Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us

               December 2, 2012


All Together Now:

Go Right Ahead, Gerhard, Make Our Day

by Thomas A. Droleskey

The conciliar revolutionaries must really love the information that is provided on this website as they keep making public pleas for me to reiterate points that I have made in hundreds upon hundreds of earlier articles so that I can apply them to fit the circumstances of more recently made comments of theirs.

This is indeed quite a service to the "vast" readership of this site as even regular readers may forget what they have read and, lacking a site index, newer readers may never find material such as that contained in this particular commentary.

One would think that such an expression of gratitude to the enemies of Christ the King and enemies of the souls who were redeemed by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross would ingratiate me to them. Au contraire, it appears. Au contraire.

Quite indeed, Gerhard Ludwig Muller, the prefect of the Occupy Vatican Movement's so-called Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, is saying all kinds of nasty thing about those of us who state clearly and without equivocation that the "Second" Vatican Council and the "magisterium" of the conciliar "popes" are in direct contradiction to the perennial, immutable teaching of the Catholic Church. Those who believe in a rupture between the teaching of the Catholic Church and its counterfeit ape, the counterfeit church of conciliarism, Muller believes, are "heretics." My, my, I did not know that the conciliar revolutionaries even believed in such a "preconciliar" term.. Is Muller suffering from a case of "preconciliar" "rigidity"? Will he have to have his "spirits pacified" as a result of using this "harsh" and "judgmental" term?

Well, here is a report of what Muller said at a conference in Rome two days ago now as he presented what is called Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict' XVI's Opera Omnia, a collection of the Modernist-in-Chief's writings that he, Muller, had edited at his "pope's" specific request:

Those who consider the Second Vatican Council, or Vatican II, to be a break from Church Tradition, offer a “heretical interpretation” of this great ecclesiastical event. And this doctrinal error is not made only by modernist innovators: it is also committed by neo-traditionalists who believe that Vatican II supposedly turned its back on the “traditional Church”. The suggestion that the traditionalist position may have “heretical” elements was made yesterday evening by Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller, current Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. His remarks came during the presentation of volume VII of the German edition of Joseph Ratzinger’s “Opera Omnia”, a systematic collection of all the works which the theologian-turned-Pope dedicated to the Council and the documents that came out of it. The presentation took place in a very evocative place: the Teutonic College of Santa Maria dell'Anima which was expert-theologian Joseph Ratzinger’s logistical base during the Council sessions.

During his presentation, the head of the doctrinal dicastery, clearly stated that the only orthodox interpretation of the Second Vatican Council is that which sees it as an opportunity for reform and renewal, in continuity with the one subject-Church which the Lord has given us. Müller sees this as the only hermeneutics that respects “the indissoluble unity between the Holy Scriptures, the complete and integral Tradition and the Magisterium, which finds its highest expression in the Council, presided over by St. Peter’s Successor, as visible head of the Church.”

Archbishop Müller contrasted this “singular orthodox interpretation” with a “heretical interpretation” which he identified with “the hermeneutics of a split, both on the progressivist front and the traditionalist front.” According to Müller, what they both share in common is a rejection of the Council: “progressivists want to leave it behind them, as if it were just a phase that should be abandoned in order to move towards a different Church; traditionalists do not want to move towards such a Church, as if it represented the winter of the Catholica.”

In his speech, the former bishop of Regensburg described the contribution of Joseph Ratzinger, first as a theologian during the actual Council meetings (as a theological advisor to Cardinal Joseph Frings also) and then during the long and turbulent reception phase of the conciliar teachings. “It was a time of great expectation. Something big had to happen,” Benedict XVI wrote in the preface to the German volume presented by Müller. (The custodian of false faith of conciliarism on the “heretical interpretations” of the "Second" Vatican Council.)

Leaving aside the fact that the man who repackaged Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II's "living tradition," which was itself a repackaging of the condemned Modernist principle of the "evolution of dogma," as the "hermeneutic of continuity" referred to the liturgical "fruit" of the "Second" Vatican Council, the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service, as a "rupture" until he decided that it was not a rupture (see appendix below), there is the recently disclosed (and entirely unsurprising)  testimony of none other than Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII himself convened the "Second" Vatican Council precisely to be a rupture with Pope Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors, December 8, 1864, and the [First] Vatican Council that had been convened by the same Pope Pius IX:


As part of the commemorations of the 50th anniversary of the Council that started in October and will continue through the “Year of Faith,” L’Osservatore Romano, the Vatican’s principal daily organ, has been publishing articles on this topic. Today, I want to bring to the attention of my readers an article by Marco Roncalli titled “Vatican II in Exhibition” (October 10, 2012, p. 4). In it the writer presents an overview of the one-week exhibit in Bergamo, the city where John XXIII was born and raised.

The show was directed by Fr. Enzio Bollis, counted on the full support of the Diocese and was an initiative of the Pope John XXIII Foundation. It displayed normally inaccessible manuscripts and documents that sleep in the archives of the Foundation and were shown to the public for the first time. All the exhibits were related to the pontificate of Pope Roncalli.

