by
Thomas A. Droleskey
Not content with devastating results that have been visited upon souls in the Roman Rite of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, the conciliar revolutionaries are intent on moving their diabolically-inspired revolution eastward. Having destroyed the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church (see Appendix B below), the conciliar revolutionaries are now seeking to destroy the glorious liturgies of the Oriental Rites in order that they can be "updated" in light of the conciliar apostasies.
It was but a scant seven months ago that the special conciliar office entitled the "Synod of Bishops" issued a working document (Instrumentum Laboris) in preparation for the Special Assembly for the Middle East of the Synod of Bishops that took place in Rome between October 10, 2010, and October 24, 2010. This Instrumentum Laboris, which was issued on June 7, 2010, served as the basis for the report made to the assembled bishops by the Patriarch of Alexandria, Antonios Naguib, to the assembled bishops at the beginning of the special assembly on October 10, 2010. It should be noted that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI himself consigned the Instrumentum Laboris to the conciliar bishops of the Middle East during his visit to Cyprus on Sunday, June 6, 2010.
Although certain parts of the Instrumentum Laboris are cited in the context of this article, substantial elements of it were summarized by Patriarch Naguib in his report to the special assembly of bishops for the Middle East. Patriarch Naguib's summary, which served merely as the starting point for the synod's discussions that will result eventually in an "apostolic exhortation" from Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI to give his "papal" seal of approval to the proceeds. It is useful to review Patriarch Naguib's summary of the Instrumentum Laboris as it is nothing other than the same conciliar propaganda that has eviscerated souls and has thrown so many demoralized and bewildered Catholics in the Roman Rite into the waiting arms of fundamentalist and evangelical Protestant sects.
Apart from the usual paeans of praise in behalf of "religious freedom" that echo Ratzinger/Benedict's lifelong commitment to this fundamental error, Patriarch Naguib focused on the working document's call for a "renewed liturgy" in the Oriental Rites:
Liturgy "is the summit towards which the activity of the Church is directed; at the same time it is the font from which all her power flows." In our Eastern Churches, the Divine Liturgy is at the centre of religious life. It plays an important role in maintaining Christian identity, strengthening a sense of belonging to the Church and animating a life of faith. The celebration of the Divine Liturgy is also a source of attraction to those who may be far from the faith or even disbelievers. Consequently, the Liturgy is an important part of the proclamation and witness of a Church which not only prays, but acts.
A great many people are deeply desiring liturgical renewal, which, while remaining faithful to tradition, would take into account modern sensitivities as well as today’s spiritual and pastoral needs. The work of liturgical reform would require a commission of experts. Perhaps some usefulness might result from adapting liturgical texts to celebrations with children and youth, while remaining faithful to each Church’s heritage. This could be the work of an interdisciplinary group of experts. Some look for liturgical renewal in the area of devotional practices. Whatever the case, adaptation and reform must consider the ecumenical aspect. The particularly delicate question of communicatio in sacris requires special study. (Relatio ante disceptationem by H. B. Antonios Naguib, Patriarch of Alexandria of the Copts, Arab Republic of Egypt, October 10, 2010.)
Here they go again! Love live Annibale Bugnini's Consilium as it is about to be reincarnated in the form of a "commission of experts" to "renew," that is, to destroy, the Oriental Rites. The promise that the work of this "commission of experts" will be "faithful to tradition" is laughable on its face. One can see from a review of the relevant passages of the working document that the blueprint is being established for yet another effort to make ancient liturgies of the Catholic Church conformable to the exigencies of false ecumenism:
70. The Second Vatican Council declares that the liturgy “is the summit towards which the activity of the Church is directed; at the same time it is the font from which all her power flows.” In a particular way, the central character which all Eastern Churches give to the Divine Liturgy is expressed, among other things, in an ample, rich variety of rites. Research into the harmony of rites, strongly recommended by the Second Vatican Council, can draw attention to this topic, which is of prime importance in the Christian East. Precisely because the liturgy is so strongly rooted in Eastern culture, the Divine Liturgy today is capable of not only keeping alive the faith of believers but also attracting the interest of those who have drifted from the faith or those who do not believe.
71. In this regard, many responses express a desire for liturgical renewal, which, while remaining firmly grounded in tradition, takes into account modern sensibilities as well as present-day spiritual and pastoral needs. Other responses mention specific cases where renewal is being attempted through the establishment of a commission of specialists for the reform of the liturgy.
72. The most significant aspect of the advances which have taken place in liturgical renewal thus far is the translation of liturgical texts and devotional prayers into the vernacular – principally in Arab – so that the people might better participate in the celebration of the mysteries of the faith. In this regard, while few prefer to maintain the original language, the overwhelming majority voiced the idea of adding the vernacular to the original language.
