As New Dog and Pony Shows Come To Town

Part Four (aka The End)

by Thomas A. Droleskey

As has been noted repeatedly on this site in the past four years now, the attack on the nature of dogmatic truth is at the core of the conciliar doctrinal and liturgical revolutions.

This attack on the nature of dogmatic truth, which is really nothing other than an attack on the very nature of God Himself, may appear to be a new "dog and pony show," if you will. However, it is not. It is simply a recycling of one of the basic presuppositions of Modernism that was condemned by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907.

Although I have quoted the following passage from Pascendi a great deal, I want to so again in what I expect to be a relatively short article for reasons that will be made clear in but a very brief while:

Hence it is quite impossible [the Modernists assert] to maintain that they [dogmatic statements] absolutely contain the truth: for, in so far as they are symbols, they are the images of truth, and so must be adapted to the religious sense in its relation to man; and as instruments, they are the vehicles of truth, and must therefore in their turn be adapted to man in his relation to the religious sense. But the object of the religious sense, as something contained in the absolute, possesses an infinite variety of aspects, of which now one, now another, may present itself. In like manner he who believes can avail himself of varying conditions. Consequently, the formulas which we call dogma must be subject to these vicissitudes, and are, therefore, liable to change. Thus the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of dogma. Here we have an immense structure of sophisms which ruin and wreck all religion. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

 

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI does not believe that this statement--or any statement made by one of our true popes or twenty valid councils of the Catholic Church--is an immutably clear and precise definition of a truth that no human being can "repeal" or seek legitimately to "deconstruct" (that is, to empty words of their plain meaning in order to project into those words what the reader desires). He believes that dogmatic pronouncements of the Catholic Church's legitimate councils and of her true popes are contingent upon the historical circumstances in which they were made. The language chosen by  our true popes and the Fathers of the Church's valid popes may have been fine for their times. However, the passage of time renders an initial formulation "obsolete" and in need of possible modification and reinterpretation in light of the changing meaning of words and the specific historical (or contemporary) context in which an interpreter may find himself at any given time. This is the essence of Ratzinger/Benedict's philosophically absurd and dogmatically condemned thesis contained in his "hermeneutic of continuity and discontinuity."

This effort blasphemes the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, by denying that the specific language used by the Fathers of the Catholic Church's dogmatic councils and by her true popes was the result of the infallible guidance of the same God the Holy Ghost and is not subject, therefore, to deconstruction as to do so is to say that God was wrong in directing popes and Council Fathers to speak and to write as they did. Ratzinger/Benedict, who, no matter how much he tries to make Saint Thomas Aquinas, of all of the Church's doctors, a perjured witness in behalf of conciliarism, hates the clarity of Saint Thomas's Scholasticism. The false "pontiff" has used his thoroughly Modernist deconstruction of dogmatic truth as the essential foundation to justify such departures from the Catholic Faith as the "new ecclesiology," false ecumenism and "inter-religious prayer services" and "inter-religious dialogue," religious liberty, separation of Church and State, and even by claiming in Summorum Pontificum three years ago today, contrary to what he had written in his own memoirs, Milestones, and his own preface to the French language edition of the late Monsignor Klaus Gamber's The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, that the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service does not represent a "rupture" from the Missale Romanum of Pope Saint Pius V (please see Words Really Do Matter for a review of these contradictions that have served, at least in the minds of so many traditionally-minded Catholics, of "restoration" of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition).

Where has Ratzinger/Benedict said that he believes in the "changeable" nature of the meaning of dogmatic truths and papal pronouncements? I am so happy that you asked. He has said this in many places at many times. The three that follow demonstrate how consistent Father Joseph Ratzinger was with Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger and that the statements on the mutability of the meaning of dogmatic truths expressed by the priest-"theologian" and the "cardinal" prefect of the conciliar Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith have been perfectly consistently with each other throughout the course of the decades:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

The currently governing false "pope" was not just a whistlin' Dixie when he told interviewers from German television in 2006 that he was then as he had been in the past:

I've been taken apart various times: in my first phase as professor and in the intermediate phase, during my first phase as Cardinal and in the successive phase. Now comes a new division. Of course circumstances and situations and even people influence you because you take on different responsibilities. Let's say that my basic personality and even my basic vision have grown, but in everything that is essential I have remained identical. I'm happy that certain aspects that weren't noticed at first are now coming into the open. (Interview with Bayerische Rundfunk (ARD), ZDF, Deutsche Welle and Vatican Radio.)

 

Any dispassionate reader can see clearly how consistent he has been.