Vatican II was convened explicitly against Vatican I

Among these documents was a note by Msgr. Loris Capovilla, secretary of John XXIII in which, on behalf of the Pope, he gave instructions for the redaction of the Bull Humanae salutis, the bull that convened the Council. On the text typed by Capovilla, there are side notes handwritten by John XXIII himself. It is clearly affirmed in this text, Marco Roncalli assures us, that the Pope did not desire to follow the course of Vatican I because “neither in its substance nor in its form would it correspond to the present day situation.” We also see a rebuttal of the Church’s position on the temporal order taught by Pius IX, because now, the note emphasizes, “the Church demonstrates that she wants to be mater et magistra [mother and teacher].”

This revelation is, in my opinion, an extraordinary confirmation that John XXIII did not want any continuity with the previous Ecumenical Council convened and directed by Pius IX. When he affirmed that Vatican II must not follow Vatican I “either in its substance or in its form,” he was saying that it should be completely different; this is not far from saying that it should be the opposite.

Indeed, to say that the substance should be different means that the doctrine defended must be different. To say that the form should be different means that the militant character of Vatican I’s documents must be avoided. Incidentally, the reason alleged to explain a change in the Church’s position regarding the world - that now she wants to be mother and teacher - confirms that he wanted Vatican II to steer clear of the militant spirit of Vatican I.

One of the common policies of the Vatican after 1975 - when a strong reaction against the Council became public and accelerated - has been to try to link Vatican II to Vatican I in order to give legitimacy to the former. It was for this reason that John Paul II beatified John XXIII together with Pius IX. This is also why we sometimes see the Vatican adopting “conservative” measures. And it is for this same reason that Benedict XVI is now insisting on the “ hermeneutics of continuity.” The goal of all these initiatives is to pretend the Council was not what it really was: a planned revolution in the Catholic Church that intended to destroy her and replace her with another completely different Church.

We have to thank Divine Providence for allowing the aforementioned article to be published in L’Osservatore Romano, thereby giving us a precious weapon to rebuff this insidious maneuver to save the Council by interpreting its multiple errors according to the previous doctrine of the Church. Is it possible to interpret the Non serviam of Satan under the light of the Quis ut Deus? of St. Michael? (Atila Sinka Guimaraes, John XXIII wanted a rupture with the past.)

This is interesting documentation, something that is very useful to have as ammunition against Gerhard Ludwig Müller. However, it is not "news" as Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII's Modernism before and after his "election" on October 28, 1958, has been very well documented.

Indeed, the corpulent Roncalli/John XXIII, who made sure that his body was preserved with a strong formula of preservatives so as to make it appear that it was incorrupt as a result of his "sanctity," explained at the opening of the "Second" Vatican Council on October 11, 1962, the Feast of the Divine Maternity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, that he was taking a "different" path than that which had been trod by Holy Mother Church from time of the descent of God the Holy Ghost upon the Apostles and our dear Blessed Mother and the others who were assembled on Pentecost Sunday in the same Upper Room in Jerusalem where Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ had instituted the Holy Priesthood and the Holy Eucharist fifty-three days before at the Last Supper on Maundy Thursday:

In these days, which mark the beginning of this Second Vatican Council, it is more obvious than ever before that the Lord's truth is indeed eternal. Human ideologies change. Successive generations give rise to varying errors, and these often vanish as quickly as they came, like mist before the sun.

The Church has always opposed these errors, and often condemned them with the utmost severity. Today, however, Christ's Bride prefers the balm of mercy to the arm of severity. She believes that, present needs are best served by explaining more fully the purport of her doctrines, rather than by publishing condemnations.

Contemporary Repudiation Of Godlessness

Not that the need to repudiate and guard against erroneous teaching and dangerous ideologies is less today than formerly. But all such error is so manifestly contrary to rightness and goodness, and produces such fatal results, that our contemporaries show every inclination to condemn it of their own accord—especially that way of life which repudiates God and His law, and which places excessive confidence in technical progress and an exclusively material prosperity. It is more and more widely understood that personal dignity and true self-realization are of vital importance and worth every effort to achieve. More important still, experience has at long last taught men that physical violence, armed might, and political domination are no help at all in providing a happy solution to the serious problems which affect them.

A Loving Mother

The great desire, therefore, of the Catholic Church in raising aloft at this Council the torch of truth, is to show herself to the world as the loving mother of all mankind; gentle, patient, and full of tenderness and sympathy for her separated children. To the human race oppressed by so many difficulties, she says what Peter once said to the poor man who begged an alms: "Silver and gold I have none; but what I have, that I give thee. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, arise and walk." In other words it is not corruptible wealth, nor the promise of earthly happiness, that the Church offers the world today, but the gifts of divine grace which, since they raise men up to the dignity of being sons of God, are powerful assistance and support for the living of a more fully human life. She unseals the fountains of her life-giving doctrine, so that men, illumined by the light of Christ, will understand their true nature and dignity and purpose. Everywhere, through her children, she extends the frontiers of Christian love, the most powerful means of eradicating the seeds of discord, the most effective means of promoting concord, peace with justice, and universal brotherhood. (Angelo Roncalli/ John XXIII 's Opening Address)

Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII's belief that errors "often vanish as quickly as they came, like mist before sun" was and remains delusional. This is not a statement in accord with an authentic history of the Catholic Church. Errors have had to be exposed and fought by a multiplicity of means (prayer, fasting, sacrifice, penance, suffering, martyrdom and copious verbal and written condemnations.). Our Lady gave the Rosary to Saint Dominic de Guzman to be a weapon he could use in his preaching against the Albingensians, the forerunners of the Jansenists whose disciples persecuted then Sister Margaret Mary Alacoque so very much because of the revelations given to her by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ about the secrets contained in His Most Sacred Heart. Errors must be exposed and opposed.

