Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us
November 26, 2010

Words and Actions Without Consequences

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Still waiting for the "clarification" of the "clarification" that was issued to clarify the initial "clarification"? I'm not. Many defenders of all things Benedict, including some who understand that there is no moral justification for the use of a so-called prophylactic to prevent the spread of a certain disease that is contracted principally by those engaging in unchaste behavior,  are, however, waiting for the "clarification" of the "clarification" of the "clarification." It remains to be see whether the false "pontiff," Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, will let this issue just "die" on its own as he has done with the very muted outrage at "Archbishop" Robert Zollitsch's denial that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ died on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday in atonement for our sins. Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has other fish to fry, including issuing part three of what he himself terms a "risky" book, Jesus of Nazareth. (See Benedict says 'risky' book represents personal views, not magisterium.)

No true pope of the Catholic Church has ever written in a "private" capacity prior to Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II's doing so in Crossing the Threshold of Hope. There is a reason for this: a true pope is not a "private" person. He is the Vicar of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ on earth. He speaks for Our Lord as he governs Holy Mother Church and teaches only that which has been revealed by the One Whose Vicar he is, nothing more, nothing less. A true pope does not have the luxury to be a private person or to publish "private" views, no less views that are contrary to the defined teaching of the Catholic Church. Our true popes have understood that most Catholics do not make distinctions readily. It is part of the sensus Catholicus to render unto a true pope our loyalty, respect and submission as sons and daughters of Holy Mother Church, indeed, as his spiritual sons and daughters. A true pope would never want to confuse Catholics with a bifurcation between "official" and "unofficial" words and deeds.

The conciliar "popes," however, and their defenders over the decades (and I ask readers to remember that I was one of those defenders for quite a long time, thank you very much) have sought rather repeatedly take refuge in the nonexistent distinction between their "official" and "unofficial" deeds. This refuge is illusory as it conflicts with the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church, something that will be demonstrated later in this article. Suffice it to say for the moment, however, that the "novelty" of "papal" books and pronouncements that are not considered part of the Magisterium of Holy Mother and the "novelty" of "unofficial" pronouncements by such bodies as the "International Theological Commission" and the "Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue Between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church" have muddied the waters of what is the distinction between the "official" teaching of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, much of which is apostate in its own right, and the "unofficial" teaching that, we are told, binds no one in particular.

Wait! The "unofficial" teaching binds no one in particular. However, the false "pontiff," Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has referred on many occasions to the "unofficial" teaching in his own "official" pronouncements and allocutions.

To wit, The Ravenna Document, issued by the "Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue Between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church" on October 13, 2007, the ninetieth anniversary of the Miracle of the Sun in the Cova da Iria near Fatima, Portugal, is one of those "unofficial" conciliar documents that "bind no one" (as were told in no uncertain terms by defenders all things Benedict in 2007) even though Ratzinger/Benedict XVI himself made public reference to it just forty-three days after its issuance, going so far as to "thank God" for the document despite the "difficulties" that the members of the "joint commission" encountered as they attempt to be faithful to the "Gospel and Tradition:"

This year we thank God in particular for the meeting of the Joint Commission which took place in Ravenna, a city whose monuments speak eloquently of the ancient Byzantine heritage handed down to us from the undivided Church of the first millennium. May the splendour of those mosaics inspire all the members of the Joint Commission to pursue their important task with renewed determination, in fidelity to the Gospel and to Tradition, ever alert to the promptings of the Holy Spirit in the Church today.

While the meeting in Ravenna was not without its difficulties, I pray earnestly that these may soon be clarified and resolved, so that there may be full participation in the Eleventh Plenary Session and in subsequent initiatives aimed at continuing the theological dialogue in mutual charity and understanding. Indeed, our work towards unity is according to the will of Christ our Lord. In these early years of the third millennium, our efforts are all the more urgent because of the many challenges facing all Christians, to which we need to respond with a united voice and with conviction. (Letter to His Holiness Bartholomaios I, Archbishop of Constantinople, Ecumenical Patriarch, on the occasion of the feast of St. Andrew,November 23, 2007.)

