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

A Little Bit In, A Little Bit Out

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Complex plots and sub-plots about various events (the Kennedy assassination, the conciliar Vatican's Bank scandal of the 1980s, etc.) cause me to go into the MEGO (Mine Eyes Glaze Over) syndrome as I content myself with knowing that all of the intrigues of this passing world will be revealed on the Last Day at the General Judgment of the Living and the Dead. That's good enough for me.

There are times, however, when the intricacies of various plots are not all that terribly complex. And while it did occur to me when writing last week about the furor caused by  the remarks made by Bishop Richard Williamson in a televised interview that the timing of the broadcast on Swedish television was a little too "coincidental" with the signing that very day of the "lifting" of the "excommunications" that were "imposed" by Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II upon His Excellency and the three other bishops of the Society of Saint Pius X who were consecrated by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and co-consecrated by Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer without a "papal" mandate on June 30, 1988, in Econe, Switzerland. Not having anything other than supposition to support in writing on this site that there might have been some "inside" information passed between one of persons in the conciliar Vatican to those responsible for the production and broadcast of the interview, I considered it to be beyond the pale, at least at that point, to make public conjectures on the matter. It is usually the case that those who plot such intrigues want to make them known to others sooner rather than later.

Sure enough, the Rorate Caeli blogspot is citing reports in Italian newspapers that there was a "plot" to embarrass "Pope" Benedict XVI so to undermine the full "integration" of the Society of Saint Pius X with the other and most disparate "elements" that make up the counterfeit church of concilairism and to make Ratzinger/Benedict look as though he was showing "mercy" to a denier of the nature and extent of the crimes of the Third Reich as these have been represented by professional agitators in the Talmudic community for the past sixty years now. Novelists could not possibly have imagined the scenario related below:

Several Italian religious journalists (including Rodari, for Il Riformista, Tornielli, for Il Giornale) are reporting today on a dossier circulating within the Vatican which could reveal that a plot was planned for several months to embarrass the Pope in the "Williamson affair".

We had received the main accusation a few days ago, but had considered that it should be made public by other means.

Here is the text received by us:

"Msgr. Williamson was interviewed on Nov. 1st 2008 on religious matters (tradition and Vatican II) in the Bavarian seminary of SSPX (this in order to let Msgr. Williamson be accused for negationism in that country). Suddenly the journalist Ali Fegan of the program Uppgrad Granskning (Mission Research) asked him about a quote of one speech that took place in Canada some years ago on the gas chamber during the WWII. We all know the trap in which the bishop put himself in a very ingenious way, too confident in the opportunity to diffuse his niche ideas on holocaust than to protect the Church from the evil. This trap was indeed prepared for His Holiness Benedict XVI.

"But who told the journalists of the SVT (Swedish Television Broadcast) about this speech of Msgr. Williamson? If you see all the program broadcasted on January 21st 2009 you will find out that the suggestions came from a french journalist: Fiammetta Venner. Who is she? She is a very well known french lesbian activist. She work together with her [partner] Ms. Caroline Fourest (see her profile here: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiammetta_Venner). Together the lesbian couple gave to the press a new book on sept. 2008 (during the Pope's visit to France). The title of this book is:
Les Nouveaux Soldats du pape. You can read more at their web site: http://nouveauxsoldatsdupape.wordpress.com/about/. In the interview, the lady accuses the SSPX of connection with far right parties in France, an opportune preamble to the accusation of Antisemitism.

"Now we found the people that suggested the plot. But who drove it in order to have ready the program up to the moment of the certain signature of the decree or removal of the excommunication of the SSPX bishops? Certainly someone in the Vatican that attempted to hit the Pope and his entourage and to weak the ambitions of the SSPX.

"Who is he? We have up to now some ideas of the personality. It has to be someone well affirmed in Rome, with good connections in France and a good relationship with Scandinavian church. The program was prepared in Sweden, a quite cold country for Catholicism, but why there? One answer can be the idea to launch a crusade for the reconversion to Catholicism of Sweden made by the SSPX (that for instance has only 30 people as Swedish faithful). In the program there is also an interview made by the bishop of Sweden Anders Arborelius OCD. He spoke about inclusivity as a principle of Christianity, instead of racism and intolerance (of which he seems to accuse the SSPX). ...

"So the people of which we are speaking as to be a Progressive high level Vatican officer that just few days in advance to the publication of the signed decree by the Commission of Legislative Text informed the journalist to come out with the incredible program. ..."

Even if there was a "plot", Bishop Williamson was not forced to say what he said at the interview...

Nonetheless, this falsely inflated media circus is not even the most important of this Pontificate! Or has it been forgotten that oversimplified or distorted reports of the Regensburg address caused actual deaths in areas with Muslim populations? And have the international news agencies apologized for that?