Gerhard Ludwig Muller, who has put into question the dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary as defined and taught by Holy Mother Church (see Deft? Daft Is More Like It, part two, Daft? Deft Is More Like It, part three, Does The Defense of Catholic Truth Matter To You?, When Will The Madness End?, part one and Memo To Bishop Fellay: Ratzinger/Benedict Really, Really, Really, Really, Really Loves Gerhard Ludwig Muller), wants us to close our eyes to the facts and simply accept the assurances provided by his false church that the "Second" Vatican Council and the "magisterium" of the conciliar "popes" have taught orthodox Catholic doctrine that does not constitute any kind of rupture with the past. Whatever apparent rupture exists is the the result, contends Muller, echoing Ratzinger/Benedict, of a failure to accept the "hermeneutic of continuity's" premise that truth can never expressed in human language adequately in all of it varied aspects at any one time, which is why it is "necessary" to examine the historical circumstances that gave rise to dogmatic formulations and various papal pronouncements in order to "see" that "adjustments" to such formulations and statements are necessary to be made from time to time.

Apart from being philosophically absurd and dogmatically condemned, the "hermeneutic of continuity" is a work of blasphemy against God the the Holy Ghost, Who guided infallibly each and every true general council of the Catholic Church and thus it was under His holy inspiration that the Fathers of those councils made the formulations that they did, never deviating from the other as God Himself is immutable.

No rupture?

The evidence is vast.

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI himself noted in of those works that is undoubtedly part of the "collected" works edited by Gerhard Ludwig Müller, Principles of Catholic Theology, the Gaudium et Spes, December 7, 1965, was meant to serve as a "countersyllabus of errors," something, of course, that the former "Second" Vatican Council peritus knew very well was the exact goal of the man who convened it into session, Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII:


Let us be content to say here that the text [of Gaudium et Spes] serves as a countersyllabus and, as such, represents on the part of the Church, an attempt at an official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789. Only from this perspective can we understand, on the one hand, the ghetto-mentality, of which we have spoken above; only from this perspective can we understand, on the other hand, the meaning of the remarkable meeting of the Church and the world. Basically, the word "world" means the spirit of the modern era, in contrast to which the Church's group-consciousness saw itself as a separate subject that now, after a war that had been in turn both hot and cold, was intent on dialogue and cooperation. (Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, p. 382.)

The then Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger went in that book to state that one of goals of the "council" has been to "tear down the bastions" of the Faith in order to effect a "reconciliation" the world:


Does this mean that the Council should be revoked? Certainly not. It means only that the real reception of the Council has not yet even begun. What devastated the Church in the decade after the Council was not the Council but the refusal to accept it. This becomes clear precisely in the history of the influence of Gaudium et spes. What was identified with the Council was, for the most part, the expression of an attitude that did not coincide with the statements to be found in the text itself, although it is recognizable as a tendency in its development and in some of its individual formulations. The task is not, therefore, to suppress the Council but to discover the real Council and to deepen its true intention in the light of the present experience. That means that there can be no return to the Syllabus, which may have marked the first stage in the confrontation with liberalism and a newly conceived Marxism but cannot be the last stage. In the long run, neither embrace nor ghetto can solve for Christians the problem of the modern world. The fact is, as Hans Urs von Balthasar pointed out as early as 1952, that the "demolition of the bastions" is a long-overdue task. (Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, p. 391.)

How can a claim that there has been "no rupture" with the Catholic Church's immemorial have any credibility whatsoever teaching when one of the "long-overdue" tasks of what is believed, falsely, to be the Catholic Church is the "demolition of the bastions" that have fortified the Catholic faithful against the errors of the world, the flesh and the devil?

Always Those Noxious Devices

Pope Saint Pius X explained that Modernists use many different devices to mask their heresies and errors so as to confuse the faithful with contradiction, ambiguity and paradox into accept what the sensus Catholicus informs them is contrary to the Holy Faith and thus to the honor and glory of the Most Blessed Trinity and to the good of souls:


Moreover, they lay the ax not to the branches and shoots, but to the very root, that is, to the faith and its deepest fibers. And once having struck at this root of immortality, they proceed to diffuse poison through the whole tree, so that there is no part of Catholic truth which they leave untouched, none that they do not strive to corrupt. Further, none is more skillful, none more astute than they, in the employment of a thousand noxious devices; for they play the double part of rationalist and Catholic, and this so craftily that they easily lead the unwary into error; and as audacity is their chief characteristic, there is no conclusion of any kind from which they shrink or which they do not thrust forward with pertinacity and assurance. To this must be added the fact, which indeed is well calculated to deceive souls, that they lead a life of the greatest activity, of assiduous and ardent application to every branch of learning, and that they possess, as a rule, a reputation for irreproachable morality. Finally, there is the fact which is all but fatal to the hope of cure that their very doctrines have given such a bent to their minds, that they disdain all authority and brook no restraint; and relying upon a false conscience, they attempt to ascribe to a love of truth that which is in reality the result of pride and obstinacy.