Ratzinger/Benedict has just high praise for the "unofficial" Ravenna Document because it incorporates almost word for word his own apostate and delusional views on the how the "Petrine ministry" was "understood" and practiced in the First Millennium. Here, yes, once again for those who do not retain these quotations, are two paragraphs from The Ravenna Document about the "Petrine ministry" that are almost identical to what Kasper expressed in England to what the then Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger wrote in his Principles of Catholic Theology:

It remains for the question of the role of the bishop of Rome in the communion of all the Churches to be studied in greater depth. What is the specific function of the bishop of the “first see” in an ecclesiology of koinonia and in view of what we have said on conciliarity and authority in the present text? How should the teaching of the first and second Vatican councils on the universal primacy be understood and lived in the light of the ecclesial practice of the first millennium? These are crucial questions for our dialogue and for our hopes of restoring full communion between us.

We, the members of the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, are convinced that the above statement on ecclesial communion, conciliarity and authority represents positive and significant progress in our dialogue, and that it provides a firm basis for future discussion of the question of primacy at the universal level in the Church. We are conscious that many difficult questions remain to be clarified, but we hope that, sustained by the prayer of Jesus “That they may all be one … so that the world may believe” (Jn 17, 21), and in obedience to the Holy Spirit, we can build upon the agreement already reached. Reaffirming and confessing “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph 4, 5), we give glory to God the Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, who has gathered us together. (The Ravenna Document)

After all, Cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida, in the same bull in which he excommunicated the Patriarch Michael Cerularius and thus inaugurated the schism between East and West, designated the Emperor and the people of Constantinople as "very Christian and orthodox", although their concept of the Roman primary was certainly far less different from that of Cerularius than from that, let us say, of the First Vatican Council. In other words, Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium. (Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, pp. 198-199)


Apart from the distortion of the history of the First Millennium (see, for example, Anti-Apostles All), it is clear that the "unofficial" Ravenna Document expresses the "private" belief of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who has, as noted above, spoken favorably about it, going so far as to "thank God" for it. There's one little problem, though, with attempting to exculpate Ratzinger/Benedict on this matter: the nature of Papal Primacy has been understood perfectly by the Fathers of our dogmatic councils, each of which met under the infallible guidance and protection of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost. Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is not free to hold such a view as he does as the matter is settled. As has been noted so frequently on this site, no past pronouncement by Holy Mother Church is truly "settled" in the Modernist mind of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI if it does not meet the needs of a present moment, which is why he invented his philosophically absurd and dogmatically condemned "hermeneutic of continuity and discontinuity" to justify his own breezy dismissal of whatever dogmatic pronouncement or papal teaching he believes has become "obsolete" in the "particulars that [it] contains."

Ratzinger/Benedict is not alone in this view in his false church. Dr. Janet E. Smith, who tried her hand at defending the false "pontiff's" view of the use of that prophylactic a few days ago (see Let the Olympic Games of Absurdity Begin!), is one of those. Her own rejection of the binding nature of the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church was summarized very succinctly in The Great Facade eight years ago now:

This neo-Catholic denunciation of the Church's entire past is hardly peculiar to [Michael] Novak.  An entire book could be devoted to similar examples in neo-Catholic writings. Neo-Catholic luminary Janet E. Smith, for another, writing in the neo-Catholic organ Catholic  Dossier, declared: "The faithful Catholics of my  generation have rushed to the intellectual ramparts. We have been determined to do so not in any pre-Vatican II formulaic fashion, but to do so by reformulating the basics in terminology more accessible to our times and to draw upon the best of modern thought [especially that of John Paul II] to deepen our understanding and the understanding of others." The casual disparagement of the teaching of the preconciliar Church as "formulaic" is a staple of neo-Catholic thinking. As for Smith's grand project of "reformulating" Catholic teaching to make it "more accessible to our times," it is hard to think of a time (except perhaps the Arian crisis) in which Catholic truth has been less accessible, and less heeded, than in our own. (Christopher A. Ferrara and Thomas E. Woods, Jr., The Great Facade, The Remnant Press, 2002, p. 276.)


Dr. Janet Smith and her "pope," Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI are of one heart and mind in defying these perpetually binding statements of Holy Mother 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.)

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.)

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.)


The inherent instability of the idiocy that is the "hermeneutic of continuity and discontinuity" produces such instability and uncertainty into the lives of Catholics attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism that not the conciliar "popes" and their defenders open themselves up to being contradicted at some later point if a future "pope" decides that he needs to "interpret" the words of the "Second" Vatican Council and the likes of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II and Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI in a different way. The logical conclusion to all of this is as follows: Why should anyone pay attention to anything that any of these "popes" write and say since it can all be wiped away just as easily as John Paul II and Benedict XVI and Janet Smith have attempted to wipe away those things from the Catholic past they do not like or are not "accessible" to the totally mythical entity known as "modern" man?