In a couple of weeks, this will be ancient history for the media - this story's news cycle, even in Catholic circles, is about to end...


It is not beyond the realm of possibility, of course, that the scenario reported by Il Riformista and Il Giornale is accurate. There are "progressive" elements in conciliarism who are hostile to any "reconciliation" between the conciliar Vatican and the Society of Saint Pius X, which continues its strange status of "a little bit in, a little bit out" of "full communion" with the false sect that has been headed by antipopes since the "election" of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII on October 28, 1959. These "progressives" are so blinded by their demonic hatred for any version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition, including the modernized version that was promulgated by Roncalli/John XXIII in 1961 (with the 1962 insertion of the name of Saint Joseph in the Roman Canon), that they cannot see that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI wants a "reconciliation" with the Society of Saint Pius X precisely to neutralize them as the conciliar Vatican has neutralized the voices of all of the clergy associated with the indult/Motu communities that have been erected since the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter.

There was no need for these "progressive" conciliarists to engage a plot that would make Ratzinger/Benedict, a thorough revolutionary in his own right who denies the nature of dogmatic truth and has blasphemed God endlessly by entering into a mosque and two synagogues and esteeming the symbols of false religions as he praises their nonexistent "ability" to "contribute" to the "betterment" of the world and who rejects the "ecumenism of the return" in favor of an ecclesiology termed quite rightly by Bishop Donald Sanborn and Father Anthony Cekada as "Frankenchurch, seem like a most sympathetic character to certain traditionally-minded Catholics attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism. The "olive branch" that Ratzinger/Benedict has extended, as a matter of "mercy" and "compassion," he has said, has already resulted in the Superior-General of the Society of Saint Pius X, Bishop Bernard Fellay, sounding as though he is Bishop Fernando Areas Rifan of the Society of Saint John Mary Vianney of Campos, Brazil, as various objections to "Second" Vatican Council are nuanced, just a "little bit," you understand, here and there (religious liberty, separation of Church and State.)

The head-spinning farce that is now being played out before our very eyes has confounded even some "experts" within the counterfeit church of conciliarism about the current status of the Society of Saint Pius X following the "lifting" of the "excommunications" by Ratzinger/Benedict on January 21, 2009.

Walter "Cardinal" Kasper, the President of the "Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity and the Chairman of the Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, who has been active of late in discouraging Anglo-Catholics from converting "en masse" to what they think, most erroneously, is the Catholic Church, gave an interview to Vatican Radio concerning the "status" of the Society of Saint Pius X within the One World Church:

(28 Jan 09 -RV) The President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, Cardinal Walter Kasper, met with Phillippa Hitchen to talk about the Pope’s Angelus.

Many Jewish groups had been upset by the lifting of the excommunications on the bishops of the Society of St. Pius X because one of their bishops, Bishop Richard Williamson, denied the full extent of the Holocaust.  The head of the society later distanced himself from Williamson’s remarks.

Cardinal Kasper told Phillippa the lifting of the excommunications is a separate matter, and should not affect Jewish-Catholic relations:

“We have to distinguish between two aspects of the whole thing; the one aspect is the lifting of the excommunication of the four bishops from the Society of the Fraternity of St Pius X. This does not mean that we are already in full communion with them, it’s the first step to remove the juridical and psychological obstacles to dialogue with them on several points. This will not be an easy dialogue but we are willing to go on. Our office is in favour of the unity of the Church and therefore also in favour of unity with this association. And it was a very sad and unfortunate coincidence this interview with Bishop Williamson. The Catholic Church of course does not agree with his statements. We can only distance ourselves from this statement and the society [of Pius X] has also distanced itself from this statement. So we have to distinguish the two things and not mix them up. My vision, my hope is that also our Jewish partners will understand that this is an unfortunate coincidence of two things that have absolutely nothing to do with each other whatsoever. And [our dialogue] should go on in the best interests of both sides”.  (Cardinal Kasper on Jewish-Catholic relations.)


A little bit "in," a little bit "out." That is the "canonical" status of the Society of Saint Pius X now--as it was even before the "lifting" of the "excommunications--as efforts are made by officials of the conciliar Vatican to engage in a form of "inter-religious dialogue" with the Society's leadership on various points of disagreement. Since when, as the pseudonymous "Gregorius" noted in an excellent review of this farcical situation on the Novus Ordo Watch site, Quo Vadis, Society of Saint Pius X?, does a group of Catholics possess the "authority" to conduct "negotiations" with representatives of a legitimate Successor of Saint Peter on points contained in the Deposit of Faith? What is "full" and "partial" "communion" with the counterfeit church of conciliarism? Where is the dogmatic foundation for holding to such false distinctions as "Eternal" Rome and "Modernist" Rome, to the "Authentic Magisterium as opposed to a "Governing" Magisterium? How can a group of Catholics be "somewhat in" and "somewhat out" of the Catholic Church? The very contention that one can be in a "partial communion" with the Catholic Church is of its nature one of the fundamental falsehoods of the "new ecclesiology" that has been critiqued so very well by His Excellency Bishop Donald Sanborn (see The New Ecclesiology: An Overview and The New Ecclesiology: Documentation and Communion: Ratzinger's Ecumenical One-World Church).