Once indeed We had hopes of recalling them to a better mind, and to this end We first of all treated them with kindness as Our children, then with severity; and at last We have had recourse, though with great reluctance, to public reproof. It is known to you, Venerable Brethren, how unavailing have been Our efforts. For a moment they have bowed their head, only to lift it more arrogantly than before. If it were a matter which concerned them alone, We might perhaps have overlooked it; but the security of the Catholic name is at stake. Wherefore We must interrupt a silence which it would be criminal to prolong, that We may point out to the whole Church, as they really are, men who are badly disguised. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

This is the exact methodology that the conciliar revolutionaries have used to deceive, bewilder and bedazzle the faithful to distrust the sensus Catholicus that is theirs as a result of their Baptism and to trust in their (the revolutionaries') "expertise" and in their display of what appears to be a "superior" grasp of the Holy Faith. It is the exact methodology  that Ratzinger/Benedict has employed in each of the three volumes entitled Jesus of Nazareth, including his last entry, Jesus of Nazareth: The Infancy Narratives (see Does This Man Give Any Thought To His Particular Judgment?).

To be very exact as one must when attempting to write about a man who does indeed use a thousand noxious devices to place his drops of poison into the souls of Catholics, the following passage from Pope Saint Pius X's Pascendi Dominci Gregis explains, to cite just one passage in Jesus of Nazareth: The Infancy Narratives the false "pontiff's" newest "unofficial" book, how Ratzinger/Benedict used an eloquent account of the angels speaking to the shepherds on Christmas morning as the means to soften up his readers to accept his rejection of Saint Jerome's translation of their message (Glory be to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men of good will) and the "bad theology" it represents:


This will appear more clearly to anybody who studies the conduct of Modernists, which is in perfect harmony with their teachings. In their writings and addresses they seem not unfrequently to advocate doctrines which are contrary one to the other, so that one would be disposed to regard their attitude as double and doubtful. But this is done deliberately and advisedly, and the reason of it is to be found in their opinion as to the mutual separation of science and faith. Thus in their books one finds some things which might well be approved by a Catholic, but on turning over the page one is confronted by other things which might well have been dictated by a rationalist. When they write history they make no mention of the divinity of Christ, but when they are in the pulpit they profess it clearly; again, when they are dealing with history they take no account of the Fathers and the Councils, but when they catechize the people, they cite them respectfully. In the same way they draw their distinctions between exegesis which is theological and pastoral and exegesis which is scientific and historical. So, too, when they treat of philosophy, history, and criticism, acting on the principle that science in no way depends upon faith, they feel no especial horror in treading in the footsteps of Luther and are wont to display a manifold contempt for Catholic doctrines, for the Holy Fathers, for the Ecumenical Councils, for the ecclesiastical magisterium; and should they be taken to task for this, they complain that they are being deprived of their liberty. Lastly, maintaining the theory that faith must be subject to science, they continuously and openly rebuke the Church on the ground that she resolutely refuses to submit and accommodate her dogmas to the opinions of philosophy; while they, on their side, having for this purpose blotted out the old theology, endeavor to introduce a new theology which shall support the aberrations of philosophers. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

Yes, yes, yes! A "new theology" to blot out the "old theology."

This is precisely what Ratzinger/Benedict did in the following passage from Jesus of Nazareth: The Infancy Narratives in order to "introduce" an defend a "new theology" immediately thereafter:

Let us return to the text of the Christmas story. The angel of the Lord appears to the shepherds and the glory of the or shines around them. "They were filled with fear" (Lk 2:9). But the angel takes away their fear and announces to them "a great joy, which will come to all the people' for to you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, who is Christ the Lord (Lk 2:10f.). They are told as a sign they will find a child wrapped in swaddling cloths and lying in a manger.

"And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude  of the heavenly host praising God saying, 'Glory to God in the highest, an on earth peace among men with whom he is pleased'" (Lk 2:12-14). According to the evangelist, the angels "said" this. But Christianity has always understood that the speech o angels is actually song, in which all the glory of the great joy that they proclaim becomes tangibly present. And so, from that moment, the angels' song of praise has never gone silent. It continues down the centuries in constantly new forms and it resounds ever new at the celebration of Jesus' birth. It is only natural that simple believers would hear the shepherds singing too, and to this day they join in their caroling on the Holy Night, proclaiming in song the great joy that, from then until the end of time, is bestowed on all the people.

What was it, though, according to Saint Luke's account that the angels sang? They link God's glory "in the highest" with peace among men "on earth." The Church has taken up these words and crafted an entire hymn from them. In matters of detail, one has to admit, there is disagreement over how best to translates the angels' words. (Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth: The Infancy Narratives, pp. 73-74.)


The succeeding passage is where the false "pontiff" introduced his "new theology" in the most clever of ways, claiming that a "better" translation had been found that more "accurately" describes the relationship between God's grace and human free will:


The familiar Latin text was until recently rendered thus: "Glory be to God on high and on earth peace to men of good will." This translation has been been rejected by modern exegetes--not without reason--as one-sided and moralizing. "God's glory" is not something to be brought about by men ("Glory be to God"). The "glory" of God is real, God is glorious, and this is truly a reason for joy: there is truth, there is goodness, there is beauty. It is there--in God--indestructibly. (Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth: The Infancy Narratives, p. 74.)