To quote Pope Saint Pius X once again:

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. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)


The wreckage of souls that has been accomplished by the doctrinal, liturgical and moral revolutions of conciliarism that have indeed razed the the last bastions of Catholic Faith, Worship and Morals is vast. And this wreckage is all founded in the quicksand of the denial of the nature of dogmatic truth--and thus of the very nature of God Himself, it should be added--and a rupture from the Catholic past that is said to be necessary.

The non-Scholastic mind of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, though, sees no contradiction between his own views and the dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church. That dogmatic teaching simply needs to be "understood" differently in light of the "Second" Vatican Council and the "magisterium" of the conciliar "popes." He, Ratzinger/Benedict is a disciple of the late Father Hans Urs von Balthasar, who believed that truth contained internal contradictions within it, turning Aristotle's principle of non-contradiction entirely on its head.

Ratzinger/Benedict has even contradicted the progenitors of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service, who told us that they were jettisoning the Immemorial Mass of Tradition to appeal to Protestants, when stating in Summorum Pontificum, July 7, 2007, which is the proximate cause for so many longtime critics of John Paul II for doing exactly what he, Benedict, has done by esteeming the symbols of false religions and treating the non-ordained clergy of false religions as having a "mission" from God to serve and to save souls, that there had been no rupture, thus even contradicting his own past statements that there had been a rupture:


There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal.  In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture.  What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful.  It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place.  Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books.  The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness. (Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, Explanatory Letter on "Summorum Pontificum, July 7, 2007.)


No rupture, eh? Then, why did the men who planned the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service and/or who knew the mind of Giovanni Montini/Paul VI speak of a break with the Catholic past that was designed to appeal to Protestants?

We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren that is for the Protestants. (Annibale Bugnini, L'Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965.)

"[T]he intention of Pope Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the Mass, was to reform the Catholic liturgy in such a way that it should coincide with the Protestant liturgy.... [T]here was with Pope Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or at least to correct, or at least to relax, what was too Catholic in the traditional sense, in the Mass, and I, repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist mass" (Dec. 19, 1993), Apropos, #17, pp. 8f; quoted in Christian Order, October, 1994. (Jean Guitton, a close friend of Giovanni Montini/Paul VI. The quotation and citations are found in Christopher A. Ferrara and Thomas E. Woods, Jr., The Great Facade, The Remnant Publishing Company, 2002, p. 317.)

Let it be candidly said: the Roman Rite which we have known hitherto no longer exists. It is destroyed. (Father Joseph Gelineau, an associate of Annibale Bugnini on the Consilium, quoted and footnoted in the work of a John Mole, who believed that the Mass of the Roman Rite had been "truncated," not destroyed. Assault on the Roman Rite.)


No rupture? Then why did Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger write the following in the French language preface to Monsignor Gamber's The Reform of the Roman Liturgy?

What happened after the Council was something else entirely: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it--as in a manufacturing process--with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product. Gamber, with the vigilance of a true prophet and the courage of a true witness, oppose this falsification, and thanks to his incredibly rich knowledge, indefatigably taught us about the living fullness of a true liturgy. As a man who knew and loved history, he showed us the multiple forms and paths of liturgical development; as a man who looked at history form the inside, he saw in this development and its fruit the intangible reflection of the eternal liturgy, that which is not the object of our action but which can continue marvelously to mature and blossom if we unite ourselves intimately with its mystery. (Joseph Ratzinger, Preface to the French language edition of Monsignor Klaus Gamber's The Reform of the Roman Liturgy.)


Why did Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger write the following in his own memoirs, Milestones?

The prohibition of the missal that was now decreed, a missal that had known continuous growth over the centuries, starting with the sacramentaries of the ancient Church, introduced a breach into the history of the liturgy whose consequences could only be tragic. It was reasonable and right of the Council to order a revision of the missal such as had often taken place before and which this time had to be more thorough than before, above all because of the introduction of the vernacular.

But more than this now happened: the old building was demolished, and another was built, to be sure largely using materials from the previous one and even using the old building plans. There is no doubt that this new missal in many respects brought with it a real improvement and enrichment; but setting it as a new construction over against what had grown historically, forbidding the results of this historical growth. thereby makes the liturgy appear to be no longer living development but the produce of erudite work and juridical authority; this has caused an enormous harm. For then the impression had to emerge that liturgy is something "made", not something given in advance but something lying without our own power of decision. (Joseph Ratzinger, Milestones.)