A writer for Inside the Vatican magazine, a chap named Andrew Rabel, has dealt with the "full" and "partial" communion farce as follows:

The SSPX reverts to the penalties given by Rome prior to the episcopal consecrations, and all four bishops in the Society remain suspended a divinis. The Society remains a group of Catholics in an irregular state. No chapel of the Society of St Pius X in the world is in communion with the Universal Church, and its priests sharing in the suspension are deprived of the clerical state (a separate matter from the validity of their ordinations). They cannot offer the sacraments of matrimony and penance validly, (except perhaps in a state of emergency) because that requires faculties from a local bishop.

But a significant hurdle in the way of full ecclesial communion for the Society, appears to have been removed. (Latest Newsflash - Inside the Vatican Magazine.)


Dario "Cardinal" Castrillon Hoyos, the President of "Pontifical" Commission Ecclesia Dei, who has given different answers about the Society of Saint Pius X's status at different times to different interviewers prior to the "lifting" of the "excommunications" on the four bishops of the Society of Saint Pius X, had this to say in an interview on "Canal 5" (Channel Five) in Italy on November 23, 2005:

"They [the Society of Saint Pius X] are within the confines of the Church. The problem is just that there is a lack of full, a more perfect--and as it was said during the meeting with Msgr. Fellay--a more full communion, because communion exists."


Who's the expert here? Andrew Rabel? "Cardinal" Hoyos? How can one be "within the confines of the Church" and lack a "more perfect communion"? What proof can one find for such "full" and "partial" communion distinctions in the dogmatic declarations of the Council of Trent or the [First] Vatican Council? What proof of can one find for such "full" and "partial" communion distinctions in the papal encyclical--or apostolical--letters that dealt with relations with Protestants and the Orthodox prior to the era of conciliarism? What passages from Pope Pius IX's Iam Vos Omnes, September 13, 1868, or Pope Leo XIII's Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae, June 20, 1884, and his Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896, or Pope Pius XI's Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928, or Pope Pius XII's Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943, can be brought forth to support such a "full" and "partial" communion distinction? Did the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, fail the Church for nearly two millennia by "hiding" this alleged "truth" from the popes who wrote as they did in the encyclical letters just cited?

The farcical situation involving the Society of Saint Pius X is made even more complex by the fact that certain conciliar "bishops" are going beyond the conciliar Vatican's statements about the Society's status. The conciliar "bishop" of Regensburg, Germany, in whose boundaries exists the Society of Saint Pius X seminary where Bishop Williamson gave his interview to one Ali Fegan of Swedish television, is stating that the priests of the Society need his permission to function within the confines of his diocese:

ZEIT ONLINE: The lifting of the excommunication of the Bishop and Holocaust denier Williamson will continue to cause protest. Surely Pope Benedict knew about this beforehand?

Bishop Gerhard Ludwig Mueller: Outwardly the Pope bears the responsibility. But critical for a lifting of excommunication is the internal process, the work of the committees. I do not believe that the Pope knew about the views of Bishop Williamson knew. Pope Benedict, in a generous gesture opened his arms

ZEIT ONLINE How did he decide on this gesture?

Mueller: The Pope received an urgent request from the SSPX for the excommunication to be annulled. It was from him a generous act to reach out a hand to a group standing at the border of the Church. The pope in no way signals an agreement with the anti-Semitism of Williamson and other members of the SSPX. Their statements differ from the principles of the Catholic Church.

ZEIT ONLINE: Nevertheless, the Catholic Church and the Pope are in a bad position, because a Holocaust denier seems to be rehabilitated.

Mueller: Christ has not redeemed the people and founded the faith communities of Christians so that we now discriminate against other religions. The statements of Williamson are unsustainable and do not have a sense that a true Catholic can represent. Such statements must be rejected with all resolution possible. In addition, a rehabilitation cannot be talked about ...The bishop of Regensburg, Gerhard Ludwig Mueller, asks the SSPX to follow the procedures of canon law.


Mueller: The bishops and priests are not rehabilitated, the Pope is merely responding to their desire to come to lift the excommunication. Now we have to assess whether they even meet the requirements, which the Catholic Church places on its priests.