Equally consistent, however, were the condemnations of this Modernist attack on the very nature of the Most Blessed Trinity and the dogmatic truth whose expression has always been under the infallible guidance of protect of God the Holy Ghost, Who cannot contradict Himself. Truth does not contradict itself. God is the Author of all truth, natural and supernatural. Ratzinger/Benedict's false and absurd notion of the mutability of the meaning of the language contained in dogmatic statements and papal pronouncements. Here are four more reminders how how "Pope" Benedict XVI has sought to contradict God Himself, Who spoke clearly to us through the Council Fathers of the Third Council and through the Council Fathers of of [First] Vatican Council and through the words of, among others, Pope Saint Pius X, and Pope Pius XII:

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).

• For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moreover they assert that when Catholic doctrine has been reduced to this condition, a way will be found to satisfy modern needs, that will permit of dogma being expressed also by the concepts of modern philosophy, whether of immanentism or idealism or existentialism or any other system. Some more audacious affirm that this can and must be done, because they hold that the mysteries of faith are never expressed by truly adequate concepts but only by approximate and ever changeable notions, in which the truth is to some extent expressed, but is necessarily distorted. Wherefore they do not consider it absurd, but altogether necessary, that theology should substitute new concepts in place of the old ones in keeping with the various philosophies which in the course of time it uses as its instruments, so that it should give human expression to divine truths in various ways which are even somewhat opposed, but still equivalent, as they say. They add that the history of dogmas consists in the reporting of the various forms in which revealed truth has been clothed, forms that have succeeded one another in accordance with the different teachings and opinions that have arisen over the course of the centuries. (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, August 12, 1950.)

 

Longtime readers might be scratching their heads as to why in the world I am repeating this all yet again. Well, my purpose in doing so yet again is to illustrate the fact that all of the dog and pony shows of conciliarism are rooted fundamentally in the Modernist warfare against the nature of dogmatic truth that are, as noted above, attacks on the very nature of God Himself and of His Divine Revelation. It is not enough for some conciliar "bishop" who is in favor of Summorum Pontificum and/or who leads a Rosary procession to a local baby-killing mill once a month to be considered a "good Catholic" as such a man is steeped in an ethos of falsehood, sacrilege and apostasy that can never serve as the foundation of any kind of restoration of the Church, no less of the restoration of full legal protection to the innocent preborn without any exceptions or qualifications whatsoever.

The Catholic Faith does not coexist with error. Holy Mother Church makes no terms with error of any kind. As spotless and as immaculate as our Blessed Mother, Holy Mother Church cannot give us liturgies that are incentives to impiety or full of any kind of innovation. Holy Mother Church cannot give us doctrines that are unclear, ambiguous, or subject to reinterpretation and revision over the course of the centuries. No restoration of the Catholic Faith in times of apostasy and betrayal in the past has ever come from any kind of falsehoods or deliberate misrepresentations as part of a "strategy" to take back the Church "brick by brick," as some like to say. Truth is the only foundation of the life of the Catholic Church as she was founded by Truth Incarnate and is vivified, enlightened and guided infallibly by  God the Holy Ghost to the glory of God the Father, the Author of all Truth.

For example, although it is good for fully traditional Catholics to pray Our Lady's Rosary with each other in front of the killing centers and for those who believe that they are called to do so to engage in sidewalk counseling, chemical and surgical baby-killing under cover of the civil law is, proximately speaking, the triumph, albeit temporary, of the anti-Incarnational forces of Modernity that have arisen the wake of the Protestant Revolution nearly five hundred years ago now. No amount of annual gatherings in Washington, District of Columbia, or elsewhere is going to stop that which has become an accepted evil in this nation. There must be a return to Catholicism, to the Social Reign of Christ the King, as Catholicism is but the one and only foundation of personal and social order.

While it is certainly true that Catholicism is not an absolute guarantor of personal salvation or maintaining social order over the long term as sinful men can choose all of their own to go to Hell by persisting in unrepentant Mortal Sins until the point of their dying breaths and entire groups of even Catholics in nations can choose to ignore the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law by casting aside the graces sent them to lovingly by Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces, and creating social chaos and disorder aplenty, it is also true that men must be lost in a sea of error and contradiction and ambiguity without the true Faith in all of its Holy Integrity.

