Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us
March 4, 2011


Accepting "Popes" As Unreliable Teachers

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Defenders of all things conciliar, eager to avoid the conclusion that the counterfeit church of conciliarism is a false ape of the Catholic Church that has been headed by five successive apostates, continue to take sorry refuge in the preposterous contention that the "private" views of the conciliar "popes" that are clearly contrary to the Catholic Faith do not carry any significance for their membership in the Church, less yet for their legitimacy to serve in the capacities that they claim to have had. In light of news stories containing excerpts from Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's self-styled "risky" book, Jesus of Narazreth: Holy Week: From the Entrance Into Jerusalem to the Resurrection, I thought that I would amplify a few points made yesterday in Impressed With His Own Originality.

As I wrote a little over three months ago now,  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. 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! Defenders of all things conciliar tell us repeatedly that he "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."

It is by use of the philosophically absurd and dogmatically condemned "hermeneutic of continuity and discontinuity" that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict has sought to justify one contradiction of Catholic teaching after another, including Holy Mother Church's teaching concerning the supersession of the Old Covenant by the New and Eternal Covenant that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ inaugurated at the Last Supper on Maundy Thursday and ratified by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday as the curtain in the temple was door in two from top to bottom. The tearing of the curtain in the Temple signified the end of the Old Covenant. And it was to manifest the termination of the Old Covenant that Our Lord, giving the very people from whom He took His Most Sacred Humanity, thirty-seven years to listen to the preaching of the Apostles and those who followed them, before He made public the Divine pronouncement on the false religion that had become Judaism as the Jews themselves were punished for their act of Deicide as He Himself prophesied would be the case:

[31] Wherefore you are witnesses against yourselves, that you are the sons of them that killed the prophets. [32] Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. [33] You serpents, generation of vipers, how will you flee from the judgment of hell? [34] Therefore behold I send to you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them you will put to death and crucify, and some you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city: [35] That upon you may come all the just blood that hath been shed upon the earth, from the blood of Abel the just, even unto the blood of Zacharias the son of Barachias, whom you killed between the temple and the altar.

[36] Amen I say to you, all these things shall come upon this generation. [37] Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered together thy children, as the hen doth gather her chickens under her wings, and thou wouldest not? [38] Behold, your house shall be left to you, desolate. [39] For I say to you, you shall not see me henceforth till you say: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

[1] And Jesus being come out of the temple, went away. And his disciples came to shew him the buildings of the temple. [2] And he answering, said to them: Do you see all these things? Amen I say to you there shall not be left here a stone upon a stone that shall not be destroyed. [3] And when he was sitting on mount Olivet, the disciples came to him privately, saying: Tell us when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the consummation of the world? [4] And Jesus answering, said to them: Take heed that no man seduce you: [5] For many will come in my name saying, I am Christ: and they will seduce many. (Matthew 23: 31-39; 24: 1-5.)


An article that appeared on the anti-sedevacantist Tradition in Action website nearly two years ago, following Ratzinger/Benedict's inserting a "prayer" into the Western wall (also known as the "Wailing Wall") that is the only remnant left of the Second Temple that was completed in the year 516 B.C. and renovated by Herod the Great nineteen years before the Nativity of Our Lord, explained the significance of this passage from the Gospel According to Saint Matthew:

As one recalls, the Temple was destroyed as part of the punishment for the crime of Deicide perpetrated by the the Jews - the high priests, scribes and Pharisees together with the people, who asked that the Blood of Jesus Christ, Son of God, fall over them and their offspring - as reported in the Gospels.

After the destruction of the Temple by Titus in the year 70 A.D., one attempt was made by Emperor Julian the Apostate to rebuild that edifice. He meant to destroy the belief that the chastisement was due to the Death of Our Lord. His initiative was prevented by earthquakes and balls of fire falling from the sky that destroyed what had been made and frightened the workers. Julian died in June of 363 during that attempt to rebuild the Temple. Confessing his failure in his struggle against Jesus Christ, he cried out while dying: "Thou hast won, O Galilean!"

After that, no one ever tried to rebuild that cursed edifice.