Let me reprise what I wrote two days ago now:


Whose "familiar Latin text" was this? Saint Jerome's. So much for the Council of Trent. So much for Pope Leo XIII. So much for Pope Benedict XV. So much for Pope Pius XII. Another wave of the "papal" hand does away with firm assurances of the reliability of Saint Jerome's Vulgate Bible from a dogmatic council and no less than three popes, among so many others.

Whose "translation" does Ratzinger/Benedict prefer? The conference of conciliar "bishops" in the Federal Republic of Germany (see Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth: The Infancy Narratives, pp. 74-75 for an extended discussion of the "theology" behind this translation).

Whatever happened to Saint Ignatius of Loyola's "For the greater honor and glory of God" (Ad majorem Dei gloriam)?

Yes, mere creatures do render unto God the glory that is His due.

As I have written an commentary about Ratzinger/Benedict's "insights" on this matter that he provided at the Midnight offering of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service in the Basilica of Saint Peter on December 25, 2010, there is need at this point only to refer you to that commentary, To Men of Good Will, something that saves me a bit of work now, although I am sure that others will comment more extensively on the "theology" behind Ratzinger/Benedict's rejection of "Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace to men of good will" that plays an important part in "new theology" that is at the root of the "Second" Vatican Council and the "magisterium" of the conciliar "pontiffs."

A little bit of Catholicism followed by a few drops of poison. That is the method that Ratzinger/Benedict has used throughout the course of his "scholarly" career and it is why he was suspect of heresy during the final years of the pontificate of Pope Pius XII.

No rupture? Just take a look at the contrast between Ratzinger/Benedict's words and deeds since April 18, 2005, and the teaching of the Catholic Church as found in  Appendices B and C below.

Living in a Fantasy World of Positivism

Although Gerhard Ludwig Muller is entirely correct when asserting that Catholics within his false church must accept the teaching of the "Second" Vatican Council as being in conformity with Tradition because it had been convened by a man he believes was a true pope and closed the the latter's immediate successor as the Catholic Church cannot give us ambiguity, error or falsehood in any of her doctrines, it is the false teaching of the council, convened by a man who wanted to annual the past, that proves the work of the "Second" Vatican Council was not the work of the Catholic Church.

That is, the claim that the Catholic Church gave us the "teaching" of the "Second" Vatican Council and the "magisterium"of the conciliar "popes" is to assert that we must live in a fantasy world of positivism (a statement is true because it has been asserted as true even though it flies in the face of reason and factual evidence) in order to deny the plain contradictions that exist, starting with the "hermeneutic of continuity" itself, which was been dogmatically condemned. The breach, the rupture if you will, begins with the cornerstone of concilairism (see the material in What Lines Are You Reading Between, Bishop Fellay?) for a refresher on the proof that I provide of this truth, which includes a listing of how the false "pontiff" is content to leave non-Catholics in their false religions without seeking with urgency the unconditional conversion of all non-Catholics to the true Church. The only "heretics" these days are those Catholics who, despite their own sins and failings, adhere to the totality of the immutable teaching of the Catholic Church and thus serve as a reproach to the shameless revolutionaries of conciliarism.

Thus, if Gerhard Ludwig Muller means to threaten those of us who refuse to live in his fantasy world of positivism while his false church maintains one pro-abortion, pro-perversity Catholic in public life in nation after nation around the world, including here in the United States of America, in "good standing," I think I speak for most of this readership when saying: "Go right ahead, Gerhard, make my day" (and I have never seen any of the Dirty Harry motion pictures, thank you very much.)

A Few Final Observations

Where is the precedent for this denial of the nature of dogmatic truth in the history of the Catholic Church?


Where is this callous disregard for the salvation of souls to be found prior to October 28, 1958?


This is all--every single last bit of it--without any precedent in the history of the Catholic Church. Although anti-sedevacantists like to disparage the canonical teaching of the Church, reiterated by a conciliar "cardinal," Mario Francesco Pompedda, shortly before John Paul II's death on April 1 or 2, 2005, by noting that a papal vacancy of half a century is without precedent and that it is to defy the teaching of the [First] Vatican Council that Saint Peter has perpetual successors to assert that this is so (see An Objection to Sedevacantism: 'Perpetual Successors' to Peter). Well, my friends, none of what has been documented above is without any kind of precedent in the history of the Church. And to continue to indemnify the conciliar "popes" as legitimate successors of Saint Peter is to assert that the Catholic Church can give us defective liturgies or liturgies that can can give rise to unprecedented acts of impiety and sacrilege and that popes can teach error when they are not defining a doctrine ex cathedra. This is simply not so.


The Catholic Church can never give us any liturgy that is in any way defective or that is an incentive to impiety or that can be used a means of institutionalizing gross offenses to God. Who says so? The Council of Trent:


CANON VII.--If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema. (Session Twenty-Two, Chapter IX, Canon VII, Council of Trent, September 17, 1562, CT022.; here is but a sampling of a few of the articles on this subject in the past fifteen months or so, please see With Perfection Staring Directly At Them, Turning Perfection Aside For A More Perfect Banality, Taking The Obvious For Granted, Enough Spin To Make Our Heads Spin, Calling Cesar Romero, Calling Cesar Romero, part two, Transforming the Extraordinary Into the Ordinary, The Better Mousetrap and "Cardinals" Burke and Canizares, Meet The Council of Trent.)