Pope Leo XIII noted this in Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900:

As with individuals, so with nations. These, too, must necessarily tend to ruin if they go astray from "The Way." The Son of God, the Creator and Redeemer of mankind, is King and Lord of the earth, and holds supreme dominion over men, both individually and collectively. "And He gave Him power, and glory, and a kingdom: and all peoples, tribes, and tongues shall serve Him" (Daniel vii., 14). "I am appointed King by Him . . . I will give Thee the Gentiles for Thy inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for Thy possession" (Psalm ii., 6, 8). Therefore the law of Christ ought to prevail in human society and be the guide and teacher of public as well as of private life. Since this is so by divine decree, and no man may with impunity contravene it, it is an evil thing for the common weal wherever Christianity does not hold the place that belongs to it. When Jesus Christ is absent, human reason fails, being bereft of its chief protection and light, and the very end is lost sight of, for which, under God's providence, human society has been built up. This end is the obtaining by the members of society of natural good through the aid of civil unity, though always in harmony with the perfect and eternal good which is above nature. But when men's minds are clouded, both rulers and ruled go astray, for they have no safe line to follow nor end to aim at. (Pope Leo XIII, Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900.)

 

The lords of the counterfeit church of conciliarism do not believe this, of course. Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has told us repeatedly that he believes "irreligion" in the world can be fought by "believers" of different "religions:"

Last Spring, during my Apostolic Visit to the different countries of the Middle East, I suggested on various occasions that religion in general be considered as a "new starting point" for peace. It is true that throughout history religions have often caused conflict. But it is also true that religions which lived according to their profound essence were and are an effective factor for reconciliation and peace. At this historical time religions too, through open and sincere dialogue, must seek the way to purification so as to correspond ever better to their own true vocation.

Our humanity desires peace, and, if possible, universal peace. It is necessary to strive for it without utopias and without manipulation. We all know that in order to establish peace political and economic, cultural and spiritual conditions are required. The peaceful coexistence of the different religious traditions in each nation is sometimes difficult. Rather than a political problem, this coexistence is also a problem that arises within these traditions themselves. Every believer is called to question God about his will for every human situation.

In recognizing God as the one Creator of the human being of every human being, regardless of his or her religious denomination, social condition or political opinion each person will respect the other in his oneness and in his difference. Before God there is no category or hierarchy of the human person, inferior or superior, dominating or protected. For him there is only the human being whom he created through love and whom he wants to see living in his family and in society, in brotherly harmony. The discovery of God's wise plan for the human being leads to recognition of his love. For the believer or person of good will, the resolution of human conflicts, such as the delicate coexistence of the different religions can be transformed into human coexistence in an order full of goodness and wisdom whose origins and dynamism are in God. This coexistence with respect for the nature of things and their inherent wisdom that comes from God the tranquillitas ordinis is called peace. (To the new Ambassadors accredited to the Holy See on the occasion of the presentation of the Letters of Credence December 17, 2009.)

 

This is in direct contradiction to the immutable teaching of the Catholic Church that Pope Saint Pius X reiterated in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910:

Here we have, founded by Catholics, an inter-denominational association that is to work for the reform of civilization, an undertaking which is above all religious in character; for there is no true civilization without a moral civilization, and no true moral civilization without the true religion: it is a proven truth, a historical fact. The new Sillonists cannot pretend that they are merely working on “the ground of practical realities” where differences of belief do not matter. Their leader is so conscious of the influence which the convictions of the mind have upon the result of the action, that he invites them, whatever religion they may belong to, “to provide on the ground of practical realities, the proof of the excellence of their personal convictions.” And with good reason: indeed, all practical results reflect the nature of one’s religious convictions, just as the limbs of a man down to his finger-tips, owe their very shape to the principle of life that dwells in his body.

This being said, what must be thought of the promiscuity in which young Catholics will be caught up with heterodox and unbelieving folk in a work of this nature? Is it not a thousand-fold more dangerous for them than a neutral association? What are we to think of this appeal to all the heterodox, and to all the unbelievers, to prove the excellence of their convictions in the social sphere in a sort of apologetic contest? Has not this contest lasted for nineteen centuries in conditions less dangerous for the faith of Catholics? And was it not all to the credit of the Catholic Church? What are we to think of this respect for all errors, and of this strange invitation made by a Catholic to all the dissidents to strengthen their convictions through study so that they may have more and more abundant sources of fresh forces? What are we to think of an association in which all religions and even Free-Thought may express themselves openly and in complete freedom? For the Sillonists who, in public lectures and elsewhere, proudly proclaim their personal faith, certainly do not intend to silence others nor do they intend to prevent a Protestant from asserting his Protestantism, and the skeptic from affirming his skepticism. Finally, what are we to think of a Catholic who, on entering his study group, leaves his Catholicism outside the door so as not to alarm his comrades who, “dreaming of disinterested social action, are not inclined to make it serve the triumph of interests, coteries and even convictions whatever they may be”? Such is the profession of faith of the New Democratic Committee for Social Action which has taken over the main objective of the previous organization and which, they say, “breaking the double meaning which surround the Greater Sillon both in reactionary and anti-clerical circles”, is now open to all men “who respect moral and religious forces and who are convinced that no genuine social emancipation is possible without the leaven of generous idealism.”