ZEIT ONLINE: Is the censure of Bishop Williamson which has been issued by the General Superior of the SSPX enough?

Mueller: No, this is not enough. After removal of the excommunication, Bishop Williamson is under the authority of the Pope - not that of his superiors. The Holy Father will decide what happens with the bishop. I recommend the SSPX free themselves from such persons.

ZEIT ONLINE: You have banned Bishop Williamson from institutions in your diocese banned. How did it happen?

Mueller: It was a rather symbolic act, with which I wanted to show that the Catholic Church has nothing to do with Williamson's theories and also with anti-Semitism. He denied the holocaust in the seminary of Zaitzkofen of the SSPX which is located near Regensburg, have denied the Holocaust. The diocese of Regensburg is distancing themselves.

ZEIT ONLINE: How is it with the seminary Zaitzkofen and Pius Brotherhood in Germany go?

Mueller: The SSPX must fully return to the ground of the Catholic Church and recognize the authority of the Pope, the decisions of the Second Vatican Council and recognize existing canon law. If they do, they also accept that the seminary of Zaitzkofen falls under the supervision of the Diocese of Regensburg. The seminary should be closed and the students should go to seminaries in their home countries - if they are suitable for this purpose.

ZEIT ONLINE: So far, the SSPX of regular protests by bishops geschert little. Do you think that this is different now?

Mueller: Everything else would be a deception. I have written a letter to the Vatican and asked for the legal status of the seminary of Zaitzkofen to be verified. Even the Constitution of the SSPX should be critically considered by canon lawyers.

ZEIT ONLINE: What does it mean for the SSPX, if they really unconditionally recognize the authority of the Pope?

Mueller: The priests who were consecrated illegally, have no more obligation to obey their bishops, but only the Pope. A French bishop of the SSPX us at Rome, of the special teaching his group to follow - this is absurd. A bishop's office should not be misused for speaking personal political views to the detriment of the Church.

ZEIT ONLINE: The representatives of the SSPX have following the lifting of the excommunication have shown themselves not exactly grateful- alongside anti-Semitic statements were also calls to the Vatican to take back reforms of the Second Vatican Council.

Mueller: It seems to me as if there are within the SSPX still strong reservations against the Second Vatican Council. If the group does not keep their promises to the Pope, it working under a false pretense.

ZEIT ONLINE: Can the SSPX be easily integrated into the Catholic Church?

Mueller: The theological views of SSPX deviate in part from the Catholic Church. And politically, they are for ideas, which we reject. In France, there are links of the SSPX to the extreme right. From these the SSPX must clearly dissociate themselves.

ZEIT ONLINE: What is now going to happen to the SSPX bishops after the excommunication?

Mueller: The illegal Episcopal consecration cannot lead to a receipt of office. The bishop is a minister of unity. The four Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated bishops do not have the aptitude for this office.

ZEIT ONLINE: What do you expect now from the bishops of the SSPX?

Mueller: The four bishops of the SSPX should all resign and in political and no longer comment on ecclesiastical policy issues. They should lead an exemplary life as a simple priest and chaplain as part of the reparation for the damage that the schism has caused.


Will conciliar "bishops" such as this one cede what they believe is their authority over the Society of Saint Pius X in their boundaries if Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI proceeds to erect the Society as a "personal prelature" along the lines of Opus Dei?

What will happen to those priests who have left their dioceses in conciliar captivity to join the Society of Saint Pius X and have been "suspended" by their conciliar "bishops" as a result? Will they be forced to return to the diocesan structures to function once again as ministers of the Novus Ordo? Will they be permitted to stay in the Society of Saint Pius X without seeking a formal release from their dioceses? Will there be any guarantees that such releases must be granted by their conciliar "bishops"? Will this all be decided, as everything else seems to be in this farcical situation, on an ad hoc, case-by-case, diocese-by diocese basis?

What will happen to the conciliar priests (and I know at least three personally) who have been conditionally ordained by bishops of the Society of Saint Pius X? Will they incur any "canonical" penalties from the conciliar authorities for repeating the administration of a sacrament that can be conferred only once? That is, how can men who say that they "recognize" the conciliar "popes" as legitimate Successors of Saint Peter contend that there was any question at all concerning the validity of the Novus Ordo rite of priestly ordination that caused them to seek conditional ordination at the hands of a Society of Saint Pius X bishop? Will the bishops of the Society of Saint Pius X be forced to "apologize" for putting the validity of the Novus Ordo rite of priestly ordination into question by means of performing these conditional ordinations? Will they incur any penalties for repeating a sacrament that can be administered only once?