73. The responses also mention the necessity of subsequently undertaking the work of adapting liturgical texts for use at celebrations with young people and children. This would be a matter of simplifying words and expressions and suitably adapting them to the mentality and imagery associated with these groups of the Church's faithful. At the same time, this work would not simply translate ancient texts but use them as an inspiration in reformulating texts which would be faithful to the cultural patrimony handed down from ages past as well as an updated outlook on the contemporary world. As indicated in some responses, this task should be done by an interdisciplinary group comprised of liturgists, theologians, sociologists, pastors and lay people, who are engaged in liturgical programs. Suggestions favouring liturgical renewal also include the area of popular piety. In fact, some responses mention that devotional prayers should be enriched with theological and biblical texts from both the Old and New Testaments. In this regard, the efforts and experiences which have borne fruit in the Latin Church could be of great assistance.
75. Finally, any possible liturgical reform should take the ecumenical aspect into account. Various responses, referring to the Lineamenta, mention that the liturgy could become a fruitful place of regular collaboration between Catholics and Orthodox. In particular, on the delicate question of communicatio in sacris, some responses suggest the formation of a commission made up of Catholics and Orthodox to seek a solution, all the while respecting the canonical legislation now in force. (Instrumentum Laboris.)
I, for one, find it astounding to behold before my very eyes the exact same propaganda that was used in behalf of the destruction of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church. This is truly amazing. Imagine if these apostates had the same kind of fervent zeal to seek with urgency the unconditional conversion of non-Catholics to the Catholic Faith? Alas, the zeal of these apostates is inverted and distorted, resulting in the propagating of the same kind of errors in the East that have reduced once proudly Catholic churches in the West of most of their parishioners and financial support.
It's all there in five little paragraphs: getting people to "participate" more actively and consciously in "the mysteries of faith;" translating the original texts into the vernacular; reformulating texts that would be "faithful to the cultural patrimony" as well as "an updated outlook on the contemporary world;" the mania for false ecumenism. In other words, almost everything contained in Paragraph Fifteen of the General Instruction to the Roman Missal is to be found in those paragraphs in the Instrumentum Laboris:
The same awareness of the present state of the world also influenced the use of texts from very ancient tradition. It seemed that this cherished treasure would not be harmed if some phrases were changed so that the style of language would be more in accord with the language of modern theology and would faithfully reflect the actual state of the Church's discipline. Thus there have been changes of some expressions bearing on the evaluation and use of the good things of the earth and of allusions to a particular form of outward penance belonging to another age in the history of the Church. (Paragraph Fifteen, General Instruction to the Roman Missal, 1997.)
Will there be any bishops in any of the Oriental Rites to object to this eastward march of conciliarism's liturgical revolution? Even one? Just one? Or will they all march in lockstep with the false "pontiff," that aging architect of the revolutionary agenda of the "Second" Vatican Council? It appears as though the bishops of the Oriental Rites will march along with their "pope" as they offend God and the memory of the great saints who gave Him great honor and glory through these ancient liturgies that must be "updated" now.
Indeed, as noted over thirty-one months ago now in
Not Such a Triumph After All, many of the Eastern rite bishops are already dyed-in-the-wool conciliarists. Some of devotees of Focolare or Cursillo or the "Catholic" Charismatic Renewal or any number of the other so-called "lay movements" that have been authorized by the lords of the counterfeit church of conciliarism. Most are full-throated practitioners of the brand of false ecumenism that was extolled at the special assembly of the synod of Middle Eastern bishops three months ago.
Each believes in "religious freedom" and "separation of Church and State." And it was Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, acting upon the recommendation of Walter "Cardinal" Kasper's "Pontifical" Council for Promoting Christian Unity and the then Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who approved Guidelines for admission to the Eucharist between the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church of the East (July 20, 2001) that recognized the nonexistent "validity" of a heretical and schismatic church's use of an alleged Eucharistic Prayer that contains no words of consecration. That any Oriental Rite bishop accepted the following bit of sophistry contained in these "guidelines" speaks volumes about the state of the conciliar revolution that is about to make a full-bore liturgical assault upon their ancient rites:
Finally, the words of Eucharistic Institution are indeed present in the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, not in a coherent narrative way and ad litteram, but rather in a dispersed euchological way, that is, integrated in successive prayers of thanksgiving, praise and intercession. (Guidelines for admission to the Eucharist between the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church of the East, July 20, 2001.)
In other words, the words of consecration are there even though they are not. At least it was the case with the old Highlights magazine for children that the hidden drawings actually were in the depictions where they were hidden. One did not have to wish that they were there as in the case of the sophistic guidelines.