 

Conciliarism's world view is simply a recycling of the false ecumenism of The Sillon that was condemned by Pope Saint Pius X forcefully. Young Father Angelo Roncalli, however, simply dismissed the condemnation, as he, a Modernist, waited until he had his moment to revive the spirit of The Sillon at the "Second" Vatican Council when he was "Pope" John XXIII. Yet it is, however, the conciliarism's world view is false and can serve only the cause of promoting personal and social disorder.

This is just one of the welter of falsehoods that those in the conciliar structures who know better must ignore or seek to "reconcile" with the Catholic Faith in order to enjoy a life of bliss and self-contentment, especially in the wake of Summorum Pontificum. Lost on these souls (and I used to be one of them for the better part of fifteen years in my indulterer period) is that God hates all falsehood, and that it was Summorum Pontificum is, as noted earlier in this article, based on one false presupposition after another.

Just as many of the "Anglo-Catholics" who are now in the process of transferring their seats on the One World Ecumenical Church from the "worldwide Anglican Communion" and what they think is the Catholic Church contented themselves with the belief that they had a "liturgy," one deemed heretical, mind you, by Pope Saint Pius V in Regnans in Excelsis, March 5, 1570, but which Joseph Ratzinger Benedict XVI is permitting them to keep (see Still Defaming The English Martyrs), making them "better" than their "liberal" Anglican confreres, so must traditionally-minded Catholics in the conciliar structures content themselves with what appears to be a beautiful liturgy while they ignore the false premises upon which "permission" for its being offered or simulated exists. They must, much like the "Anglo-Catholics" who will soon join them in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, turn a mostly blind eye to sacrilege and blasphemy and apostasy as though these offenses to God really do not matter and that they have no obligation in the slightest to recoil from those who are guilty of them. Many, although not all, in the Motu world, that they are in the forefront of the "restoration of the Catholic Church. Taking nothing away from their genuine good will and deep love of the Catholic Faith, such a belief is false.

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has no intention of restoring the Catholic Faith. He has no desire to abjure the errors of the New Theology that he has used to deconstruct the true meaning of Sacred Scripture and the writings of the Fathers and the Doctors of the Catholic Church. He has no desire to abjure the new ecclesiology or false ecumenism or "inter-religious prayer services" or religious liberty or separation of Church and State. He has no desire to abjure his philosophically absurd and dogmatically condemned "hermeneutic of continuity and discontinuity." The intention of "Pope" Benedict XVI is to help "wayward" Catholics attached to the "extraordinary form of the one Roman Rite" to accept the "Second" Vatican Council and to help break down any lingering attitudes of suspicion about that council's work and about the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service.

How do I know this? Do I possess some kind of "secret" or "inside" ability to read into the false "pontiff's" mind? No, I simply read and take seriously his own words, which is all anyone has to do to see that the final statement of the last paragraph is absolutely true:

Leading men and women to God, to the God Who speaks in the Bible: this is the supreme and fundamental priority of the Church and of the Successor of Peter at the present time. A logical consequence of this is that we must have at heart the unity of all believers. Their disunity, their disagreement among themselves, calls into question the credibility of their talk of God. Hence the effort to promote a common witness by Christians to their faith - ecumenism - is part of the supreme priority. Added to this is the need for all those who believe in God to join in seeking peace, to attempt to draw closer to one another, and to journey together, even with their differing images of God, towards the source of Light - this is inter-religious dialogue. Whoever proclaims that God is Love 'to the end' has to bear witness to love: in loving devotion to the suffering, in the rejection of hatred and enmity - this is the social dimension of the Christian faith, of which I spoke in the Encyclical 'Deus caritas est'.

