Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us
 Published on May 23, 2010; revised and expanded on: May 25, 2010

Anti-Apostles All

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Apart from the many ways by which he has blasphemed the honor and majesty and glory of the Most Blessed Trinity, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has used his false "pontificate" to blaspheme many of the Fathers and the Doctors of Holy Mother Church by attempting to make them witnesses in behalf of conciliarism and its multiple defections from the Holy Faith (see Attempting to Coerce Perjury.)

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has blasphemed the thirteen millions martyrs of the first centuries of the Church, she who was brought to birth this very day, Pentecost Sunday as the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity descended in tongues of flame upon Our Lady and the Apostles and the others who were gathered in the same Upper Room in Jerusalem where Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ had instituted at the Last Supper fifty-three days before the Holy Priesthood and the Holy Eucharist for our sanctification and salvation, saying that they died as "martyrs for religious liberty." The first martyrs died as martyrs for the Catholic Faith precisely because they refused to acknowledge false religions or to place them on a level of equality with the one and only true religion, Catholicism, revealed by the true God of Divine Revelation.

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has blasphemed the memory of the English Martyrs, each and every single one of whom refused to give any credence to the liturgical books of the false Anglican that he, Ratzinger/Benedict, is accepting as legitimate even though they were declared heretical by Pope Saint Pius V in Regnans in Excelsis, March 5, 1570 (see Defaming The English Martyrs and Still Defaming The English Martyrs).

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has dared to spit in the face of God by claiming in a Talmudic synagogue that Christians and Jews "pray to the same Lord," showing himself to be bereft of the Catholic Faith (see Saint Peter and Anti-Peter), thereby mocking a mockery of the work begun by the first pope, Saint Peter, on this very day as he preached to the Jews to seek with urgency their unconditional conversion to the Catholic Faith.

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has been faithless to the consistent teaching of the Catholic Church, undertaken in complete fidelity to her missionary work that commenced this very day, Pentecost Sunday, to seek the unconditional return of all non-Catholics to the Catholic Church, including Protestants and members of the various warring factions that make up Orthodoxy (see the section on false ecumenism in Ratzinger's War Against Catholicism) Ratzinger/Benedict has even praised the so-called "World Missionary Conference" that met in Edinburgh, Scotland, from June 14 to June 23, 1910, marking the beginning of false ecumenism in Protestant circles. It was to condemn this false movement that Pope Pius XI wrote Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.

Indeed, Ratzinger/Benedict has been willing to distort history in order to effect a "communion" with the Orthodox that is premised upon a belief that the doctrine of Papal Primacy was understood "differently" in the First Millennium that it was by the the time of the [First] Vatican Council.

Ratzinger/Benedict has given his own very personal expression of support for this long held view of his in a general audience address two years ago, thereby placing his own "papal" stamp on that which is nothing other than a complete and total distortion of the history of the papacy in the First Millennium of the Church. Readers will see in a moment that "Pope" Benedict XVI's views are identical to those of Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger, views that have migrated from his own Principles of Catholic Theology (published in 1982) to the "unofficial" The Ravenna Document, October 13, 2007:

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.)


What can overcome the alleged "difficulties" to forging "stronger ties of communion" with the Orthodox churches and the Protestant "ecclesial communities"? Why "love," of course? And music and art can be instruments to speak to our "hearts" to have the kind of "love" that is necessary to "purify memory" and to forge a path of "progress" in the future as a "shared witness" is given to face down the advances what Ratzinger/Benedict calls the "dictatorship of relativism" of which he, although he does not realize it, is one of the chief adherents as he reduces the Catholic Faith to the level of relativism by employing his dogmatically condemned and philosophically absurd "hermeneutic of continuity and discontinuity." Simple, huh? Yes, it is simple just to deny tenets of the Catholic Faith in the name of a false concept of "love" and "shared witness."