Thus, of course, one cannot expect that the bishops of the various Oriental rites will object to a "renewal" of their ancient liturgies. It is also the case that they will not object to one of the stated goals of the recently held and concluded special assembly of Middle Eastern bishops, namely, to find a new way to define the exercise of Papal Primacy in order to facilitate the goals of false ecumenism. This is how Patriarch Naguib phrased this objective in his report at the beginning of the synod of Middle Eastern bishops:
"May they all be one … that the world may believe" (Jn 17:21). Christ’s prayer must be repeated by his disciples throughout the ages. The division of Christians is contrary to the will of Christ, a scandal and an obstacle to proclamation and witness. Mission and ecumenism are closely aligned. The Catholic and Orthodox Churches have many elements in common to the point that Popes Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI speak about an ‘almost complete communion’, which deserves greater recognition rather than differences. Baptism is the basis of relations with the other Churches and ecclesial communities which allows and even calls for many activities and initiatives in common. Religious instruction should expressly include ecumenism. Any offensive or troubling publications should be carefully avoided.
Sincere efforts should be made to overcome prejudices, better understand each other and seek full communion in the faith, sacraments and hierarchical service. This dialogue takes place on various levels. On the official level, the Holy See embarks on many initiatives with the Eastern Churches, representatives of which are participating at this synodal assembly. A new form of practice of primacy, without abandoning what is essential to the mission of the Bishop of Rome, must be found. A hopeful sign would be to establish local commissions of ecumenical dialogue. Studying the history of the Eastern Catholic Churches, as well as that of the Church of the Latin tradition, would permit the opportunity to clarify the context, attitudes and perspectives associated with their origin.
Proper actions are required in the work of ecumenicism: prayer, conversion, sanctification and the mutual exchange of gifts, all in a spirit of respect, friendship, mutual charity, solidarity and collaboration. These actions and attitudes should be cultivated and encouraged through teaching and the various media outlets. An essential part of ecumenism is dialogue, which requires a positive approach to understanding, listening and being open to others. This leads to overcoming mistrust, working together to develop religious values, joining in socially useful projects and facing together problems in common.
Initiatives and structures which express and support unity need to be further encouraged, such as, the Council of Churches of the Middle East and the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity. The ‘purification of memory’ is an important step in seeking full unity. Collaboration and cooperation in biblical, theological, patristic and cultural studies foster the spirit of dialogue. Action in common could take place in the formation of media experts in the local languages. In both proclamation and mission, proselytism and anything opposed to the Gospel should be carefully avoided. Further efforts are needed in the work of establishing dates in common for the celebration of Christmas and Easter. (Relatio ante disceptationem by H. B. Antonios Naguib, Patriarch of Alexandria of the Copts, Arab Republic of Egypt, October 10, 2010.)
Leaving aside the sort of misuse of John 17: 21 that Pope Pius XI condemned in Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928 (see Appendix C), readers of this site know that finding a "new way" for the exercise of Papal Primacy is near and dear to the heart of the false "pontiff," Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. The desire to "clarify the context, attitudes and perspectives associated" with Papal Primacy is based on Ratzinger/Benedict's misreading and misrepresentation of the history of the Catholic Church in the First Millennium. This misreading and misrepresentation has served as the foundation of the hideous Ravenna Document, October 13, 2007, one of those "unofficial," "non-binding" documents produced by a commission that keeps getting referenced in "papal" "homilies" and addresses. So much for the nonexistent distinction between "official" and "unofficial" that defenders of Ratzinger/Benedict's "legitimacy" keep making (see
Words and Actions Without Consequences).
One will see, for example, that "Pope" Benedict XVI's views on the exercise of Papal Primacy in the First Millennium are identical to those of Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger, views that have migrated from his own Principles of Catholic Theology (published in 1982) to that"unofficial" Ravenna Document:
Turning then to refer specifically to "the study of a crucial theme in dialogue between Catholic and Orthodox: 'the role of the Bishop of Rome in the communion of the Church in the first millennium'", a study which will subsequently "also extend to the second millennium", the Holy Father recalled how he had asked Catholics to pray "for this delicate dialogue which is so essential for the entire ecumenical movement". (CONTINUE TO PRAY FOR THE UNITY OF ALL CHRISTIANS; this link may no longer work. it was a Vatican Information Service report on a general audience address of Ratzinger/Benedict.)
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)
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)
Future discussion of "primacy at the universal level in the Church? Difficult questions remain to be clarified? God the Holy Ghost needs to help reach "an agreement" on Papal Primacy? Apostasy.
Pope Leo XIII dealt with these false assertions in Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae, June 20, 1894:
First of all, then, We cast an affectionate look upon the East, from whence in the beginning came forth the salvation of the world. Yes, and the yearning desire of Our heart bids us conceive and hope that the day is not far distant when the Eastern Churches, so illustrious in their ancient faith and glorious past, will return to the fold they have abandoned. We hope it all the more, that the distance separating them from Us is not so great: nay, with some few exceptions, we agree so entirely on other heads that, in defense of the Catholic Faith, we often have recourse to reasons and testimony borrowed from the teaching, the Rites, and Customs of the East.