These are among the plethora of questions raised by the "regularization" process being sought of the conciliar Vatican by the Society of Saint Pius X at the present time. (Quo Vadis, Society of Saint Pius X? also raised the issue of the status of the decrees of marital nullity that have been issued by the "marriage tribunal" erected by the Society of Saint Pius X.) No one, no, not even the conciliarists in the Vatican, has any consistent set of answers to these questions as the entire situation is without precedent in the history of the Catholic Church. Catholics do not engage in "negotiations" with a true Vicar of Christ or his representatives on matters pertaining to the Faith after they have dared to pose themselves as the ultimate "arbiters" of "papal" liturgical decrees and teachings for nearly a four decade period of time.

Pope Pius XI made it abundantly clear in Mortalium Animos that the Catholic Church could never be suspected of contaminating the teaching that has been entrusted to her by her Divine Founder and Invisible Head, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and that it is necessary for all of those outside of the Church to return to her maternal bosom. He was not content to leave non-Catholics in an absolutely mythical, farcical concept of "partial communion:"

So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it. During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears witness: "The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly." The same holy Martyr with good reason marveled exceedingly that anyone could believe that "this unity in the Church which arises from a divine foundation, and which is knit together by heavenly sacraments, could be rent and torn asunder by the force of contrary wills." For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one, compacted and fitly joined together, it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head.


As Pope Pius XI noted in the succeeding paragraph of Mortalium Animos, one submits to the authority of the Roman Pontiff or he is not a Catholic. There is no need to engage in what he termed "obstinate wrangling." Articles of the Faith are absolutely and completely non-negotiable:

Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors. Did not the ancestors of those who are now entangled in the errors of Photius and the reformers, obey the Bishop of Rome, the chief shepherd of souls? Alas their children left the home of their fathers, but it did not fall to the ground and perish for ever, for it was supported by God. Let them therefore return to their common Father, who, forgetting the insults previously heaped on the Apostolic See, will receive them in the most loving fashion. For if, as they continually state, they long to be united with Us and ours, why do they not hasten to enter the Church, "the Mother and mistress of all Christ's faithful"? Let them hear Lactantius crying out: "The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this the house of Faith, this the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling. For life and salvation are here concerned, which will be lost and entirely destroyed, unless their interests are carefully and assiduously kept in mind.


The true popes of the Catholic Church were never content to let non-Catholics rest in a false sense of "security" the salvation of their immortal souls. They exhorted non-Catholics to return unconditionally and with urgency to the true Church, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order. Consider these words of Pope Leo XIII in Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae and Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos:

Nor is there any reason for you to fear on that account that We or any of Our Successors will ever diminish your rights, the privileges of your Patriarchs, or the established Ritual of any one of your Churches [of the Orthodox]. It has been and always will be the intent and Tradition of the Apostolic See, to make a large allowance, in all that is right and good, for the primitive Traditions and special customs of every nation.  On the contrary, if you re-establish Union with Us, you will see how, by God's bounty, the glory and dignity of your Churches will be remarkably increased.  May God, then, in His goodness, hear the Prayer that you yourselves address to Him: "Make the schisms of the Churches cease," and "Assemble those who are dispersed, bring back those who err, and unite them to Thy Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church."  May you thus return to that one Holy Faith which has been handed down both to Us and to you from time immemorial; which your forefathers preserved untainted, and which was enhanced by the rival splendor of the Virtues, the great genius, and the sublime learning of St. Athanasius and St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nazianzum and St. John Chrysostom, the two Saints who bore the name of Cyril, and so many other great men whose glory belongs as a common inheritance to the East and to the West. (Pope Leo XIII, Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae, June 20, 1894.)

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


And unlike the rantings of some conciliar "bishops," such as Edward Kmiec of Buffalo, New York, the Catholic Church never changes her teachings on any point of doctrine, something will be discussed below in a bit of detail.

Kmiec even irresponsibly contended that the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre had decreed that there had been no valid pope elected since the death of Pope Pius XII. How can one be taken seriously as an "expert" on the Catholic Faith when he cannot get actual facts correct? The Society of Saint Pius X would not be in the untenable situation it is at present (as its "regularization" by the false sect of concilairism is held hostage to the sensitivities and demands of the deniers of the one and only Holocaust, that of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ on the wood of the Holy Cross, that is, the adherents of the Talmud who believe that the only "good" Catholic is one will leave them alone to implement their Christophobic schemes in one nation after another without seeking their conversion to the true Faith) if the Archbishop had indeed permitted himself to come to the logical conclusions about the true state of the Church rather than attempting to negotiate with representatives of the conciliar Vatican that he had said, at least at various points, represented a "schismatic" church.