This is what unites Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and the Russian Orthodox, as one can see by examining these comments of Archbishop Hilarion, the head of external (ecumenical) affairs for the Russian Orthodox Church, on May 19, 2010, the day before a musical concert featuring works of Russian composers in the Paul VI Audience in the Vatican on Thursday, May 20, 2010:

Meeting journalists May 19, Metropolitan Hilarion said, "It seems to me that there are things which cannot be transmitted either through theological discourse or diplomacy, but can be transmitted through the language of art."

While theological dialogue is essential for resolving the 1,000-year-old split between the Christian East and West, "the dialogue of the heart" is also necessary, he said.

"Through music we can say something we cannot say through words or diplomatic means or even through theological terms," he said. "The dialogue between cultures can bring many good results. It can liberate us from prejudices, from negative feelings toward each other, which we may have inherited from the past." (Musical notes: Vatican, Russian Orthodox try new path toward harmony.)


This is saying essentially that the Faith is irrational, that it cannot be communicated or understood by precise language contained in dogmatic pronouncements. We must thus surrender solely to the affections of the heart, which will be strong enough to forge bonds that cannot otherwise be forged in the midst of difficult differences, perhaps some made by "man-made" decisions that do not touch the "essence" of the "Christian faith." This, of course, is blasphemy against God the Holy Ghost, Who has always infallibly guided Holy Mother Church to express the truths contained in Divine Revelation, inspiring our true popes and the fathers of our twenty legitimate councils to express the truths of the Faith in clear, precise terms that in such a consistent manner that it could be said that every pope and council spoke with but "one vice" (cum una voce) prior to the "election" of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII on October 28, 1958.

Music and art are, of course, important means by which which we, who are sensible beings, can be inspired to the things of Heaven. They are important means by the which the immutable truths of the Catholic Faith can be communicated to demonstrate the order and perfection of the good God, Who has given man the creative powers to compose and perform works of music and to convey the Faith through glorious works of art and architecture. Most Catholics do not read the great encyclical letters of the Church and they are unfamiliar, at least for the most part, with every point contained in the Denziger compendium of doctrine or in the 1917 Code of Canon Law. This is why Holy Mother Church, in her infinite wisdom as she is guided by God the Holy Ghost, has been careful to protect the Sacred Liturgy as a means of elevating the soul to Heaven, not of being a means of accommodating itself to the transitory fads of the time.

Pope Pius XI made this precise point in Quas Primas, December 11, 1925, explaining why he was instituting the Feast of the Universal Kingship of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as a means to explicate a doctrine that needed to be enshrined liturgically in order to reach the hearts and souls of men:

That these blessings may be abundant and lasting in Christian society, it is necessary that the kingship of our Savior should be as widely as possible recognized and understood, and to the end nothing would serve better than the institution of a special feast in honor of the Kingship of Christ. For people are instructed in the truths of faith, and brought to appreciate the inner joys of religion far more effectually by the annual celebration of our sacred mysteries than by any official pronouncement of the teaching of the Church. Such pronouncements usually reach only a few and the more learned among the faithful; feasts reach them all; the former speak but once, the latter speak every year - in fact, forever. The church's teaching affects the mind primarily; her feasts affect both mind and heart, and have a salutary effect upon the whole of man's nature. Man is composed of body and soul, and he needs these external festivities so that the sacred rites, in all their beauty and variety, may stimulate him to drink more deeply of the fountain of God's teaching, that he may make it a part of himself, and use it with profit for his spiritual life. (See also Pope Saint Pius X's Tra Le Sollecitudini, November 22, 1903.)


Pope Pius XI saw music as a means to convey the truths of the Catholic Faith, which is always expressed in clear, precise terms, not as a means to "bridge" differences that really do not matter all that much as God sees the intention of the hearts. Symbols are, of course, essential in the communication of the truths of the Catholic Faith. They are never used to make ambiguous what is clear, to deny what has been defined, to seek to accommodate heretics and schismatics in the name of a false sense of "love" or "communion." This is precisely, however, how art and music and architecture have been used in the counterfeit church of concilairism. Anyone up for a chorus or two "Glory and Praise to Our God" or "Let There Be Peace On Earth"?