Benedict XVI, like John Paul II before him, defied the wrath of God when he went to "pray" in that place - purposely ignoring the punishment of God it represents.

In the prayer he wrote, the Pope depicts himself neither as a representative of Jesus Christ, whose Name he did not mention, nor as the Sovereign Pontiff of the Catholic Church, but rather as a self-appointed ambassador of "all who call upon God's name." Ignoring the Passion of Our Lord which He suffered in that very City of Jerusalem, Benedict XVI addressed the "God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob," supposedly the same God of Catholics, Jews and Muslims.  (Benedict defying God's wrath at the Wailing Wall.)

Ratzinger/Benedict does not believe any of this. He must, therefore, cleave to his philosophically absurd and dogmatically condemned "hermeneutic of continuity and discontinuity" (see Nothing Stable, Nothing Secure) to justify a novel "approach" to "people of Israel," as he terms them. He explained this to us in no uncertain terms in his infamous Christmas address to his conciliar curia on December 22, 2005:

It is clear that this commitment to expressing a specific truth in a new way demands new thinking on this truth and a new and vital relationship with it; it is also clear that new words can only develop if they come from an informed understanding of the truth expressed, and on the other hand, that a reflection on faith also requires that this faith be lived. In this regard, the programme that Pope John XXIII proposed was extremely demanding, indeed, just as the synthesis of fidelity and dynamic is demanding.. . .

Thirdly, linked more generally to this was the problem of religious tolerance - a question that required a new definition of the relationship between the Christian faith and the world religions. In particular, before the recent crimes of the Nazi regime and, in general, with a retrospective look at a long and difficult history, it was necessary to evaluate and define in a new way the relationship between the Church and the faith of Israel. (Christmas greetings to the Members of the Roman Curia and Prelature, December 22, 2005)


It is this apostate view of dogmatic truth, condemned by the [First[ Vatican Council and by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominci Gregis (September 8, 1907) and by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis (August 12, 1950), and of the status of the false religion that is Talmudic Judaism in the eyes of the true God of Divine Revelation that has driven the conciliar revolution's agenda on many fronts, including the changes in the conciliar church's versions of the Good Friday Prayer for the Jews. Indeed, Ratzinger/Benedict went so far in 2007 to draft a revision to the Prayer for the Jews once the ancient enemies of Christ the King and His true Church complained about the existence of the version of that prayer that is to be found in the modernized form of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition that is approved for us in the conciliar structures under The Better Mousetrap that is and will always be Summorum Pontificum, July 7, 2007. Ratzinger/Benedict met with the complaining rabbis, listening to their concerns very patiently. He responded to their concerns, only to cause a firestorm when the Christophobes he sought to appease were not pleased with his rewording of that prayer (see An Act That Speaks For Itself, No Lessons Learned After Forty Years of Appeasement and Apostasy, The Great Charade, Defending the Truth is Never Any Kind of Game, High Church, Low Church, Telling the Lost Sheep to Stay Lost, Making Judas Seem Admirable, Wild Cards or Mirror Images?, Forever Prowling the World Seeking the Ruin of Souls, part 1 and Forever Prowling the World Seeking The Ruin of Souls, part 2.)

Although Ratzinger/Benedict feels free to use his absurd, condemned "hermeneutic of continuity and discontinuity" to justify one conciliar apostasy after another (the new ecclesiology, episcopal collegiality, false ecumenism, inter-religious "dialogue" and prayer services, religious liberty, separation of Church and State, the nature of Talmudic Judaism), he is inflexibly dogmatic when he comes to accepting every single detail of the historical record concerning the crimes committed by the diabolical agents of Adolf Hitler's Third Reich as beyond question. Accompanied by his fellow sycophants of Talmudic Judaism in the conciliar "hierarchy," Ratzinger/Benedict went to great lengths to castigate Bishop Richard Williamson of the Society of Saint Pius X, explaining that there is no place for anyone in his false church who dares to put into question any of the historical details of the crimes of the Third Reich (see Those Who Deny The Holocaust, Recognize and Capitulate, As We Forgive Not Those Who Trespass Against Us, Yes, Sir, Master ScribeDisciples of Caiphas, Under The Bus, Nothing New Under the Conciliar Sun, and, among others,"And They That Passed By Blasphemed Him") as the conciliar revolutionaries are given great freedom to put into question almost everything about Catholic teaching prior to the "election" of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII on October 28, 1958.