This is what "Bishop" Kmiec, who once held an "inter-religious" meeting with the Dalai Lama (see Celebrating a unity of faith and my own Happy Dreams of Hollow Men), said when discoursing on Church teaching as he discussed the "theology" of the Society of Saint Pius X:

Over the years and down the centuries, the Catholic Church has changed its views on various issues. One is the ecumenical spirit itself that is now so welcome. Once there was little but animosity among the Christian denominations. Another area that is currently in the news is the case of Galileo Galilei. He is thought of much more benignly now than he was in the 17th century. But a very important characteristic of the Catholic ethos, even when one disagrees, is to think with the Church (sentire cum Ecclesia). Otherwise, each one might go off in his or her preferred direction, thus doing great damage by splintering the Body of Christ. (Page 3 – Bishop Kmiec column.)


You are an apostate, "Bishop" Kmiec. An apostate. The Catholic Church never changes her teaching. Ever. For you to be correct about ecumenism, "Bishop" Kmiec, then each of the popes cited above had to be wrong. God the Holy Ghost misled these popes. God the Holy Ghost is mutable. God the Holy Ghost permits one thing to be said in one era and another in the next. This is a blasphemy, "Bishop" Kmiec." This is apostasy of the highest order. This is in direct and total contradiction of this solemn declaration of the [First] Vatican Council and of Pope Saint Pius X's Oath Against Modernism:

Hence, that meaning of the sacred dogmata is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy Mother Church, and there must never be an abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.... If anyone says that it is possible that at some given time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmata propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has always understood and understands: let him be anathema. [Vatican Council, 1870.]

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. (Pope Saint Pius X, The Oath Against Modernism, September 1, 1910.)


For you to be correct, "Bishop" Kmiec, authorities of the Holy See had to be derelict for centuries in refusing to censor the absolutely consistent efforts of the bishops of the Catholic Church to admonish their children from entering into any form of communication in religious matters with non-Catholics. Bishop George Hay, therefore, was wrong when he wrote the following at the beginning of the Nineteenth Century:

Lastly, the beloved disciple St. John renews the same command in the strongest terms, and adds another reason, which regards all without exception, and especially those who are best instructed in their duty: "Look to yourselves", says he, "that ye lose not the things that ye have wrought, but that you may receive a full reward. Whosoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine the same hath both the Father and the Son. If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, nor say to him, God speed you: for he that saith to him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works". (2 John, ver. 8)

Here, then, it is manifest, that all fellowship with those who have not the doctrine of Jesus Christ, which is "a communication in their evil works" — that is, in their false tenets, or worship, or in any act of religion — is strictly forbidden, under pain of losing the "things we have wrought, the reward of our labors, the salvation of our souls". And if this holy apostle declares that the very saying God speed to such people is a communication with their wicked works, what would he have said of going to their places of worship, of hearing their sermons, joining in their prayers, or the like?

From this passage the learned translators of the Rheims New Testament, in their note, justly observe, "That, in matters of religion, in praying, hearing their sermons, presence at their service, partaking of their sacraments, and all other communicating with them in spiritual things, it is a great and damnable sin to deal with them." And if this be the case with all in general, how much more with those who are well instructed and better versed in their religion than others? For their doing any of these things must be a much greater crime than in ignorant people, because they know their duty better. (Bishop George Hay, The Laws of God Forbidding All Communication in Religion With Those of a False Religion.)


For you to be correct, "Bishop Kmiec, the Mother of God herself had to be wrong when she admonished Pierre Port-Combet as follows on March 25, 1656:

Then the Lady said, "Where does that heretic live who cut the willow tree? Does he not want to be converted?"

Pierre mumbled an answer. The Lady became more serious, "Do you think that I do not know that you are the heretic? Realize that your end is at hand. If you do not return to the True Faith, you will be cast into Hell! But if you change your beliefs, I shall protect you before God. Tell people to pray that they may gain the good graces which, God in His mercy has offered to them."

Pierre was filled with sorrow and shame and moved away from the Lady. Suddenly realizing that he was being rude, Pierre stepped closer to her, but she had moved away and was already near the little hill. He ran after her begging, "Please stop and listen to me. I want to apologize to you and I want you to help me!"

The Lady stopped and turned. By the time Pierre caught up to her, she was floating in the air and was already disappearing from sight. Suddenly, Pierre realized that the Most Blessed Virgin Mary had appeared to him! He fell to his knees and cried buckets of tears, "Jesus and Mary I promise you that I will change my life and become a good Catholic. I am sorry for what I have done and I beg you please, to help me change my life…"

On August 14, 1656, Pierre became very sick. An Augustinian priest came to hear his confession and accepted him back into the Catholic Church. Pierre received Holy Communion the next day on the Feast of the Assumption. After Pierre returned to the Catholic Faith, many others followed him. His son and five daughters came back to the Catholic Church as well as many Calvinists and Protestants. Five weeks later on September 8, 1656, Pierre died and was buried under the miraculous willow tree, just as he had asked. (Our Lady of the Willow Tree.)