Ratzinger/Benedict, whose own "new theology" is founded in large measure on the nebulous view of doctrine and theology possessed by the Orthodox, put in his two Euros' worth after that aforementioned concert three days ago now:

VATICAN CITY, 21 MAY 2010 (VIS) - Yesterday evening in the Vatican's Paul VI Hall, Benedict XVI attended a concert in honour of his birthday and the anniversary of his election as Pope, offered by Kirill I, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia. The concert, which included pieces by nineteenth- and twentieth-century Russian composers, was played by the National Orchestra of Russia conducted by Carlo Ponti, with the Synodal Choir of Moscow and the Horn Capella of St. Petersburg.

At the end of the concert, which was part of the initiative "Days of Russian Culture and Spirituality in the Vatican", the Holy Father listened to a message sent by Patriarch Kirill and was greeted by Archbishop Hilarion of Volokolamsk, president of the Department for External Church Affairs of the Patriarchate of Moscow and composer of one of the pieces played during the concert. The Pope then pronounced a brief address.

"Deep in these works", he said, "is the soul of the Russian people, and therewith the Christian faith, both of which find extraordinary expression in divine liturgy and in the liturgical chants with which it is always accompanied. There is, in fact, a close and fundamental bond between Russian music and liturgical chant. It is in the liturgy and from the liturgy that a large part of the artistic creativity of Russian musicians is released and expressed, giving life to masterpieces which deserve to be better known in the West".

Such nineteenth- and twentieth-century Russian composers as Mussorgsky, Rimsky-Korsakov, Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninov "treasured the rich musical- liturgical heritage of Russian tradition, re-modelling it and harmonising it with musical themes and experiences of the West. ...

Music, then, anticipates and in some way creates encounter, dialogue and synergy between East and West, between tradition and modernity.

"It was of just such a unified and harmonious vision of Europe that the Venerable John Paul II was thinking when, referring to the image of the 'two lungs' suggested by Vjaceslav Ivanovic Ivanov, he expressed his hope in a renewed awareness of the continent's profound and shared cultural and religious roots, without which today's Europe would be deprived of a soul or, at least, victim of a reduced and partial vision".

"Modern culture, particularly in Europe, runs the risk of amnesia, of forgetting and thus abandoning the extraordinary heritage aroused and inspired by Christian faith, which is the essential framework of the culture of Europe, and not only of Europe. The Christian roots of the continent are, in fact, made up not only of religious life and the witness of so many generation of believers, but also of the priceless cultural and artistic heritage which is the pride and precious resource of the peoples and countries in which Christian faith, in its various expressions, has entered into dialogue with culture and the arts".

"Today too these roots are alive and fruitful in East and West, and can in fact inspire a new humanism, a new season of authentic human progress in order to respond effectively to the numerous and sometimes crucial challenges that our Christian communities and societies have to face: first among them that of secularism, which not only impels us to ignore God and His designs, but ends up by denying the very dignity of human beings, in view of a society regulated only by selfish interests".

The Holy Father concluded: "Let us again let Europe breathe with both lungs, restore a soul not only to believers, but to all peoples of the continent, promote trust and hope, rooting them in the millennial experience of the Christian faith. The coherent, generous and courageous witness of believers must not now be lacking, so that together we may look to our shared future, a future in which the freedom and dignity of all men and women are recognised as a fundamental value, in which openness to the Transcendent, the experience of faith, is recognised as an essential element of the human being". (MODERN CULTURE RISKS FORGETTING CHRISTIAN HERITAGE.)


Witness of believers? Believers in what? The Catholic Faith in Its holy integrity without qualification or reservation whatsoever? Yes, the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church are supposed to complement those of the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church. This is beyond question. Those in the Eastern Rites must, however, believe in everything taught by the Catholic Church or suffer from doctrinal emphysema in their lungs. The Eastern Rites and the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church (as well as the little used Ambrosian Rite and the Mozarabic Rite proper to parts of Spain) each must breathe the clear, unpolluted air of the totality of the Deposit of Faith exactly as Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ entrusted It to Holy Mother Church without any shadow of alteration, change, ambiguity or contradiction whatsoever:

