the time in between right up to the time of his death. He spoke here three times at my request and even wrote a letter to The Catholic Virginian a few months before his death at my request. (Not published) He always immediately answered my letters and later my emails and always encouraged me as an activist in the traditional movement. He paid me the greatest compliment about a year before he died by saying  he considered me “one of my two or three  closest friends.” I can’t imagine Michael saying “no” to anything I might ask of him. So it occurred to me yesterday about noon to ask Michael to send me a sign confirming something that he today obviously knows: that Benedict XVI is an antipope. Even though I am convinced of that fact, confirmation of that nature would be good, if God so willed. It wasn’t necessary that I ask Michael directly. He knew my thoughts and desires in this regard, as did God, and that was sufficient. And on top of that, who was I to make such a request for such an exceptional favor? I would not directly request it but desired it, as he and God knew,  and would accept it if God so willed.

 

My hope and request, then,  was that sometime before the day ended yesterday that my wife, Ute, would place red flowers on our living room mantle piece, and that her doing so would be the sign and confirmation that I wished. There were no flowers there, and she had placed no flowers there for at least two months, probably longer. On each side of the mantle piece there were two vases of evergreen ferns and no other plants Even though my wife usually spends a good part of her day in her 15 ft by 30 ft vegetable garden, she was gone most of the day yesterday, returning home about 3:30 p.m.  She then spent the rest of the afternoon in the kitchen and then until 8:30 remained inside preparing for a trip today to Winona for the priestly ordinations there.

 

It occurred to me that what I was asking for was perhaps, humanly speaking, impossible. Although we live on an acre of land, I was aware of no red flowers on the property. Scattered in the vegetable garden were white, yellow, orange and various shades of purple flowers. This was around noon, and I remember that my last words to myself on the subject were, “Nevertheless, if Ute puts any red flowers on the mantle piece this day, I will accept it as a sign and confirmation that Benedict is an antipope.” I then put the matter out of my mind.

 

At 8:30, just before dark, Ute, who accepts Benedict as a true pope, went into her vegetable garden. In a few minutes she came back in and headed directly for me in the living room. In a voice that expressed some amazement she said, “look what I found.”  She then showed me a beautiful red lily. She said, “I never saw it before. It wasn’t there yesterday,” saying that she found it in the garden near the statue of the Sacred Heart.  I asked her, “what are you going to do with it?,” to which she answered, “put it on the mantle.” She then placed it in water and put it on the mantle piece.

 

When I revealed the above account to her, she was silent. When I told her over again several times that, “this is no coincidence,” she remained silent on the matter. Of course, I have no doubt whatsoever that this is the confirmation that I was looking for and for which I thank God and Michael. A photo of the lily is below.

 

All good wishes!

 

Michael Reardon

 

 

No, this is not "prove" anything. However, I, along with Mr. Reardon, do not believe that this inspirational story is a coincidence. God does not indeed answer even our unexpressed desires to know the truth about our ecclesiastical situation in this time of apostasy and betrayal.

The "price" of "recognition" of traditionally-minded communities by the counterfeit church of conciliarism has always been silence about the "papal" travesties of the conciliar era, and it will be no different at all for the Society of Saint Pius X once they are given their place in a corner of the One World Ecumenical Church alongside 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. This may take time and patience. However, it is an "effort" that Ratzinger/Benedict must be made in the name of "ecumenism," in the name of "tolerance," in the name of a "search" for "reconciliation and unity."

Ratzinger/Benedict has shown great patience to this point in muting traditionally-minded voices attached as of yet to the counterfeit church of conciliarism. He has already muted the voices of the Society of Saint Pius X's bishops and priests concerning his recent apostasies and blasphemies and sacrileges in Jordan and Israel. The rest remains to be what it has always been: just a matter of time before total surrender as the price of recognition by an antipope who blasphemes God first and foremost by denying the very nature of dogmatic truth.

The hour is late. Figures of Antichrist walk among us in the realm of civil government and pose, albeit falsely, as leaders of the Catholic Church. We must be about the business of making reparation for our sins and those of the whole world as the consecrated slaves of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary according to the formula of Saint Louis de Montfort. Every Rosary we pray can help to plant a few seeds for the resurrection of the Church Militant on earth and for the restoration of the Social Reign of Christ the King.

What are we waiting for? Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.

 

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

 

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior and Balthasar, pray for us.

Saint Ephrem the Deacon, pray for us. .

See also: A Litany of Saints

Keeping An "Open Mind" About The Fiction of Santa Claus

Judge Henry X. Harper: Before making a ruling... this court has consulted the highest authority available. The question of Santa Claus... seems to be largely a matter of opinion. Many people firmly believe in him. Others do not. The tradition of American justice demands... a broad, unprejudiced view of such a controversial matter. This court, therefore, intends to keep an open mind. (Miracle on 34th Street Script - transcript from the screenplay)

 





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