No one who believes as "Bishop" Kmiec does is a member of the Catholic Church in good standing. He belongs to a false church. And those in the Society of Saint Pius X who desire to be "recognized" by the authorities of this false church will find that it men such as "Bishop" Mueller in Regensburg, Germany, and men such as "Bishop" Edward Kmiec in Buffalo, New York, will never accept them as "full members" of the One World Church. They will be consigned to a little corner in the One World Church where they will be "tolerated" in some dioceses and excluded from others as organizations such as Focolare and Cursillo and the Neocatechumenal Way and Communion and Liberation and the "Catholic" Charismatic Renewal are welcomed universally and without any reservations or stipulations whatsoever.

Pope Leo XIII, writing in Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896, explained that no one can be a member of the Catholic Church if he dissents from even one item contained in the Deposit of Faith:

Agreement and union of minds is the necessary foundation of this perfect concord amongst men, from which concurrence of wills and similarity of action are the natural results. Wherefore, in His divine wisdom, He ordained in His Church Unity of Faith; a virtue which is the first of those bonds which unite man to God, and whence we receive the name of the faithful - "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Eph. iv., 5). That is, as there is one Lord and one baptism, so should all Christians, without exception, have but one faith. And so the Apostle St. Paul not merely begs, but entreats and implores Christians to be all of the same mind, and to avoid difference of opinions: "I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms amongst you, and that you be perfect in the same mind and in the same judgment" (I Cor. i., 10). Such passages certainly need no interpreter; they speak clearly enough for themselves. Besides, all who profess Christianity allow that there can be but one faith. It is of the greatest importance and indeed of absolute necessity, as to which many are deceived, that the nature and character of this unity should be recognized. And, as We have already stated, this is not to be ascertained by conjecture, but by the certain knowledge of what was done; that is by seeking for and ascertaining what kind of unity in faith has been commanded by Jesus Christ. . . .

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

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

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


As I noted in Singing the Old Songs nearly a year ago now, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI defects from the Catholic Faith in a number of ways. Here are just a few (I do want to get some sleep!):

  1. Ratzinger/Benedict denies the nature of dogmatic truth, cleaving to  philosophically absurd notion that dogmatic truth can never be expressed adequately at any one point in time, that each expression of dogma is necessarily "conditioned" by the historical circumstances in which it was pronounced. Condemned by the [First] Vatican Council, Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907, and The Oath Against Modernism, and by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis, August 12, 1950.
  2. Ratzinger/Benedict believes in an ecclesiology of "full" and "partial" communion that flies in the face of the teaching of the Catholic Church, a teaching documented so well by His Excellency Bishop Donald Sanborn in The New Ecclesiology: An Overview and The New Ecclesiology: Documentation and Communion: Ratzinger's Ecumenical One-World Church).
  3. Ratzinger/Benedict specifically rejects the "ecumenism of the return," thereby making a mockery of the exhortations of one true pope after another for such a return of non-Catholics to the true Church.
  4. Ratzinger/Benedict embraces concilairism's definition of "religious liberty" as he praises the nonexistent ability of false religions to "contribute" to the "betterment" of nations and the world. Condemned by Pope Pius VII in Post Tam Diuturnas, April 29, 1814, Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832, and by Pope Pius IX in Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864.)
  5. Ratzinger/Benedict endorses the "separation of Church and State," a thesis called absolutely false by Pope Saint Pius X in Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906, and rejects the obligation of the civil state to recognize the Catholic Church as its official religion and to pursue the common temporal good in light of man's Last End, an obligation reiterated by pope after pope following the rise of the religiously indifferentist civil state of Modernity.
  6. Ratzinger/Benedict, therefore, falls into the category of a social modernist described by Pope Pius XI in Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922 (see: The Binding Nature of Catholic Social Teaching).
  7. Ratzinger/Benedict has entered one mosque and two synagogues, engaging in acts of apostasy and blasphemy as he, who believes himself to be the Vicar of Christ on earth, has permitted himself to be treated as an inferior as he has treated places of false worship that are hideous to God as worthy of respect, thereby scandalizing His little ones no end.
  8. Ratzinger/Benedict has termed Mount Hiei in Japan, where the adherents of the Tendei sect of Buddhism, worship their devils, as "sacred."
  9. Joseph Ratzinger has long rejected the official philosophy of the Catholic Church, the Scholasticism of Saint Thomas Aquinas, in favor of the condemned precepts of the so-called "New Theology, the subject of an article, The Memories of a Destructive Mind: Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger's Milestones, on a Society of Saint Pius X website that may well "disappear"--along with other "damaging" citations that will have to be removed as part of the conciliar process of "purification of memory"--once a formal "regularization" takes place. (See also: Attempting to Coerce Perjury.)
  10. Ratzinger/Benedict holds to a view of the Doctrine of Justification that, in essence, hinges on the belief that the Fathers of the Council of Trent, who met under the influence and protection of God the Holy Ghost, were wrong (as is explained in Attempting to Coerce Perjury.)