The Principal subject of contention is the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff. But let them look back to the early years of their existence, let them consider the sentiments entertained by their forefathers, and examine what the oldest Traditions testify, and it will, indeed, become evident to them that Christ's Divine Utterance, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, has undoubtedly been realized in the Roman Pontiffs. Many of these latter in the first gates of the Church were chosen from the East, and foremost among them Anacletus, Evaristus, Anicetus, Eleutherius, Zosimus, and Agatho; and of these a great number, after Governing the Church in Wisdom and Sanctity, Consecrated their Ministry with the shedding of their blood. The time, the reasons, the promoters of the unfortunate division, are well known. Before the day when man separated what God had joined together, the name of the Apostolic See was held in Reverence by all the nations of the Christian world: and the East, like the West, agreed without hesitation in its obedience to the Pontiff of Rome, as the Legitimate Successor of St. Peter, and, therefore, the Vicar of Christ here on earth.
And, accordingly, if we refer to the beginning of the dissension, we shall see that Photius himself was careful to send his advocates to Rome on the matters that concerned him; and Pope Nicholas I sent his Legates to Constantinople from the Eternal City, without the slightest opposition, "in order to examine the case of Ignatius the Patriarch with all diligence, and to bring back to the Apostolic See a full and accurate report"; so that the history of the whole negotiation is a manifest Confirmation of the Primacy of the Roman See with which the dissension then began. Finally, in two great Councils, the second of Lyons and that of Florence, Latins and Greeks, as is notorious, easily agreed, and all unanimously proclaimed as Dogma the Supreme Power of the Roman Pontiffs.
We have recalled those things intentionally, for they constitute an invitation to peace and reconciliation; and with all the more reason that in Our own days it would seem as if there were a more conciliatory spirit towards Catholics on the part of the Eastern Churches, and even some degree of kindly feeling. To mention an instance, those sentiments were lately made manifest when some of Our faithful travelled to the East on a Holy Enterprise, and received so many proofs of courtesy and good-will.
Therefore, Our mouth is open to you, to you all of Greek or other Oriental Rites who are separated from the Catholic Church, We earnestly desire that each and every one of you should meditate upon the words, so full of gravity and love, addressed by Bessarion to your forefathers: "What answer shall we give to God when He comes to ask why we have separated from our Brethren: to Him Who, to unite us and bring us into One Fold, came down from Heaven, was Incarnate, and was Crucified? What will our defense be in the eyes of posterity? Oh, my Venerable Fathers, we must not suffer this to be, we must not entertain this thought, we must not thus so ill provide for ourselves and for our Brethren."
Weigh carefully in your minds and before God the nature of Our request. It is not for any human motive, but impelled by Divine Charity and a desire for the salvation of all, that We advise the reconciliation and union with the Church of Rome; and We mean a perfect and complete union, such as could not subsist in any way if nothing else was brought about but a certain kind of agreement in the Tenets of Belief and an intercourse of Fraternal love. The True Union between Christians is that which Jesus Christ, the Author of the Church, instituted and desired, and which consists in a Unity of Faith and Unity of Government.
Nor is there any reason for you to fear on that account that We or any of Our Successors will ever diminish your rights, the privileges of your Patriarchs, or the established Ritual of any one of your Churches. It has been and always will be the intent and Tradition of the Apostolic See, to make a large allowance, in all that is right and good, for the primitive Traditions and special customs of every nation. On the contrary, if you re-establish Union with Us, you will see how, by God's bounty, the glory and dignity of your Churches will be remarkably increased.
May God, then, in His goodness, hear the Prayer that you yourselves address to Him: "Make the schisms of the Churches cease," and "Assemble those who are dispersed, bring back those who err, and unite them to Thy Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church." May you thus return to that one Holy Faith which has been handed down both to Us and to you from time immemorial; which your forefathers preserved untainted, and which was enhanced by the rival splendor of the Virtues, the great genius, and the sublime learning of St. Athanasius and St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nazianzum and St. John Chrysostom, the two Saints who bore the name of Cyril, and so many other great men whose glory belongs as a common inheritance to the East and to the West. (See also the excellent discussion of the the history of what led up to the Greek Schism that is contained in Fathers Francisco and Dominic Radecki's Tumultuous Times.)
Ratzinger/Benedict has given Catholics and non-Catholics a distorted view of history and he has made it appear as though the new ecclesiology's concept of the "church as communion" has replaced the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church that there is no "Christian Church" outside of her. She is the one and sole embodiment of Christianity. The schismatic and heretical sects of Orthodoxy may have true sacraments because they possess true apostolic succession and have liturgical rites that that were used, at least for the most part, long before the Greek Schism of 1054. They do not have the Catholic Faith. Only those who adhere to the totality of the Deposit of Faith and are in full communion with a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter possess the Catholic Faith:
Agreement and union of minds is the necessary foundation of this perfect concord amongst men, from which concurrence of wills and similarity of action are the natural results. Wherefore, in His divine wisdom, He ordained in His Church Unity of Faith; a virtue which is the first of those bonds which unite man to God, and whence we receive the name of the faithful - "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Eph. iv., 5). That is, as there is one Lord and one baptism, so should all Christians, without exception, have but one faith. And so the Apostle St. Paul not merely begs, but entreats and implores Christians to be all of the same mind, and to avoid difference of opinions: "I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms amongst you, and that you be perfect in the same mind and in the same judgment" (I Cor. i., 10). Such passages certainly need no interpreter; they speak clearly enough for themselves. Besides, all who profess Christianity allow that there can be but one faith. It is of the greatest importance and indeed of absolute necessity, as to which many are deceived, that the nature and character of this unity should be recognized. And, as We have already stated, this is not to be ascertained by conjecture, but by the certain knowledge of what was done; that is by seeking for and ascertaining what kind of unity in faith has been commanded by Jesus Christ. (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896.)