These and many other serious things, which at present would take too long to list, but which you know well, cause Our intense grief. It is not enough for Us to deplore these innumerable evils unless We strive to uproot them. We take refuge in your faith and call upon your concern for the salvation of the Catholic flock. Your singular prudence and diligent spirit give Us courage and console Us, afflicted as We are with so many trials. We must raise Our voice and attempt all things lest a wild boar from the woods should destroy the vineyard or wolves kill the flock. It is Our duty to lead the flock only to the food which is healthful. In these evil and dangerous times, the shepherds must never neglect their duty; they must never be so overcome by fear that they abandon the sheep. Let them never neglect the flock and become sluggish from idleness and apathy. Therefore, united in spirit, let us promote our common cause, or more truly the cause of God; let our vigilance be one and our effort united against the common enemies.

Indeed you will accomplish this perfectly if, as the duty of your office demands, you attend to yourselves and to doctrine and meditate on these words: "the universal Church is affected by any and every novelty" and the admonition of Pope Agatho: "nothing of the things appointed ought to be diminished; nothing changed; nothing added; but they must be preserved both as regards expression and meaning." Therefore may the unity which is built upon the See of Peter as on a sure foundation stand firm. May it be for all a wall and a security, a safe port, and a treasury of countless blessings. To check the audacity of those who attempt to infringe upon the rights of this Holy See or to sever the union of the churches with the See of Peter, instill in your people a zealous confidence in the papacy and sincere veneration for it. As St. Cyprian wrote: "He who abandons the See of Peter on which the Church was founded, falsely believes himself to be a part of the Church."


The Russian Orthodox not only falsely belief that they belong to the "church" despite defecting from the Faith in numerous ways (see Appendix A below) they have been reaffirmed in this false belief by Ratzinger/Benedict, whose words and actions and long held and frequently expressed beliefs are at odds with the papal pronouncement after papal pronouncement, dogmatic declaration after dogmatic declaration

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.)


As I keep trying to tell you, anyone who contends that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's long held beliefs concerning the ability to understand Catholic teaching differently at different times because of the contingent historical circumstances in which they were first expressed has been absolutely and without question condemned by the authority of the Catholic Church is not thinking too clearly.

Ratzinger/Benedict's remarks three days ago after the concert of music composed by various Russian composers also included his usual references to "faith" in a generic sense, referring to the importance of the "shared faith" of believers to "inspire a new humanism, a new season of authentic human progress," which is nothing other than standard, boiler plate conciliarism that is derived, proximately speaking, by the "inter-religious" vision of Marc Sangnier, the founder of The Sillon in France, a movement that was condemned unequivocally by Pope Saint Pius X in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910:

And now, overwhelmed with the deepest sadness, We ask Ourselves, Venerable Brethren, what has become of the Catholicism of the Sillon? Alas! this organization which formerly afforded such promising expectations, this limpid and impetuous stream, has been harnessed in its course by the modern enemies of the Church, and is now no more than a miserable affluent of the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would bring back to the world (if such a Church could overcome) the reign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak, and of all those who toil and suffer.

We know only too well the dark workshops in which are elaborated these mischievous doctrines which ought not to seduce clear-thinking minds. The leaders of the Sillon have not been able to guard against these doctrines. The exaltation of their sentiments, the undiscriminating good-will of their hearts, their philosophical mysticism, mixed with a measure of illuminism, have carried them away towards another Gospel which they thought was the true Gospel of Our Savior. To such an extent that they speak of Our Lord Jesus Christ with a familiarity supremely disrespectful, and that - their ideal being akin to that of the Revolution - they fear not to draw between the Gospel and the Revolution blasphemous comparisons for which the excuse cannot be made that they are due to some confused and over-hasty composition.