Those who desire to be in "full communion" with such apostasy or to believe that these are merely "private" views of a "pope" that do not "bind" all Catholics will find themselves fighting a never-ending battle to "defend" the truths of the Faith that have been rejected by conciliar "bishops" who believe that the revolutionary named Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who is not, after all, going to live forever, is not "progressive" enough, which shows just how blind these "bishops" are to the objective reality of Joseph Ratzinger's absolute and unwavering commitment to the "Second" Vatican Council and to thwarting the "integralists" dead in their tracks. Those who want to play the role of Sisyphus will do so (see A World of Sisyphuses and It's Still a World of Sisyphuses), oblivious to the simple truth, enunciated so clearly by Pope Leo XIII in Satis Cognitum, that those who fall from the Faith in one thing fall from It in Its entirely and can no longer be considered Catholics.

Others of us, Catholics who are not one whit better than anyone else and who, in many instances (including most especially me!), have many sins for which to make reparation, will continue to cleave to true bishops and true priests in the Catholic catacombs who make no concessions to conciliarism or to the nonexistent legitimacy of its false shepherds, false shepherds who are really ravenous wolves who are controlled by the Talmudic deniers of the one and only Holocaust by which we were redeemed. It took me far, far too long to recognize that I could NOT "recognize and resist" a true pope. I pray that more will come to see the simple truth expressed so clearly by Fathers Francisco and Dominic Radecki, CMRI, in Tumultuous Times:

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

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

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


We will not "win the day" for Holy Mother Church by means of these polemics. Oh, perhaps a soul or two might be motivated into thinking about matters as he prays fervently about them. What we need to remember first and foremost, however, is that we need to be about the business of saving our souls and of attempting to cooperate with the graces won for us by the shedding of every single drop of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ's Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross that flow into our hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces, to scale the heights of personal sanctity on a daily basis by making 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.

We need to be about the business of getting ourselves to true offerings of the Holy Mass that are not "una cum" the false "pontiff" and of spending time, if at all possible, in prayer each day before Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ's Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament.

We need to be about the business of praying more, talking less and of praying as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit.

We need to be about the business of praying more fervently for the Poor Souls in Purgatory each day, remembering that Saint Francis de Sales taught that those who pray for the Poor Souls in the Church Suffering in Purgatory discharge all of their duties of Christian Charity in the process.

We need to be about the business of making a good, integral Confession regularly, if not once a week (if at all possible).

We need to trust in God and His Holy Providence completely and without reservation, remembering these words of Pope Pius XI, contained in Quas Primas, December 11, 1925:

We may well admire in this wonderful wisdom of the Providence of God, Who, ever bringing good out of evil, has from time to time suffered the faith and piety of men to grow weak, and allowed Catholic truth to be attacked by false doctrines, but always with the result that truth has afterwards shone out with greater splendor, and that men’s faith, aroused from its lethargy, has shown itself more vigorous than before . . . . But if the faithful were generally to understand that it behooves them ever to fight courageously under the banner of Christ their King, then, fired with apostolic zeal, they would strive to win over to their Lord those hearts that are bitter and estranged from Him, and would valiantly defend His rights.


We can never be a little "in" and a little "out" of a state of Sanctifying Grace. We can never be a little "in" and a little "out" of the Catholic Church. It is all or nothing.  We are either for the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus or we are not:

These are the precepts, and ceremonies, and judgments, which the Lord your God commanded that I should teach you, and that you should do them in the land into which you pass over to possess it: That thou mayst fear the Lord thy God, and keep all his commandments and precepts, which I command thee, and thy sons, and thy grandsons, all the days of thy life, that thy days may be prolonged. Hear, O Israel, and observe to do the things which the Lord hath commanded thee, that it may be well with thee, and thou mayst be greatly multiplied, as the Lord the God of thy fathers hath promised thee a land flowing with milk and honey. Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole strength. (Deut.6: 1-6.)

O my God, I firmly believe that Thou art one God, in three Divine Persons, Father, Son and Holy Ghost: I believe that Thy Divine Son became Man, and died for our sins, and that He will come to judge the living and the dead.  I believe these and all the truths which the Holy Catholic Church teaches, because Thou hast revealed them, Who canst neither deceive nor be deceivedAmen. (Act of Faith.)


Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!


Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saint Andrew Corsini, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints


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