One will see that Patriarch Naguib is being perfectly faithful to the "magisterium" of "Pope" John Paul II and "Pope" Benedict XVI. Unfortunately for Patriarch Naguib and his fellow bishops of the various Oriental (Eastern) rites, that "magisterium" is contrary to that of the Catholic Church. It is a "magisterium" of Antichrist himself. And it is interesting to note that the blithe indifference of Patriarch Naguib and his "pontiff" to the real doctrinal differences that exist between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches is but a perfect echo of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II's own willingness to leave aside doctrinal differences with the Assyrian Church of the East in order to advance the sort of "spiritual ecumenism" that was pioneered by a disciple of the late Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, S.J., Abbe Paul Couturier:
On November 11th, 1994 Pope John Paul II and Mar Dinkha IV, Patriarch of the Assyrian Church of the East, signed a Common Christological Declaration[1]. This Declaration removed the main doctrinal obstacle between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East. Both Church leaders declared: “Whatever our christological divergences have been, we experience ourselves united in the confession of the same faith in the Son of God who became man so that we might become children of God by his grace. We wish from now on to witness together to this faith in the One who is the Way, the Truth and the Life, proclaiming it in appropriate ways to our contemporaries, so that the world may believe in the Gospel of salvation. (…) Living by this faith and these sacraments, it follows as a consequence that the particular Catholic churches and the particular Assyrian churches can recognise each other as sister Churches.” (Guidelines for admission to the Eucharist between the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church of the East, July 20, 2001.)
Only the tortured mind of a conciliarist could contend that Catholics "are united in the confession of the same faith in the Son of God" with descendants of the Nestorian heretics who deny the true doctrine of the hypostatic union of the two natures in Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and thus who deny that Our Lady is indeed Theotokos, the Mother of God. Such a "unity" is not possible unless the heretics abjure their heresy. Wojtyla/John Paul II's "solution" to this dilemma was to propose a "commission" to study the differences while at the same time asserting that the heretics were united with Catholics in the same confession of faith.
In like manner, obviously, both the Instrumentum Laboris and Patriarch Naguib's summary of it are premised upon a willingness to leave aside the serious doctrinal differences between the Orthodox churches and Catholicism (see Appendix A below). Such is not the path of Catholicism. Such is the path of apostasy. It is the path of Antichrist.
We have been warned by our true popes and by Holy Mother Church's true councils, each of which has been guided infallibly by God the Holy Ghost, how to identify apostasy, a task that is not really all that difficult in our own day as the contradictions between conciliarism and Catholicism and even between historical fiction and historical fact are abundantly clear:
These firings, therefore, with all diligence and care having been formulated by us, we define that it be permitted to no one to bring forward, or to write, or to compose, or to think, or to teach a different faith. Whosoever shall presume to compose a different faith, or to propose, or teach, or hand to those wishing to be converted to the knowledge of the truth, from the Gentiles or Jews, or from any heresy, any different Creed; or to introduce a new voice or invention of speech to subvert these things which now have been determined by us, all these, if they be Bishops or clerics let them be deposed, the Bishops from the Episcopate, the clerics from the clergy; but if they be monks or laymen: let them be anathematized. (Sixth Ecumenical: Constantinople III).
They [the Modernists] exercise all their ingenuity in an effort to weaken the force and falsify the character of tradition, so as to rob it of all its weight and authority. But for Catholics nothing will remove the authority of the second Council of Nicea, where it condemns those "who dare, after the impious fashion of heretics, to deride the ecclesiastical traditions, to invent novelties of some kind...or endeavor by malice or craft to overthrow any one of the legitimate traditions of the Catholic Church"; nor that of the declaration of the fourth Council of Constantinople: "We therefore profess to preserve and guard the rules bequeathed to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, by the Holy and most illustrious Apostles, by the orthodox Councils, both general and local, and by everyone of those divine interpreters, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church." Wherefore the Roman Pontiffs, Pius IV and Pius IX, ordered the insertion in the profession of faith of the following declaration: "I most firmly admit and embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and other observances and constitutions of the Church.'' (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)
Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical' misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. . . . 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. (Pope Saint Pius X, The Oath Against Modernism, September 1, 1910.)