We wish to draw your attention, Venerable Brethren, to this distortion of the Gospel and to the sacred character of Our Lord Jesus Christ, God and man, prevailing within the Sillon and elsewhere. As soon as the social question is being approached, it is the fashion in some quarters to first put aside the divinity of Jesus Christ, and then to mention only His unlimited clemency, His compassion for all human miseries, and His pressing exhortations to the love of our neighbor and to the brotherhood of men. True, Jesus has loved us with an immense, infinite love, and He came on earth to suffer and die so that, gathered around Him in justice and love, motivated by the same sentiments of mutual charity, all men might live in peace and happiness. But for the realization of this temporal and eternal happiness, He has laid down with supreme authority the condition that we must belong to His Flock, that we must accept His doctrine, that we must practice virtue, and that we must accept the teaching and guidance of Peter and his successors. Further, whilst Jesus was kind to sinners and to those who went astray, He did not respect their false ideas, however sincere they might have appeared. He loved them all, but He instructed them in order to convert them and save them. Whilst He called to Himself in order to comfort them, those who toiled and suffered, it was not to preach to them the jealousy of a chimerical equality. Whilst He lifted up the lowly, it was not to instill in them the sentiment of a dignity independent from, and rebellious against, the duty of obedience. Whilst His heart overflowed with gentleness for the souls of good-will, He could also arm Himself with holy indignation against the profaners of the House of God, against the wretched men who scandalized the little ones, against the authorities who crush the people with the weight of heavy burdens without putting out a hand to lift them. He was as strong as he was gentle. He reproved, threatened, chastised, knowing, and teaching us that fear is the beginning of wisdom, and that it is sometimes proper for a man to cut off an offending limb to save his body. Finally, He did not announce for future society the reign of an ideal happiness from which suffering would be banished; but, by His lessons and by His example, He traced the path of the happiness which is possible on earth and of the perfect happiness in heaven: the royal way of the Cross. These are teachings that it would be wrong to apply only to one's personal life in order to win eternal salvation; these are eminently social teachings, and they show in Our Lord Jesus Christ something quite different from an inconsistent and impotent humanitarianism.

As for you, Venerable Brethren, carry on diligently with the work of the Saviour of men by emulating His gentleness and His strength. Minister to every misery; let no sorrow escape your pastoral solicitude; let no lament find you indifferent. But, on the other hand, preach fearlessly their duties to the powerful and to the lowly; it is your function to form the conscience of the people and of the public authorities. The social question will be much nearer a solution when all those concerned, less demanding as regards their respective rights, shall fulfill their duties more exactingly.

Moreover, since in the clash of interests, and especially in the struggle against dishonest forces, the virtue of man, and even his holiness are not always sufficient to guarantee him his daily bread, and since social structures, through their natural interplay, ought to be devised to thwart the efforts of the unscrupulous and enable all men of good will to attain their legitimate share of temporal happiness, We earnestly desire that you should take an active part in the organization of society with this objective in mind. And, to this end, whilst your priests will zealously devote efforts to the sanctification of souls, to the defense of the Church, and also to works of charity in the strict sense, you shall select a few of them, level-headed and of active disposition, holders of Doctors’ degrees in philosophy and theology, thoroughly acquainted with the history of ancient and modern civilizations, and you shall set them to the not-so-lofty but more practical study of the social science so that you may place them at the opportune time at the helm of your works of Catholic action. However, let not these priests be misled, in the maze of current opinions, by the miracles of a false Democracy. Let them not borrow from the Rhetoric of the worst enemies of the Church and of the people, the high-flown phrases, full of promises; which are as high-sounding as unattainable. Let them be convinced that the social question and social science did not arise only yesterday; that the Church and the State, at all times and in happy concert, have raised up fruitful organizations to this end; that the Church, which has never betrayed the happiness of the people by consenting to dubious alliances, does not have to free herself from the past; that all that is needed is to take up again, with the help of the true workers for a social restoration, the organisms which the Revolution shattered, and to adapt them, in the same Christian spirit that inspired them, to the new environment arising from the material development of today’s society. Indeed, the true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries, nor innovators: they are traditionalists.

What was that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI said about Gaudium et Spes, December 7, 1965, being the "church's" "official reconciliation" with the principles of the new era inaugurated in 1789? Let me see:

Let us be content to say here that the text 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.)