Even though Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, the apostle of the "new theology" that is wrapped in enigmas and contradictions and paradoxes because of its contemptuous rejection of Scholasticism, contradicted himself in his Explanatory Letter on "Summorum Pontificum by stating that "In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture," he did take the opposite view before issuing Summorum Pontificum on July 7, 2007, which has had Bishop Bernard Fellay, the Superior-General of the Society of Saint Pius X, and others who were longtime critics--in their own published words on numerous occasions--of the "Second" Vatican Council and the "magisterium" of the conciliar "popes" and the Novus Ordo service doing their own handstands and spin-doctoring in behalf of concilairism ever since. No rupture? What about a frontal lobotomy? It's enough spin to make your head spin, isn't it?

And that is exactly what is happening now as Catholics who have been, at least for the most part, noting a few exceptions here and there, silent as Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has violated the First and Second Commandments by esteeming the symbols of false religions and taking part in "inter-religious prayer services" and praising the nonexistent ability of false religions to contribute to the "better" world and the establishment of "peace" among nations either try to defend the false "pontiff's" erroneous statement about the use of the prophylactic in question or do not believe that his spinmeister, "Father" Federico Lombardi, S.J., has communicated Ratzinger/Benedict's "true" position on the matter in the "clarification" of the "clarification" of the "clarification." Those who want to persist in perverse sins against nature are going want to make any distinction between "unofficial" and "official," "papal" or "private" views. And this great tragedy for the salvation of souls--and for the very good of social order itself and the survival of nations--is what so few people are willing to address. Souls are going to be lost because of what some consider to be the "pope's" "private" views.

As has been noted on this site so very frequently, of course, no one is free to hold "private" views that contradict any defined article of Catholic Faith and Morals. Let the Olympic Games of Absurdity Begin! contained various citations from papal statements that make the use of the prophylactic in question illicit under all circumstances as human beings are never free to violate or thwart or distort the end for which God created the use of the privileges of Holy Matrimony, which is meant to be used exclusively by a man and a woman in a lawful marriage for the procreation and education of children. Period. No one is "free," no not even "privately," to think anything to the contrary, no less to speak it publicly.

But what about Pope John XII's erroneous belief that only those souls in Heaven who had bodies could see the Beatific Vision of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost for all eternity? Wasn't that a private view? Yes, it sure was. It was a private view on a matter of doctrine that had not been defined by Holy Mother Church solemnly, although it was the common opinion of her theologians (please see the appendix below). Those who do not want to even begin to see how Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has defected from the defined truths of Catholic Faith and Morals in numerous ways, both "privately" and in his "official" capacity as "Benedict XVI" have to take refuge, therefore, in one or more of a variety of sophistries, including those provided by Ratzinger/Benedict himself by means of the "hermeneutic of continuity and discontinuity" or the Gallicanism of the Society of Saint Pius X or the failure to understand the nature of the Church's charism of infallibility properly.

Defenders of all things conciliar and of all things Benedict may want to assert that the words and actions of the conciliar "popes" have been without consequences for the legitimacy as true and legitimate Successors of Saint Peter. They just happen to be wrong. And look at the wreckage of souls that has been created by these "popes," a wreckage that is not possible for the visible had of the Catholic Church to produce by means of his words and public actions that lack the integrity of the Faith and, most indeed, contradict it.

Enough of this. I am going to take a few days off from the writing to enjoy our daughter's vacation from school. I also need a bit of rest, although there will be a republished article tomorrow in preparation for Advent and a guest article on top of that.

In the midst of the incredible spin-doctoring against truth taking place before our very eyes, we must, as always, have recourse to Our Lady as we pray as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit and as we keep her company in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and in our time in fervent prayer before her Divine Son's Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament. She will help us to cleave only to true bishops and to true priests who make absolutely no concessions to the abominable apostasies and blasphemies and sacrileges of conciliarism or to the nonexistent legitimacy of its "popes" and "bishops" who offend God so boldly, so openly and so brazenly--and with the full support and admiring approval of most of the world's baptized Catholics.

While each person must come to recognize this for himself (it took me long enough to do so; I defended the indefensible for far too long!), we must nevertheless embrace the truth once we do come to recognize and accept it without caring for one moment what anyone else may think about us as we make reparation for our sins and those of the whole world as the consecrated slaves of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through His Most Blessed Mother's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart.