We must be willing to suffer the white martyrdom of ridicule and criticism and rejection and ostracism for refusing to recognize or associate with any of the spiritual robber barons of the counterfeit church of conciliarism who are so blithe in the offenses they commit against God so regularly and who are so dismissive of the gravity of error (save for "defections" from conciliarism by fully traditional Catholics and save for any effort to review the nature and the extent of the crimes of the Third Reich as such defections are "unforgivable" errors that must be "corrected") that do so much harm to the souls for whom Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ on the wood of the Holy Cross in atonement for our sins (a truth of the Faith that "Archbishop" Robert Zollitsch denied six hundred thirty-four days ago now and has still remained in "office" without a word of protest from the kindly apostle of the toleration of error, Ratzinger/Benedict).
Obviously, we must, as always, spend time in prayer before Our Lord's Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament and pray as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit, using the shield of Our Lady's Brown Scapular of Mount Carmel and the weapon of her Rosary to protect us from the contagion of apostasy and betrayal that is all around us. We must also, of course, make reparation for our own many sins by offering up all of our prayers and sufferings and sacrifices and humiliations and penances and mortifications and fastings to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.
The final victory belongs to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. We must pray to her so that we can be instruments, unworthy though we may be, of planting the seeds for the restoration of Holy Mother Church and of the Social Reign of Christ the King so that everyone in the whole will exclaim with hearts consecrated to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary:
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 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.
Holy Innocents, pray for us.
See also: A Litany of Saints
Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?
Appendix A
Various Ways in Which the Orthodox Defect From the Deposit of Faith Entrusted to the Catholic Church
1. Papal Primacy.
2. Papal Infallibility.
3. The doctrine of Original Sin as defined dogmatically by the Catholic Church. The ambiguous doctrine of the Orthodox was noted by Pope Pius VI in Auctorem Fidei, August 28, 1794, when discussing the Greek rejection of Limbo that is, of course, shared by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI:
Very few Greek Fathers dealt with the destiny of infants who die without Baptism because there was no controversy about this issue in the East. Furthermore, they had a different view of the present condition of humanity. For the Greek Fathers, as the consequence of Adam's sin, human beings inherited corruption, possibility, and mortality, from which they could be restored by a process of deification made possible through the redemptive work of Christ. The idea of an inheritance of sin or guilt - common in Western tradition - was foreign to this perspective, since in their view sin could only be a free, personal act.
This is what the Orthodox still believe, which makes them fit "partners" for "ecumenical dialogue" with Ratzinger/Benedict, who has told us in his own murky way that he is of one mind with them on the matter of Original Sin, which he called in 1995 an "imprecise" term (!). Here is a statement on Original Sin from the Orthodox Church in America:
With regard to original sin, the difference between Orthodox Christianity and the West may be outlined as follows:
In the Orthodox Faith, the term "original sin" refers to the "first" sin of Adam and Eve. As a result of this sin, humanity bears the "consequences" of sin, the chief of which is death. Here the word "original" may be seen as synonymous with "first." Hence, the "original sin" refers to the "first sin" in much the same way as "original chair" refers to the "first chair."
In the West, humanity likewise bears the "consequences" of the "original sin" of Adam and Eve. However, the West also understands that humanity is likewise "guilty" of the sin of Adam and Eve. The term "Original Sin" here refers to the condition into which humanity is born, a condition in which guilt as well as consequence is involved.
In the Orthodox Christian understanding, while humanity does bear the consequences of the original, or first, sin, humanity does not bear the personal guilt associated with this sin. Adam and Eve are guilty of their willful action; we bear the consequences, chief of which is death.
One might look at all of this in a completely different light. Imagine, if you will, that one of your close relatives was a mass murderer. He committed many serious crimes for which he was found guilty and perhaps even admitted his guilt publicly. You, as his or her son or brother or cousin, may very well bear the consequences of his action - people may shy away from you or say, "Watch out for him - he comes from a family of mass murderers." Your name may be tainted, or you may face some other forms of discrimination as a consequence of your relative’s sin. You, however, are not personally guilty of his or her sin.
There are some within Orthodoxy who approach a westernized view of sin, primarily after the 17th and 18th centuries due to a variety of westernizing influences particularly in Ukraine and Russia after the time of Peter Mohyla. These influences have from time to time colored explanations of the Orthodox Faith which are in many respects lacking. (Orthodox Church in America, Questions and Answers on Original Sin)
This is not Catholic doctrine. This matter cannot be "bridged" by concerts of music composed by Russians.