Quite despite what has been contended by leaders of the Society of Saint Pius X, although errors have existed to a greater or lesser extent in the minds of Catholics during various times in the history of Holy Mother Church, she Church cannot be stained by any taint of error, as pope after pope has taught us:

As for the rest, We greatly deplore the fact that, where the ravings of human reason extend, there is somebody who studies new things and strives to know more than is necessary, against the advice of the apostle. There you will find someone who is overconfident in seeking the truth outside the Catholic Church, in which it can be found without even a light tarnish of error. Therefore, the Church is called, and is indeed, a pillar and foundation of truth. You correctly understand, venerable brothers, that We speak here also of that erroneous philosophical system which was recently brought in and is clearly to be condemned. This system, which comes from the contemptible and unrestrained desire for innovation, does not seek truth where it stands in the received and holy apostolic inheritance. Rather, other empty doctrines, futile and uncertain doctrines not approved by the Church, are adopted. Only the most conceited men wrongly think that these teachings can sustain and support that truth. (Pope Gregory XVI, Singulari Nos, May 25, 1834.)

Just as Christianity cannot penetrate into the soul without making it better, so it cannot enter into public life without establishing order. With the idea of a God Who governs all, Who is infinitely Wise, Good, and Just, the idea of duty seizes upon the consciences of men. It assuages sorrow, it calms hatred, it engenders heroes. If it has transformed pagan society--and that transformation was a veritable resurrection--for barbarism disappeared in proportion as Christianity extended its sway, so, after the terrible shocks which unbelief has given to the world in our days, it will be able to put that world again on the true road, and bring back to order the States and peoples of modern times. But the return of Christianity will not be efficacious and complete if it does not restore the world to a sincere love of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. In the Catholic Church Christianity is Incarnate. It identifies Itself with that perfect, spiritual, and, in its own order, sovereign society, which is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ and which has for Its visible head the Roman Pontiff, successor of the Prince of the Apostles. It is the continuation of the mission of the Savior, the daughter and the heiress of His Redemption. It has preached the Gospel, and has defended it at the price of Its blood, and strong in the Divine assistance and of that immortality which has been promised it, It makes no terms with error but remains faithful to the commands which  it has received, to carry the doctrine of Jesus Christ to the uttermost limits of the world and to the end of time, and to protect it in its inviolable integrity. Legitimate dispenser of the teachings of the Gospel it does not reveal itself only as the consoler and Redeemer of souls, but It is still more the internal source of justice and charity, and the propagator as well as the guardian of true liberty, and of that equality which alone is possible here below. In applying the doctrine of its Divine Founder, It maintains a wise equilibrium and marks the true limits between the rights and privileges of society. The equality which it proclaims does not destroy the distinction between the different social classes. It keeps them intact, as nature itself demands, in order to oppose the anarchy of reason emancipated from Faith, and abandoned to its own devices. The liberty which it gives in no wise conflicts with the rights of truth, because those rights are superior to the demands of liberty. Not does it infringe upon the rights of justice, because those rights are superior to the claims of mere numbers or power. Nor does it assail the rights of God because they are superior to the rights of humanity. (Pope Leo XIII, A Review of His Pontificate, March 19, 1902.)

For the teaching authority of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men, and which is daily exercised through the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops who are in communion with him, has also the office of defining, when it sees fit, any truth with solemn rites and decrees, whenever this is necessary either to oppose the errors or the attacks of heretics, or more clearly and in greater detail to stamp the minds of the faithful with the articles of sacred doctrine which have been explained. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)


Please note that Pope Gregory XVI wrote that the truth can be found in the Catholic Church without "even a slight tarnish of error."

Please note that Pope Leo XIII stressed that the Catholic Church "makes no terms with error but remains faithful to the command which it has received, to carry the doctrine of Jesus Christ to the uttermost limits of the world and to the end of time, and to protect it in its inviolable integrity."

Please note that that Pope Pius XI explained that the Catholic Church brings forth her teaching "with ease and security to the knowledge of men."

Anyone who says that this has been done by the counterfeit church of conciliarism, which has made its "reconciliation" with the false principles of Modernity that leave no room for the confessionally Catholic civil state and the Social Reign of Christ the King, is not thinking too clearly (and that is as about as charitably as I can put the matter) or is being, perhaps more accurately, intellectually dishonest. If the conciliar church has brought forth its teaching "with ease and security to the knowledge of men," why is there such disagreement even between the "progressive" conciliarists and "conservative" conciliarists concerning the proper "interpretation" of the "Second" Vatican Council and its aftermath? Or does this depend upon what one means by "ease and security"?

No, the Catholic Church has never endorsed error in any of her officials documents and we have never seen anything like the apostasies, blasphemies and sacrileges that have characterized the the "magisterium" of the conciliar "popes" in the past fifty-four years now.

Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., explained in but one sentence the simple fact those steeped in error cannot have any part in the Catholic Church:


There is a fatal instinct in error, which leads it to hate the Truth; and the true Church, by its unchangeableness, is a perpetual reproach to them that refuse to be her children. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, commentary on the life of Saint Fidelis of Sigmaringen.)