As I noted months ago now, we can never grow accustomed to apostasies that can never become acceptable with the passage of time. We can never grow accustomed to offenses given to God by the conciliar "popes" and their conciliar "bishops." We must never "spin" in their behalf.

We must cleave to the Catholic Church, not to the counterfeit church of conciliarism, as we attempt to plant the seeds for the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary as we seek to live more and more penitentially, making reparation to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary for our own many sins and for those of the whole word.

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 Sylvester the Abbot, pray for us.

Saint Peter of Alexandria, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints


Material from Tumultuous Times on Gallicanism and the Mythology of "Heretical" Popes



Papal infallibility had been assailed by an ideology called Gallicanism (Conciliarism) for more than 400 years prior to the [First] Vatican Council. Gallicanism "tended to restrict the authority of the Church regarding the state (Political Gallicanism) or the authority of the pope regarding councils, bishops, and clergy (Ecclesiastico-Theological Gallicanism). These erroneous teachings were widely professed by the clergy of France (formerly called Gaul, hence the name) and later spread to Flanders, Ireland and England. Some prelates at the council followed the Gallican ideology and wished to make papal authority dependent on the bishops and the approbation of general councils.

In the 14th century in consequence of the confusion in ecclesiastical and political affairs, the status of the papacy sank considerably. This was fatefully reflected in its effects on the teaching of papal primacy. William of Ockham, in his battle against Pope John XXII, tried to undermine the divine institution of the primacy. Marsilius of Padua and John of Jandun directly denied it and declared to primacy to be a mere honorary primacy, and ascribed the supreme judicial power and doctrinal power to the general council. At the time of the great Western Schism (1378-1417) many reputable theologians, such as Henry as Langenstein, Conrad of Gelnhausen, Peter of Ailly and John Gerson, saw in the doctrine of the superiority of the general council over the pope (conciliary theory) the sole means of reuniting the Church. The viewpoint appeared that the general Church was indeed free from error, but that the Roman Church could err, and fall into heresy and schism. The Council of Constance (Fourth and Fifth Sessions) and of Basle (Second Session) declared for the superiority of the council over the pope. However, the resolutions referring to this did not receive the papal ratification and were consequently legally invalid (D 657 Amm. 2). In Gallicanism the theory of the superiority of a general council lived on for hundreds of years. (Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 289.)


Many Italians and Romans who opposed Gallicanism and defended the primacy and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff became known as Ultramontanists. "Ultramontanism [is] a term used to denote integral and active Catholicism, because it recognizes as its spiritual head the pope, who, for the greater part of Europe, is a dweller beyond the mountains (ultra montes), that is, beyond the Alps. Ultramontanists stressed the monarchical role of the pope, his universal jurisdiction, his primacy over the Catholic Church and his infallibility  in ex cathedra pronouncements.

The Chief Doctrinal Error of the Time

The conflict between theses two groups is described by a contemporary writer:

Each council was convened to extinguish the chief heresy, or to correct the chief evil of the time. And I do not hesitate to affirm that the denial of the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff was the chief intellectual or doctrinal error as to faith, not to call it more than proximate to heresy, of our times.

It was so because is struck at the validity of the pontifical acts of the last 300 years, weakened the effect of papal decisions of this period over the intellect and conscience of the faithful. It kept alive a dangerous controversy on the subject of infallibility altogether, and exposed even the infallibility of the Church itself to difficulties not easy to solve. As an apparently open or disputable point, close to the very root of faith, it exposed even the faith itself to the reach of doubts.

Next, practically, it was mischievous beyond measure. The divisions and contentions of 'Gallicanism' and 'Ultramontanism' have been a scandal and a shame to us. Protestants and unbelievers have been kept from the truth by our intestine controversies, especially upon a point so high and so intimately connected with the whole doctrinal authority of the Church. Again, morally, the division and contention on this point, supposed to be open, has generated more alienation, bitterness and animosity between Pastors and people, and what is worse, between Pastor and Pastor, than any other in our day. (Cardinal Manning, The Vatican Council and Definitions, pp. 41-42.). . . .