The "unofficial" and supposedly "private" views of the conciliar "pontiffs" have proved to be a very potent and perverse "catechetical" tool, if you will, to convince Catholics and non-Catholics alike that what appears to be the Catholic Church has "changed" her teaching. This has not gone unnoticed by Talmudists such as the Prime Minister of the State of Israel, Benjamin Nethanyahu, and Rabbi David Rosen, who has participated in numerous meetings with conciliar "popes" and has even been invited to address a soiree in the Vatican about Vatican-Jewish relations (see Wonder No More):

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised Pope Benedict XVI on Thursday for his exoneration of the Jewish people for the death of Jesus Christ.

In Benedict's new book, portions of which were published on Wednesday, he tackles one of the most controversial issues in Christianity, using biblical and theological analysis to discredit the belief that the Jewish people as a whole were responsible for Jesus' death.


Netanyahu sent a message to the pope on Thursday, thanking him for dispelling the belief  "which was used as a basis to hate Jews for hundreds of years."

"It is my hope that this display of clarity and courage will strengthen the relations between Jews and Christians around the world," the prime minister's message stated.

Netanyahu also expressed hope that Benedict's exoneration would "aid the advancement of peace" for generations to come.

Jewish scholars also praised the argument laid out in Benedict's new book. While the Vatican has for five decades taught that Jews weren't collectively responsible, Jewish scholars say that the pope's exoneration would help fight anti-Semitism today.

The prime minister concluded his message to the pope by expressing hope that he would see him in the near future so that he could express his appreciation personally.

Benedict's book is the second installment to Jesus of Nazareth, his first book as pope, which offered a very personal meditation on the early years of Christ's life and teachings. This second installment, set to be released March 10, concerns the second half of Christ's life, his death and resurrection. (Netanyahu praises Benedict pope for exonerating Jews for death of Jesus .)

Rabbi  David Rosen, head of interreligious affairs at the American Jewish Committee and a leader of Vatican-Jewish dialogue, said the pope's book may make a bigger, more lasting mark than Nostra Aetate because the faithful tend to read Scripture and commentary more than church documents, particularly old church documents.

"It may be an obvious thing for Jews to present texts with commentaries, but normally with church magisterium, they present a document," he said. "This is a pedagogical tool that he's providing, so people will be able to interpret the text in keeping with orthodox Vatican teaching."

[Abraham] Foxman [the national director of the infamous Anti-Defamation League of B'Nai Brith who frothed at the mouth seven years ago upon the release of The Passion of The Christ] put it another way, saying the pontiff's book translates Nostra Aetate "down to the pews." (Benedict exonerates Jews for Jesus' death in new book.)


Actually, of course, the conciliar revolutionaries and their Talmudic masters overstate greatly the existence of any residual belief in the authentic Catholic teaching concerning the false nature of Judaism and the necessity of seeking the conversion of those who are steeped in these false religion, composed of so many activists who have used the political, educational, cultural and legal systems to make unrelenting war upon the Catholic Faith as many of them have made millions upon millions of dollars for doing so. A very large percentage of Catholics attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism have lost enough of the sensus Catholicus to have accepted without complaint or even a moment's doubt the validity of false religions, including Talmudic Judaism, as instruments of pleasing God and thus of saving souls. Such Catholics do not need a new "unofficial" book from their "pope" to be reaffirmed in beliefs and attitudes that have been taught and reinforced for over five decades now by the words and deeds of the conciliar "popes," including by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's appearance in synagogues and his constant words of praise for Talmudic Judaism.