4. The Filioque, that God the Holy Ghost proceeds from both the Father and the Son.
5. The doctrine of Purgatory as defined by the authority of the Catholic Church.
6. The doctrine of Our Lady's Immaculate Conception as defined by the authority of the Catholic Church.
7. The doctrine of Our Lady's Assumption body and soul into Heaven as defined by the authority of the Catholic Church.
8. The doctrine of the indissolubility of a sacramentally valid, ratified and consummated marriage; the Orthodox hold that a person can marry up to three times following two divorces. Here is the Orthodox "consensus" (as there is no ultimate ecclesiastical authority within Orthodoxy to decide doctrinal matters) on the issue:
Marriage is one of the sacraments of the Orthodox Church. Orthodox Christians who marry must marry in the Church in order to be in sacramental communion with the Church. According to the Church canons, an Orthodox who marries outside the Church may not receive Holy Communion and may not serve as a sponsor, i.e. a Godparent at a Baptism, or as a sponsor at a Wedding. Certain marriages are prohibited by canon law, such as a marriage between first and second cousins, or between a Godparent and a Godchild. The first marriage of a man and a woman is honored by the Church with a richly symbolic service that eloquently speaks to everyone regarding the married state. The form of the service calls upon God to unite the couple through the prayer of the priest or bishop officiating.
The church will permit up to, but not more than, three marriages for any Orthodox Christian. If both partners are entering a second or third marriage, another form of the marriage ceremony is conducted, much more subdued and penitential in character. Marriages end either through the death of one of the partners or through ecclesiastical recognition of divorce. The Church grants "ecclesiastical divorces" on the basis of the exception given by Christ to his general prohibition of the practice. The Church has frequently deplored the rise of divorce and generally sees divorce as a tragic failure. Yet, the Orthodox Church also recognizes that sometimes the spiritual well-being of Christians caught in a broken and essentially nonexistent marriage justifies a divorce, with the right of one or both of the partners to remarry. Each parish priest is required to do all he can to help couples resolve their differences. If they cannot, and they obtain a civil divorce, they may apply for an ecclesiastical divorce in some jurisdictions of the Orthodox Church. In others, the judgment is left to the parish priest when and if a civilly divorced person seeks to remarry.
Those Orthodox jurisdictions which issue ecclesiastical divorces require a thorough evaluation of the situation, and the appearance of the civilly divorced couple before a local ecclesiastical court, where another investigation is made. Only after an ecclesiastical divorce is issued by the presiding bishop can they apply for an ecclesiastical license to remarry.
Though the Church would prefer that all Orthodox Christians would marry Orthodox Christians, it does not insist on it in practice. Out of its concern for the spiritual welfare of members who wish to marry a non-Orthodox Christian, the Church will conduct a "mixed marriage." For this purpose, a "non-Orthodox Christian" is a member of the Roman Catholic Church, or one of the many Protestant Churches which believe in and baptize in the name of the Holy Trinity. This means that such mixed marriages may be performed in the Orthodox Church. However, the Orthodox Church does not perform marriages between Orthodox Christians and persons belonging to other religions, such as Islam , Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, or any sectarian and cult group, such as Christian Science, Mormonism, or the followers of Rev. Moon. (The Stand of the Orthodox Church on Controversial Issues.)
9. The absolute prohibition against the use of any form of contraception whatsoever. This is from the website of the Greek Orthodox Church in America:
General agreement exists among Orthodox writers on the following two points:
- since at least one of the purposes of marriage is the birth of children, a couple acts immorally when it consistently uses contraceptive methods to avoid the birth of any children, if there are not extenuating circumstances;
- contraception is also immoral when used to encourage the practice of fornication and adultery.
Less agreement exists among Eastern Orthodox authors on the issue of contraception within marriage for the spacing of children or for the limitation of the number of children. Some authors take a negative view and count any use of contraceptive methods within or outside of marriage as immoral (Papacostas, pp. 13-18; Gabriel Dionysiatou). These authors tend to emphasize as the primary and almost exclusive purpose of marriage the birth of children and their upbringing. They tend to consider any other exercise of the sexual function as the submission of this holy act to unworthy purposes, i.e., pleasure-seeking, passion, and bodily gratification, which are held to be inappropriate for the Christian growing in spiritual perfection. These teachers hold that the only alternative is sexual abstinence in marriage, which, though difficult, is both desirable and possible through the aid of the grace of God. It must be noted also that, for these writers, abortion and contraception are closely tied together, and often little or no distinction is made between the two. Further, it is hard to discern in their writings any difference in judgment between those who use contraceptive methods so as to have no children and those who use them to space and limit the number of children.
Other Orthodox writers have challenged this view by seriously questioning the Orthodoxy of the exclusive and all-controlling role of the procreative purpose of marriage (Zaphiris; Constantelos, 1975). Some note the inconsistency of the advocacy of sexual continence in marriage with the scriptural teaching that one of the purposes of marriage is to permit the ethical fulfillment of sexual drives, so as to avoid fornication and adultery (1 Cor. 7:1-7). Most authors, however, emphasize the sacramental nature of marriage and its place within the framework of Christian anthropology, seeing the sexual relationship of husband and wife as one aspect of the mutual growth of the couple in love and unity. This approach readily adapts itself to an ethical position that would not only permit but also enjoin sexual relationships of husband and wife for their own sake as expressions of mutual love. Such a view clearly would support the use of contraceptive practices for the purpose of spacing and limiting children so as to permit greater freedom of the couple in the expression of their mutual love. (For the Health of Body and Soul: An Eastern Orthodox Introduction to Bioethics.)