One of the reasons that Ratzinger/Benedict is attempting to forge bonds of "communion from the heart" with the Russian Orthodox is that he wants to meet personally with that heretical and schismatic church's head, Patriarch Kirill I. Patriarch Kirill, who has been accused of working with the Soviet KGB during its existence in the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and has made "nice nice" with the murderous brothers Castro in Cuba, is not interested in "reunification." Neither is Ratzinger/Benedict. Both are content for there to be a "communion from the heart."

Ratzinger/Benedict believes that an important sign of that "communion from heart" would be a face-to-face meeting with Patriarch Kirill I, a meeting that would have to convey to Russian Orthodox bishops and priests that the false "pontiff" and the Russian patriarch are "equals" who are meeting as "equals" in the eyes of the world. For such a meeting to take place, however, Ratzinger/Benedict might have to throw Catholics in the Ukraine under the bus, just as Giovanni Montini/Paul VI threw Josef Cardinal Mindszenty, the Primate of Hungary, under the bus in 1966 and as Ratzinger/Benedict himself has thrown Catholics underground Catholics in Red China under the bus (see Red China: Workshop for the New Ecclesiology for a detailed account of both of these monstrous conciliar sell-outs of Catholics who resisted the evil that is Communism in their own countries).

A report from one hundred thirty-four days ago explained Russian patriarch's "concerns" about Catholic churches in the Ukraine that were seized by the Soviets after World War II and then given to their own control in repayment for their "cooperation" with the KGB Many of these churches have were taken back by Catholics after the fall of the Soviet Union on December 25, 1991. Although Russian Orthodox officials are not seeking the return of the churches, they do want some accommodation to be made to provide "worship space" for the Orthodox in the Ukraine. Would Ratzinger/Benedict be willing to offer the return of a few Catholic churches to make possible a meeting with Patriarch Kirill I and a show of "communion from the heart." You betcha.

Patriarch Kirill, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, would be willing to meet Pope Benedict after disputes with Catholics in Ukraine are resolved, Archbishop Hilarion, the Church’s external relations head, has said.  A meeting with the pope would begin to heal the 1,000 year-old-rift between the Western and Eastern branches of Christianity, which split in 1054 amid disputes over doctrine and papal authority that remain unresolved.

“This is not an issue of when the meeting will take place, but what will be discussed,” Hilarion told journalists on Tuesday.  He said the patriarch of the 165-million-strong Russian Orthodox Church, whose believers include the majority of Russia’s population as well as millions in neighbouring ex-Soviet countries Ukraine and Belarus, wanted a conflict in western Ukraine over church property to be resolved first.

“The situation in western Ukraine is the primary reason for the blocking of the meeting,” he said.

After the disintegration of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, Eastern Rite Catholics who owe their allegiance to Rome took back some churches that had been confiscated by communist authorities after World War Two and given to the Orthodox.  The Russian Orthodox Church does not demand the churches are returned but wants the Vatican to take “concrete measures” towards improving the situation, Hilarion said, such as helping Orthodox followers who have only Catholic churches nearby.

“As soon as there are positive dynamics (from the Vatican) towards resolving this issue, then we can return to the issue of the pope and patriarch meeting,” Hilarion said.

He did not specify if the patriarch wanted help given only to members of the Russian Orthodox Church or to an independent Orthodox church formed in Ukraine in the 1990s, which rejects Russia’s top clergy despite Kirill’s appeals for unity.

Last year’s election of Kirill brought fresh hope that a historic meeting between pope and patriarch could take place. Relations between the Vatican and the Russian Orthodox Church were discussed last month when Russian President Dmitry Medvedev briefly met the pope.

Hilarion said the Eastern Rite Catholics took more than 500 churches from the Russian Orthodox, who are the largest autocephalic church amongst the world’s 220 million Orthodox Christians.  Until 1946, the churches belonged to the Eastern Rite Catholics, a sizeable minority in western Ukraine who endured hardship under Moscow’s rule until the collapse of the Soviet Union.

“We do not argue the fact that these temples belonged to them before 1946 but we categorically disagree with the methods which (they) used to get them back,” Hilarion said.