The conciliar revolutionaries and their Talmudic masters live in an artificial world of their own construction, conjuring up imaginary enemies to justify their symbiotic relationship when the truth of the matter is that most Catholics in the conciliar structures have accepted the conciliar church's apostasies concerning Judaism with perfect equanimity. The conciliar revolutionaries and their Talmudic masters must conjure up "anti-Semites" in order to have their patently false rationale that there is a "need" to "re-educate" the unwashed Catholic masses who have not yet been "enlightened" by the ethos of the "Second" Vatican Council and the "magisterium" of the conciliar "popes."

Obviously, the conciliar revolutionaries and their Talmud masters believe that it is to be "anti-Semitic" to adhere to the immutable teaching of the Catholic Church concerning the disfavor in which Talmudic Judaism is held by God, those who believe that it is necessary to seek with urgency the conversion of all non-Catholics, including Jews to the true Church, those who understand that the Jews of Our Lord's time knew full well what they were doing just as their Talmudic successors today know full well what they are doing today in seeking to silence ordinary Catholics in the conciliar structures lest they be branded as "anti-Semitic."

Relentlessly pressing forth with the agenda of a revolution he helped to plan and to implement, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is bound and determined to rewrite the entirety of Catholic history and dogma to justify the Modernist propositions he learned from his mentors, each of whom was trained in the New Theology that was condemned by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis, August 12, 1950. This is why the false "pontiff" wants to reinforce the teaching of the "Second" Vatican Council's Nostra Aetate, October 28, 1965, and this is why he is continuing to distort, pervert and misrepresent the lives and work of various Fathers and Doctors and saints, including most recently Saint Robert Bellarmine and Saint Francis de Sales, to make them appear to be precursors of his own revolutionary agenda. He has done this even with Saint Paul the Apostle (see Attempting to Coerce Perjury). He has done this also with various doctrines, including that of Purgatory (see From Sharp Focus to Fuzziness.) Indeed, the "pope" started off the year with yet another attempt to justify the falsehood of "religious liberty" (see Another Year of the Same Conciliar Apostasy, part one, Another Year of the Same Conciliar Apostasy, part two and Another Year of the Same Conciliar Apostasy, part three), using this as a springboard to announce plans for Assisi III (see Bearing "Fruits" From Hell Itself, part one, Bearing "Fruits" From Hell Itself, part 2 and Not Interested in Assisi III.)

Ratzinger/Benedict does not realize the extent to which his conciliar revolution has been successful in wiping out the sensus Catholicus of a large percentage of those Catholics who are attached to the structures of his false church in the erroneous belief that they are being "loyal" to the "pope." His relentlessness in pressing forth the conciliar agenda seems to stem from a desire to convince every Catholic, especially those who are traditionally-minded, that conciliarism can be "reconciled" with Catholicism. Imagine if this poor man had such zeal for the true Catholic Faith! He has great zeal for the one world religion represented by conciliarism.

One of the great tricks of the devil has been to use the zeal for falsehood possessed by the conciliar "popes" and their "bishops" to convince the relative handful of Catholics who do see falsehood for what it is that a regime of "papal" error does not represent the onset of a general state of apostasy that cannot have anything to do with the Catholic Church. This makes a mockery of the papacy and of the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. This makes a mockery of Catholicism by mocking the immutability of God Himself.

Even though Pope Leo XIII taught in the much-quoted Paragraph Nine of Satis Cognitum that those who defect from the Faith in one thing defect from It in Its entirety and are no longer members of the Catholic Church (see appendix below), some traditionally-minded Catholics believe that men who they view as legitimate and valid Successors of Saint Peter and Vicars of Our Lord Jesus Christ can be possessed of such a welter of mental errors as to make them unreliable teachers of the Faith. Many Catholics--and I was one of them for a time--who are traditionally-minded and who abhor the conciliar novelties, including the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service, believe that they can just dismiss "unofficial" or "private" views of "popes" on matters pertaining to Faith and Morals, making themselves, whether they intend it or not, as something of a "super-magisterium" who can sift through the words and actions of true popes to determine their Catholicity while clinging to the delusional fiction that men who defect from the Faith in one thing have retained It at all.