The Case of Pope Liberius

Pope Liberius reigned during the height of the Arian heresy and was exiled by order of the Emperor Constantius for his opposition to it. Some authors claim that the pope signed a document promoting Arianism. Frs. Rumble and Carty have refused this false claim by asserting:

Historical research has shown that it is doubtful whether he signed the document at all. ...St. Athanasius and St. Hilary, who thought he did sign, insist that no charge of heresy could be made against Liberius on the score that the document was not necessarily heretical. ...On his return from exile he defended the Nicene decisions against Arianism, and remained a most uncompromising defender of the orthodox doctrine until his death in 366 A.D. (E. Hales, First Vatican Council, pp. 21-22.)

Ballerini says that if Liberius compromised the faith, " 'which is by no means certain,' ... it was 'not the result of full free-will; for the fear of the Emperor Constantius was the motive; and still les in this fall was a definition of the faith involved.' "Many authors, like Socrates, Theodoret and Sulpicius Severus testify in favor of Liberius. Of the testimonies brought against him, several are evidently spurious, and even if they were genuine, they show only a semi-Arian Catholicizing formula, but not an 'Arian creed.'

Hagemann in the Journal of Theological Literature notes: "Liberius can be accused, not of what he did, but what he omitted to do; he can, from a moral point of view, be blamed for his silence, for his weakness, while the dogmatic purity of his faith remains intact."

The Case of Pope Honorius I

The council witnessed many heated debates concerning papal infallibility. Opponents to papal infallibility fabricated every objection possible in order to prevent or defer its definition, even claiming that Honorius I was a heretical pope.

Cardinal Manning refuted their false allegations:

In the judgment of a cloud of the greatest theologians of all countries, schools, and languages, since the controversy was opened two hundred years ago, the case of Honorius has been completely solved. Nay more, it has been used with abundant evidence, drawn from the very same acts acts and documents, to prove the direct contrary hypothesis, namely, the infallibility of the Roman Pontiffs.  ...They who have cleared Honorius of personal heresy, are an overwhelming majority compared with their opponents.

It is in vain for the antagonists of papal infallibility to quote this case as if it were certain. Centuries of controversy have established, beyond contradiction, that the accusation against Honorius cannot be raised by his most ardent antagonists to more than a probability. And this probability, at its maximum, is less than that of his defense. I therefore affirm the question to be doubtful; which is abundantly sufficient against the private judgment of his accusers. The cumulus of evidence for the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff outweighs all such doubts.  ...The following points in the case of Honorius can be abundantly proved from documents:

(A) That Honorius defend no doctrine whatsoever.

(B) That he forbade the making of any new definition.

(C) That his fault was precisely in this omission of Apostolic authority, for which he was justly censured.

(D) That his two epistles are entirely orthodox; though, in the use of language, he wrote as was usual before the condemnation of Monotheletism, and not as it became necessary afterwards. It is an anachronism and an injustice to censure his language, used before that condemnation, as it might be just to censure it after the condemnation had been made.

To this I add the following excellent passage from the Pastoral of the Archbishop of Baltimore: 'The case of Honorius forms no exception; for 1st, Honorius expressly says in his letters to Sergius, that he meant to define nothing, and he was condemned precisely because he temporized and would not define; 2nd, because in his letters he clearly taught the sound Catholic doctrine, only enjoining silence as to the use of certain terms, then new in the Church; and 3rd, because his letters were not addressed to a general council of the whole Church, and were rather private, than public and official; at least they were not published, even in the East, until several years later. The first letter was written to Sergius in 633, and eight years afterwards, in 641, the Emperor Heraclius, in exculpating himself to Pope John II, Honorius' successor, for having published his edict--the Ecthesis--which enjoined silence on disputants, similar to that imposed by Honorius, lays the whole responsibility thereof on Sergius, who he declares, composed the edict. Evidently, Sergius had not communicated the letter to the Emperor, probably because its contents, if published, would not have suited his wily purpose of secretly introducing, under another form, the Eutychian heresy. Thus falls to the ground the only case upon which the opponents of infallibility have continued to insist. This entire subject had been exhausted by  many learned writers.' (Cardinal Manning, The Vatican Council and its Definitions, pp. 245-246). . .


A Heretical Pope--an Impossibility

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

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

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

One who, after baptism, retaining the name of Christian pertinaciously denies (rejects) or doubts a divinely revealed truth is a heretic and by that fact ceases to be a Catholic. A heretic incurs ipso facto excommunication, i.e., (by that very fact) automatically, without sentence of law. A heretic is not a Catholic and the pope must be a Catholic. . . .