The dispute over the church buildings is just one sticking point in relations between the Russian church and the Vatican. The Russian church has accused Rome of trying to poach converts following the fall of communism, something the Vatican denies.

Kirill’s predecessor, Patriarch Alexiy, who spearheaded the revival of his church after decades of communist persecution, treated rival religions and churches with suspicion. John Paul hailed from Poland, a traditional enemy of Russia, and his fight against Soviet Communism was interpreted by the Orthodox Church as a crusade against Russia.  German-born Pope Benedict, a theological conservative, is viewed by Orthodox hierarchs as a more welcome partner than his predecessor John Paul II. (Ukraine dispute blocks Vatican, Russian Orthodox meeting – Hilarion.)


It is a mystery why Patriarch Kirill I is concerned about agents of the counterfeit church of conciliarism seeking to "poach converts" from Orthodoxy as such work, which is, of course, nothing other than the work of the Apostles and was what prompted Saint Josaphat Kuntsevych to give up up his life the hands of the Orthodox on November 12, 1623, in what is now the country of Belarus, which borders the Ukraine. The counterfeit church of conciliarism's agents have agreed some time ago to refrain from such apostolic work:

22) Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Eastern, no longer aims at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other; that is to say, it no longer aims at proselytizing among the Orthodox. It aims at answering the spiritual needs of its own faithful and it has no desire for expansion at the expense of the Orthodox Church. Within these perspectives, so that there will no longer be room for mistrust and suspicion, it is necessary that there be reciprocal exchanges of information about various pastoral projects and that thus cooperation between bishops and all those with responsibilities in our Churches can be set in motion and develop. (Full Text of the Balamand Statement.)


No need to worry, Patriarch Kirill. Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II and Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and Walter "Cardinal" Kasper have been way, way ahead of you.

The Apostles and those who followed them sought converts to the Faith. The anti-apostles of the counterfeit church of conciliarism renounce efforts to make converts from the Orthodox and the Protestant "ecclesial communities." This is nothing other than a betrayal of the mission of Holy Mother Church begun in earnest by Saint Peter himself, our first pope, on this very day, Pentecost Sunday.

The work of the Apostles, which was indeed begun this very day, Pentecost Sunday, in Jerusalem, is contradicted by the Anti-Apostles of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, starting with the Anti-Peter himself, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. We must recognize this and seek to protect ourselves and our families in the Catholic catacombs so that the madness of conciliarism will not lead us to think for a moment that the Catholic Church, the spotless, immaculate Mystical Bride of her Divine Founder and Mystical Bridegroom, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, can give us liturgies that are incentives to impiety or any doctrines or statements that are unclear, ambiguous, or contradictory one to to another and to her own immutable Deposit of Faith.

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 four hundred eight go 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, the Spouse of God the Holy Ghost, to cooperate with the Seven Gifts and the Twelve Fruits of the Holy Ghost 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:

Happy Birthday, Holy Mother Church.

A blessed Pentecost Sunday to you all.

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.

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:

  1. 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;
  2. 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

Comments from Mr. Timothy McAleer

[A reader, Mr. Timothy McAleer, has revised and expanded a set of comments that he sent a few days ago. I thank Mr. McAleer for his comments, which explain Angelo Cardinal Roncalli's contempt for the teaching authority of the Catholic Church.]

Dear Dr. Droleskey,  

Another excellent article today, this time about the union of the Russian Orthodox and modern "Catholicism" through music and the arts via "papal" approval.  This reminds me of an encounter between the future John XXIII and the Russian composer, Igor Stravinsky, in 1956.  I quote from Robert Craft's book Stravinsky: Chronicle of a Friendship, Revised and Expanded Edition (Nashville and London, Vanderbilt UP, 1994, p. 139) from the date August 10, 1956:

A courtesy visit to the Patriarch, Cardinal Roncalli, to request permission to perform the Canticum Sacrum in the Basilica of San Marco.  His gondola ferries us at noon to a tunnel on the Rio Palazzo, where a clerical secretary guides us through passageways and up flights of stairs.  Ushered into the presence, I follow I.S. [Igor Stravinsky] bowing and kissing the proferred ring hand, and try to adjust to scarlet: the scarlet skullcap on the Cardinal, the scarlet galero on a credenza by his chair, the scarlet watered silk cape, the scarlet-lined soutane with scarlet buttons, the scarlet stockings, the scarlet-bordered and scarlet-beaded slippers, the scarlet sash over the abdomen--the abdomen of a woman about to be rushed to a maternity hospital. 