These are not minor matters. And this all going to be "bridge" by means of appeals to the "heart"? Preposterous.
A mutual dislike of Scholasticism and a desire to "re-read" the Church Fathers without the "filter" provided by Saint Thomas Aquinas links Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's "New Theology" and the ambiguous doctrinal views of the Orthodox. I explored this in an article seventeen months ago now:
The following passages from Pope Pius XII's Humani Generis, August 12, 1950, describe--and condemn--the entirety of the intellectual work of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is using his "vague notions" and outright heresies to appeal for "unity" with the schismatic and heretical Orthodox churches without forcing them to accept the dogmatic pronouncements of the Second Millennium that were made without their "participation" and that were "distorted" by Scholasticism as a result:
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.
Unfortunately these advocates of novelty easily pass from despising scholastic theology to the neglect of and even contempt for the Teaching Authority of the Church itself, which gives such authoritative approval to scholastic theology. This Teaching Authority is represented by them as a hindrance to progress and an obstacle in the way of science. Some non Catholics consider it as an unjust restraint preventing some more qualified theologians from reforming their subject. And although this sacred Office of Teacher in matters of faith and morals must be the proximate and universal criterion of truth for all theologians, since to it has been entrusted by Christ Our Lord the whole deposit of faith -- Sacred Scripture and divine Tradition -- to be preserved, guarded and interpreted, still the duty that is incumbent on the faithful to flee also those errors which more or less approach heresy, and accordingly "to keep also the constitutions and decrees by which such evil opinions are proscribed and forbidden by the Holy See," is sometimes as little known as if it did not exist. What is expounded in the Encyclical Letters of the Roman Pontiffs concerning the nature and constitution of the Church, is deliberately and habitually neglected by some with the idea of giving force to a certain vague notion which they profess to have found in the ancient Fathers, especially the Greeks. The Popes, they assert, do not wish to pass judgment on what is a matter of dispute among theologians, so recourse must be had to the early sources, and the recent constitutions and decrees of the Teaching Church must be explained from the writings of the ancients.
Such is not the foundation of any kind of true reconciliation between the Orthodox and the Catholic Church, admitting that the counterfeit church of conciliarism can indeed "live" with these differences in the name of a false notion of "unity" and "love."
Appendix B
In Their Own Words: The Destruction of the Roman Rite to Please Protestants
We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren that is for the Protestants." (Annibale Bugnini, L'Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965.)
"[T]he intention of Pope Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the Mass, was to reform the Catholic liturgy in such a way that it should coincide with the Protestant liturgy.... [T]here was with Pope Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or at least to correct, or at least to relax, what was too Catholic in the traditional sense, in the Mass, and I, repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist mass" (Dec. 19, 1993), Apropos, #17, pp. 8f; quoted in Christian Order, October, 1994. (Jean Guitton, a close friend of Giovanni Montini/Paul VI. The quotation and citations are found in Christopher A. Ferrara and Thomas E. Woods, Jr., The Great Facade, The Remnant Publishing Company, 2002, p. 317.)
Let it be candidly said: the Roman Rite which we have known hitherto no longer exists. It is destroyed. (Father Joseph Gelineau, an associate of Annibale Bugnini on the Consilium, quoted and footnoted in the work of a John Mole, who believed that the Mass of the Roman Rite had been "truncated," not destroyed. Assault on the Roman Rite)
Appendix C
Pope Pius XI's Obliteration of the Misuse of Et Unum Sint (John 17: 21)
Is it not right, it is often repeated, indeed, even consonant with duty, that all who invoke the name of Christ should abstain from mutual reproaches and at long last be united in mutual charity? Who would dare to say that he loved Christ, unless he worked with all his might to carry out the desires of Him, Who asked His Father that His disciples might be "one." And did not the same Christ will that His disciples should be marked out and distinguished from others by this characteristic, namely that they loved one another: "By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another"? All Christians, they add, should be as "one": for then they would be much more powerful in driving out the pest of irreligion, which like a serpent daily creeps further and becomes more widely spread, and prepares to rob the Gospel of its strength. These things and others that class of men who are known as pan-Christians continually repeat and amplify; and these men, so far from being quite few and scattered, have increased to the dimensions of an entire class, and have grouped themselves into widely spread societies, most of which are directed by non-Catholics, although they are imbued with varying doctrines concerning the things of faith. This undertaking is so actively promoted as in many places to win for itself the adhesion of a number of citizens, and it even takes possession of the minds of very many Catholics and allures them with the hope of bringing about such a union as would be agreeable to the desires of Holy Mother Church, who has indeed nothing more at heart than to recall her erring sons and to lead them back to her bosom. But in reality beneath these enticing words and blandishments lies hid a most grave error, by which the foundations of the Catholic faith are completely destroyed (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)