Therefore, a heretical pope is deposed by his public sin against Divine Law. Were a pope ever to teach formal heresy, he would cease to be pope. There can be no such thing as a heretical pope. This is an oxymoron--heresy  and the papacy are diametrically opposed and the terms are irreconcilable.

In his letter of May 25, 1999, Fr. Martin Stepanich, OFM (S.T.D.) says:

If it is true, as some theologians reasonably maintain, that a true people, one validly elected, cannot become a heretic, because of special divine protection, and cannot for that reason fall from the papacy, then the only logical conclusion to draw is that a heretic occupying the Chair of Peter was a heretic already before being elected, and could therefore not have been a legitimate valid candidate for election to the papacy to begin with.

If any baptized person (even an alleged pope) "pertinaciously denies or doubts any of the truths which must be believed by an obligation of divine and Catholic faith, he is a heretic; if he gives up the Christian faith entirely, he is an apostate..." Obviously the pope cannot change 2,000 years of Catholic faith, morals and worship. Canon law states: "If one after the reception of baptism, while retaining the name Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts any of the truths which must be believed by an obligation of divine and Catholic faith, he is a heretic."

A heretic ceases to belong to the Catholic Church and loses his office and authority. This is not a matter of "judging the pope," it is a recognition of fact. Popes and general councils don't create new doctrines; they merely clarify existing teaching. . . .

The question of a heretical pope was raised by one of the cardinals at the Vatican Council of 1870:

'What is to be done with the pope if he becomes a heretic?' It was answered that 'there has never been such a case; the council of bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church. The Church would not be, for a moment, obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine the Church knows to be a false doctrine, and he would cease to be pope, being deposed by God Himself. If the pope, for instance, were to say that the belief in God is false, you would not be obliged to believe him, or if he were to deny the rest of the creed; I believe in Christ, etc. The supposition is injurious to the Holy Father in the very idea, but serves to show you the fullness with which the subject has been considered and the ample thought given to every possibility. If he denies any Dogma of the Church held by every true believer, he is no more pope than either you or I. (Father James McGovern, The Life and Work of Pope Leo XIII, p. 241.).


Christ established His Church upon the rock of Peter and promised that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it. St. Ambrose tells us that faith is the foundation of the Church; because of the faith, and the person of Peter, the Church will always be preserved from error.

To guarantee the lifeline of truth, Our Lord gave the attribute of infallibility to His Vicar on earth. If it were possible at any time for the pope using his supreme apostolic authority to teach error on matters of faith and morals to the universal Church, it would affect the entire Church, thereby giving the gates of Hell power to prevail over Her.


If the Vicar of Christ on earth could lead the Church astray, the devil himself would have prevailed over the immaculate Bride of Christ, the Church. this is an impossibility because we have Christ's guarantee that His Church, the Catholic Church, will last until the end of time, unvanquished by the lies and deceits of Satan. Jesus Christ, the Son of God, can neither deceive nor be deceived. He will protect His Church from false doctrine until the end of time.

The attribute of infallibility was given to the pope so that the revealed doctrines and teachings of Christ would remain forever intact and unchanged. Any pope who changes such teachings held for almost 2,000 years is a heretic and ceases to belong to the Catholic Church. A heretic is not a Catholic and therefore cannot be head of the Church.

Our study of 20 General Councils of the Catholic Church (325 AD--1870) concludes with Vatican I. During the same period, there were also 20 false councils. Some were convoked by antipopes and many taught heresy. On which side would you place Vatican II?

St. Vincent of Lerins asserted: "Do not be misled by various and passing doctrines. In the Catholic Church Herself we must be careful to hold what has been believed everywhere, always and by all; for that alone is truly and properly Catholic." (Fathers Francisco and Dominic Radecki, CMRI, Tumultuous Times, pp.236-238; 251-253; 274-275; 276; 278-279.)

A Final Note on Pope John XXII from Thomas A. Droleskey

Anti-sedevacantist authors assert that Pope John XXII (Jacques D'Euse) was a "heretical pope" because he taught the only souls in Heaven who could see the Beatific Vision were those who had bodies. Theologians beseeched him to correct his error on this matter, which had not yet been defined solemnly by the authority of the Catholic Church. Pope John XXII did recant his error before he died. It is important to emphasize, however, that the matter had not been declared solemnly by the authority of the Church. Pope John XXII was not, as Cardinal Manning pointed out at the [First] Vatican Council, a "heretical pope."


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