The true Church, the Catholic Church, has the character of unchangeableness as part of her Divine Constitution, meaning that novelty and innovation and "change" are foreign to her very Divine make-up.

The true Church, the Catholic Church, cannot countenance falsehood and error.

Perhaps, Bishop Fellay, you ought to watch For Greater Glory, especially the scene that depicts the bravery of Jose Luis Sanchez Del Rio after he had been tortured and before his martyrdom in defense of the Social Reign of Christ the King, which your "pope" rejects both in theory and in practice.

Those of you as yet unconvinced might want to take a look at Gregorius's The Chair is Still Empty

No one can be forced to "see" the truth of our situation for what it is, that the conciliar revolutionaries are not Catholic and that they belong to a counterfeit church bereft of Holy Orders and of the graces that flow therefrom. That any of our true bishops and priests, among so many others, who have seen things clearly in the past forty years, right in the midst of a most diabolically clever use of the media to convey images of Catholicism and Catholicity, is the working of the graces won for us by the shedding of every single drop of the Most Precious Blood of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and that flowed into their hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, the Mediatrix of All Graces. We must remember that it is very easy to go "back," to refuse to "kick against the goad," to "conform" to what the "mainstream" believes is "respectable" and "prudent."

The "mainstream" is not to be followed.

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

God permitted all but eight members of the human race to be deceived and deluded prior to the Great Flood.

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

All but a handful of people stood by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as He suffered and died for us on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday.

All but one bishop, Saint John Fisher of Rochester, England, defected from the Faith at the time of the Protestant Revolt in England when King Henry VIII took this thoroughly Catholic country out of the Church.

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

The "mainstream" is not be followed. We need apostolic courage in these times of apostasy and betrayal. God's greater honor and glory must be defended against the against of men who have proved themselves to be precursors of the Antichrist.

How do we think that we are going to recognize, no less resist and reject, the Antichrist when he comes we are so complacent and smug in the face of the groundwork that is being laid by his conciliar minions for his coming? Will the emotionalism of sentimentality and the delusion of positivism not prevail then in the minds and hearts of most men?

It's been over seventy-nine months ago now since I began to publicly write about the plausibility of the sedevacantist thesis. I can report that those six years have been difficult ones, humanly speaking, as friendships have been strained or broken and as many former contributors stopped donating to us. Obviously, friendship is a free gift and people are free also to end non-tax-deductible donations whenever they want to do so. It is not for the "money" or for any kind of "honor" or "prestige" that one comes to recognize that the conciliar "popes" have indeed been figures of Antichrist. To embrace sedevacantism is to lose one's credibility on all subjects, including that of the defense of the Social Reign of Christ the King, in the eyes of traditionally-minded "gatekeepers" in the "resist but recognize movement," some of whom would rather turn to lifelong Protestants or to Catholic apostates turned Protestants or Mormons for "commentary" on the events of the day.

No, embracing the truth of our ecclesiastical situation does not make one any bit better than those who do not. Indeed, some of the worst witnesses in behalf of sedevacantism are sedevacantists, both clergy and laity. The bad example given by those who do see the truth of our ecclesiastical situation does not make invalidate the truth that they seek to defend despite all of the opposition that is engendered thereby.

No one has anything to gain, humanly speaking by recognizing that the conciliar "popes" are apostates and their liturgical rites are sacramentally barren and offensive to God and their doctrines have been condemned repeatedly by the authority of the Catholic Church. Yes, it is good to suffer for one's sins. It is necessary to do so in order to save one's soul. One does not embrace the truth in order to suffer, though, as that suffering will find him in due course.

Sedevacantists compose only a handful of mostly warring tribes. They are not the problem facing Holy Mother Church in this time of apostasy and betrayal. Just take a look at the evidence presented above if you believe that I am mistaken.

All the more reason, of course, to flee from everything to do with conciliarism and its false shepherds. If we can't see that the public esteeming of the symbols and places of "worship" of false religions is offensive to God and can in no way lead to any kind of authentic restoration of the "Catholic" Church, then it is perhaps necessary to recall these words of Saint Teresa of Avila in her Foundations:


"Know this: it is by very little breaches of regularity that the devil succeeds in introducing the greatest abuses. May you never end up saying: 'This is nothing, this is an exaggeration.'" (Saint Teresa of Avila, Foundations, Chapter Twenty-nine)

We turn, as always to Our Lady, who holds us in the crossing of her arms and in the folds of her mantle. We must, as the consecrated slaves of her Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, through her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, pray as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit, trusting that we might be able to plant a few seeds for the Triumph of that same Immaculate Heart.

We may not see until eternity, please God and by the graces He sends to us through the loving hands of His Most Blessed Mother, the fruit of the seeds we plant by means of our prayers and penances and sacrifices, given unto the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Immaculate Heart of Mary. We must remain confident, however, that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ wants to us, as unworthy as we are, to try to plant a few seeds so that more and more Catholics in the conciliar structures, both "priests" and laity alike, will recognize that it is indeed a sin to stand by He is blasphemed by Modernists, that He--and His true priesthood--are to be found in the catacombs where no concessions at all are made to conciliarism or its wolves in shepherds' clothing.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!

Viva Cristo Rey!

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!


Saint Joseph, Patron of Departing Souls, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.