The Cardinal's French is fluent and his talk worldly wise, which I do not expect, having imagined such a man living in seclusion.  Surprises are sprung, as when, recalling his years as Nuncio in Sofia and Istanbul, he remarks, "Orientals are more profoundly religious than we Catholics."  Telling us that he officiated at vernacular Masses in these cities, he observes, clearly aiming at Rome, "Stupidity is always stubborn, intelligence should be resilient."  I.S.'s Russian Orthodoxy interests him, and I think he would like to discuss the Filioque Clause and the Monophysite heresy; but I.S.'s own attitude toward the Eastern and Western churches is a mystery at present, perhaps even to himself. Turning to the matter of the meeting, the Cardinal asks I.S. why he has chosen a passage from the "Song of Solomon" for performance in a Christian church.  I try to come to his help by providing a quick rundown of the Old Testament "sacred symphonies" in San Marco itself, but while I talk, His Eminence twiddles the gold cross dangling on his stomach, and this epigastric play nearly distracts me from my subject.  Still, the argument from precedents seems to satisfy him, for he hoists his large croup from the chair--it is another surprise that such a basso buffo figure, and all that tropical plumage, actually moves--and, standing, bestows his benisons on ourselves and the concert.  We depart, again genuflecting and bussing [sic] the ring, then sidling and scraping al rovescio.  Before we leave the palace, the Cardinal escorts us to the throne room, site of the Doges' ambassadorial dinners, to show us an unexpected view of San Marco's plain brick back. 


As you can see from this passage, Dr. Droleskey, the Great Apostasy was already in full swing (in the form of seemingly subversive vernacular Masses) beneath the incapacitated eye of Pius XII, especially when we see with what acclaim, adulation and popularity this same Roncalli was "elected" "pope" two years later, whom even a man not noted for any religious sensibility, Robert Craft, could discern was “worldly” and not acting as one would expect of a Prince of the Church. The fact that Roncalli could say of Rome "Stupidity is always stubborn, intelligence should be resilient" to famous non-Catholics with instant access to the world press shows that he probably had Freemasonic moles throughout the Vatican and the world press, with no fears of retribution for such an obscenely insulting statement about the then-current Pope and his Curia.

Furthermore, why did Roncalli say, "Orientals are more profoundly religious than we Catholics"? Speak for yourself, Mr. Roncalli! Perhaps you do not possess the Catholic Faith and are thus projecting your lack of piety and devotion onto the rest of us Catholics, and adding scandal to the mix by denigrating the “little” devotion you believe we have to a non-Catholic. Do you not know that it is not possible for those in a false religion to be “more profoundly religious” than anyone in a true religion despite any exterior manifestations of piety? Do you not realize the key divide between those “Orientals” who are “more profoundly religious” than we Catholics is their lack of obedience to the papacy, which throne you would ascend just two years later? Do you prefer lack of obedience to the papacy?

Finally, do you not know that such opinions, whether true or not, are to be kept within the confines of the Church, lest scandal be given to those outside the Church, and only revealed to those outside the Church when there is no other recourse (as did "Fr." German Robledo of Colombia recently in the structures of the New Church, properly but alas belatedly, when he found no other recourse regarding the sins of his "bishop")?  No, I guess not.  Instead you had to throw all of us Catholics—a billion or so at the time you made these comments, including my own dear and devout parents and grandparents—under the bus in order to “make nice” with the famous Russian composer, Igor Stravinsky (in the process manifesting one of the first ill fruits of inter-religious “dialogue”). Imagine the contempt you must have had for those same billion or so Catholics when you assumed the papal throne two years later!

I can’t imagine what you had in store for them….









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