Men who are true and legitimate Successors of Saint Peter and Vicars of Jesus Christ on earth are not possessed of a welter of mental errors on matters that have been defined by the teaching authority of Holy Mother Church and/or are part of her Ordinary Magisterium. They do not issue "private" books replete with personal speculation, such as that contained in Ratzinger/Benedict's Light of the World book-length interview with German journalist Peter Seewald (see (If Them, Why Not Others?, Let the Olympic Games of Absurdity Begin!, Razing The Last Bastions, Nothing New Under Benedict's Sun,Words and Actions Without Consequences and Making a Mockery of Catholicism). They do not esteem the symbols of false religions or enter into the places of false worship, no less call them "sacred." None of this is from God. Each of this is from the devil himself.

But what about Pope John XXII'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. We have had a long day on the road--and off of the road yet again (penance is better than ever in 2011)--as we head north following my recovery from my frostbitten toes and cracked fingers. I must get some sleep!

In the midst of the incredible apostasy and blithe acceptance of it as something to be expected, mind you, from true popes, 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, which did indeed transcend time and served to help to motivate the Jews of Our Lord's day to cry out for His Crucifixion just as we mock Him by means of our disordered self-love and stubborn refusal to obey His Commandments, 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 last year 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.

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 less 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.)

Appendix B

A 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."

Appendix C

Paragraph Nine of Pope Leo XIII's Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896

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

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

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

Appendix D

Sedevacantism Not Possible, Not a Doctrine of the Catholic Church?

There are some who keep insisting that God would "never allow" the See of Peter to be vacant for an extended period of time, a contention that has been refuted very well by Father Martin Stepanich, O.F.M., S.T.D., in An Objection to Sedevacantism: 'Perpetual Successors' to Peter.

Other anti-sedevacantists contend that sedevacantism is "opposed" to the teaching of the Catholic Church. Really? If this is so, my friends, why did a conciliar "cardinal," the late Mario Francesco "Cardinal" Pompedda, who headed what is, in effect, the "supreme court" of the Holy See, the Apostolic Signatura, from 1997 to 2004, admit that the See of Peter would be vacant in the case of heresy?

It is true that the canonical doctrine states that the see would be vacant in the case of heresy. ... But in regard to all else, I think what is applicable is what judgment regulates human acts. And the act of will, namely a resignation or capacity to govern or not govern, is a human act. (Cardinal Says Pope Could Govern Even If Unable to Speak, Zenit, February 8, 2005.)


Admittedly, "Cardinal" Pompedda, who was the head of the counterfeit church of concilairism's Apostolic Signatura from 1997 to 2004, did not admit the canonical-doctrinal truth of sedevacantism applied during the "pontificate" of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II. Unlike what many traditionally-minded Catholics have heard from the theologians of the Society of Saint Pius X, however, Pompedda was intellectually honest enough to admit that sedevacantism is indeed a part of the canonical doctrine of the Catholic Church. Only a handful of Catholics, priests and laity alike, accepted this doctrine and recognized that it applied in our circumstances in the aftermath of the "Second" Vatican Council. I was not one of them.

Indeed, officials within the Society of Saint Pius X, including Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who was alive at the time, denied with vehemence the claim that t the archbishop had signed Dignitatis Humanae after voting against it even though Father Brian Harrison, O.S., who is very much opposed to sedevacantism, had presented proof that the archbishop had in fact done so (see Marcel Lefebvre: Signatory to Dignitatis Humanae.) It is the Society's way or the highway even when cold, hard facts are presented to point out how various statements and positions of its officials are contrary to the truth.

For the Society's theologians to be correct about sedevacantism, then it must be the case that Mario Francesca Pompedda, who is now deceased, did not know what in the world he was talking about in 2005. For this to be so, of course, a logical person would have to ask why a curial "cardinal" in what is the Society's leaders believe to be the Catholic Church would admit that sedevacantism is a canonical doctrine of the Catholic Church. Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is not the only one who lives in a world of positivism, contradiction and paradox, remaining stone faced in the face of the facts that are presented to him. (See Chastisements Under Which We Must Save Our Souls, part three.)






© Copyright 2011, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.