Saint Bibiana, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints


Appendix A

Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger on Seeing Rupture in the Liturgy Before, as Benedict XVI, Saying No Such Rupture Had Taken Place

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

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

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

In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. (Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, Explanatory Letter on "Summorum Pontificum," July 7, 2007.)

Appendix B

Ratzinger/Benedict's Denial of the Nature of Dogmatic Truth


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

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

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

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

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

It is precisely in this combination of continuity and discontinuity at different levels that the very nature of true reform consists. In this process of innovation in continuity we must learn to understand more practically than before that the Church's decisions on contingent matters - for example, certain practical forms of liberalism or a free interpretation of the Bible - should necessarily be contingent themselves, precisely because they refer to a specific reality that is changeable in itself. It was necessary to learn to recognize that in these decisions it is only the principles that express the permanent aspect, since they remain as an undercurrent, motivating decisions from within.


On the other hand, not so permanent are the practical forms that depend on the historical situation and are therefore subject to change. (Christmas greetings to the Members of the Roman Curia and Prelature, December 22, 2005.)

Appendix C

The Catholic Church's Condemnation of Ratzinger/Benedict's View of Dogmatic Truth

  • For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward
    • not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence,
    • but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.
  • Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.

God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever be in opposition to truth.

The appearance of this kind of specious contradiction is chiefly due to the fact that either: the dogmas of faith are not understood and explained in accordance with the mind of the church, or unsound views are mistaken for the conclusions of reason.

Therefore we define that every assertion contrary to the truth of enlightened faith is totally false. . . .

3. If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.

And so in the performance of our supreme pastoral office, we beseech for the love of Jesus Christ and we command, by the authority of him who is also our God and saviour, all faithful Christians, especially those in authority or who have the duty of teaching, that they contribute their zeal and labour to the warding off and elimination of these errors from the church and to the spreading of the light of the pure faith.

But since it is not enough to avoid the contamination of heresy unless those errors are carefully shunned which approach it in greater or less degree, we warn all of their duty to observe the constitutions and decrees in which such wrong opinions, though not expressly mentioned in this document, have been banned and forbidden by this holy see. (Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session III, Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Chapter 4, On Faith and Reason, April 24, 1870. SESSION 3 : 24 April 1.)

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

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

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

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

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

In theology some want to reduce to a minimum the meaning of dogmas; and to free dogma itself from terminology long established in the Church and from philosophical concepts held by Catholic teachers, to bring about a return in the explanation of Catholic doctrine to the way of speaking used in Holy Scripture and by the Fathers of the Church. They cherish the hope that when dogma is stripped of the elements which they hold to be extrinsic to divine revelation, it will compare advantageously with the dogmatic opinions of those who are separated from the unity of the Church and that in this way they will gradually arrive at a mutual assimilation of Catholic dogma with the tenets of the dissidents.

Moreover they assert that when Catholic doctrine has been reduced to this condition, a way will be found to satisfy modern needs, that will permit of dogma being expressed also by the concepts of modern philosophy, whether of immanentism or idealism or existentialism or any other system. Some more audacious affirm that this can and must be done, because they hold that the mysteries of faith are never expressed by truly adequate concepts but only by approximate and ever changeable notions, in which the truth is to some extent expressed, but is necessarily distorted. Wherefore they do not consider it absurd, but altogether necessary, that theology should substitute new concepts in place of the old ones in keeping with the various philosophies which in the course of time it uses as its instruments, so that it should give human expression to divine truths in various ways which are even somewhat opposed, but still equivalent, as they say. They add that the history of dogmas consists in the reporting of the various forms in which revealed truth has been clothed, forms that have succeeded one another in accordance with the different teachings and opinions that have arisen over the course of the centuries.

It is evident from what We have already said, that such tentatives not only lead to what they call dogmatic relativism, but that they actually contain it. The contempt of doctrine commonly taught and of the terms in which it is expressed strongly favor it. Everyone is aware that the terminology employed in the schools and even that used by the Teaching Authority of the Church itself is capable of being perfected and polished; and we know also that the Church itself has not always used the same terms in the same way. It is also manifest that the Church cannot be bound to every system of philosophy that has existed for a short space of time. Nevertheless, the things that have been composed through common effort by Catholic teachers over the course of the centuries to bring about some understanding of dogma are certainly not based on any such weak foundation. These things are based on principles and notions deduced from a true knowledge of created things. In the process of deducing, this knowledge, like a star, gave enlightenment to the human mind through the Church. Hence it is not astonishing that some of these notions have not only been used by the Oecumenical Councils, but even sanctioned by them, so that it is wrong to depart from them.

Hence to neglect, or to reject, or to devalue so many and such great resources which have been conceived, expressed and perfected so often by the age-old work of men endowed with no common talent and holiness, working under the vigilant supervision of the holy magisterium and with the light and leadership of the Holy Ghost in order to state the truths of the faith ever more accurately, to do this so that these things may be replaced by conjectural notions and by some formless and unstable tenets of a new philosophy, tenets which, like the flowers of the field, are in existence today and die tomorrow; this is supreme imprudence and something that would make dogma itself a reed shaken by the wind. The contempt for terms and notions habitually used by scholastic theologians leads of itself to the weakening of what they call speculative theology, a discipline which these men consider devoid of true certitude because it is based on theological reasoning. (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, August 12, 1950.)


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