"So if the arduous task of working for faith, hope and love in the world is presently (and, in various ways, always) the Church's real priority, then part of this is also made up of acts of reconciliation, small and not so small. That the quiet gesture of extending a hand gave rise to a huge uproar, and thus became exactly the opposite of a gesture of reconciliation, is a fact which we must accept. But I ask now: Was it, and is it, truly wrong in this case to meet half-way the brother who 'has something against you' and to seek reconciliation? Should not civil society also try to forestall forms of extremism and to incorporate their eventual adherents - to the extent possible - in the great currents shaping social life, and thus avoid their being segregated, with all its consequences? Can it be completely mistaken to work to break down obstinacy and narrowness, and to make space for what is positive and retrievable for the whole? I myself saw, in the years after 1988, how the return of communities which had been separated from Rome changed their interior attitudes; I saw how returning to the bigger and broader Church enabled them to move beyond one-sided positions and broke down rigidity so that positive energies could emerge for the whole. Can we be totally indifferent about a community which has 491 priests, 215 seminarians, 6 seminaries, 88 schools, 2 university-level institutes, 117 religious brothers, 164 religious sisters and thousands of lay faithful? Should we casually let them drift farther from the Church? I think for example of the 491 priests. We cannot know how mixed their motives may be. All the same, I do not think that they would have chosen the priesthood if, alongside various distorted and unhealthy elements, they did not have a love for Christ and a desire to proclaim Him and, with Him, the living God. Can we simply exclude them, as representatives of a radical fringe, from our pursuit of reconciliation and unity? What would then become of them?

"Certainly, for some time now, and once again on this specific occasion, we have heard from some representatives of that community many unpleasant things - arrogance and presumptuousness, an obsession with one-sided positions, etc. Yet to tell the truth, I must add that I have also received a number of touching testimonials of gratitude which clearly showed an openness of heart. But should not the great Church also allow herself to be generous in the knowledge of her great breadth, in the knowledge of the promise made to her? Should not we, as good educators, also be capable of overlooking various faults and making every effort to open up broader vistas? And should we not admit that some unpleasant things have also emerged in Church circles? At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach them - in this case the Pope - he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint. (Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church concerning the remission of the excommunication of the four Bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre, March 10, 2009.)

 

The principal means to "open up broader vistas" and to "convert" traditionally-minded Catholics in the conciliar structures out of "an obsession with one-sided positions" (such as an insistence that the articles contained in the Deposit of Faith must be understood in the exact same manner at all times until the end of time) and to break down obstinacy and narrowness is to make "Papa" Roncalli's 1961/1962 edition of the Missale Romanum as the vessel to introduce elements, some mandatory and others "optional," of the "ordinary form of the one Roman Rite," the Novus Ordo service, thereby getting these Catholics to accept conciliar novelties and innovations (altar girls, lay readers, "extraordinary ministers") and some ancient practices (such as what purports to be Holy Communion in the hand) that they had fought and resisted for decades.

Some might be tempted to ask yet again as to how I know this to be a fact, and once again I will state that all I have to do is read his own words and to take them seriously as words really do have meaning:

It is true that there have been exaggerations and at times social aspects unduly linked to the attitude of the faithful attached to the ancient Latin liturgical tradition. Your charity and pastoral prudence will be an incentive and guide for improving these. For that matter, the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching: new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal. The "Ecclesia Dei" Commission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the usus antiquior, will study the practical possibilities in this regard. The celebration of the Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI will be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than has been the case hitherto, the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage. The most sure guarantee that the Missal of Paul VI can unite parish communities and be loved by them consists in its being celebrated with great reverence in harmony with the liturgical directives. This will bring out the spiritual richness and the theological depth of this Missal. (Explanatory Letter on "Summorum Pontificum".)

 

"Pope" Benedict XVI  meant every word of this. The recently retired president of "Pontifical" Commission Ecclesia Dei explained two years ago during a visit to England:

This brings me to another important point. I am aware that the response of the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei” with regard to the observance of Holy Days of obligation has caused a certain amount of disturbance in some circles. It should be noted that the dates of these Holy Days remain the same in both the Missal of 1962 and the Missal of 1970. When the Holy See has given the Episcopal Conference of a given country permission to move certain Holy Days to the following Sunday, this should be observed by all Catholics in that country. Nothing prevents the celebration of the Feast of the Ascension, for example, on the prior Thursday, but it should be clear that this is not a Mass of obligation and that the Mass of the Ascension should also be celebrated on the following Sunday. This is a sacrifice which I ask you to make with joy as a sign of your unity with the Catholic Church in your country. (Dario Castrillon"Cardinal" Hoyos, Address to Latin Mass Society of England and Wales, June 14, 2008, Full text of Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos Address.)

 

One true priest in England who is in the conciliar structures is indeed attempting to use the "extraordinary form of the one Roman Rite" in the exact manner desired by the man he believes to the a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter:

Secondly, when celebrating the Old Form, several pastoral supports are utilised.

First, the readings are – as proposed and recommended by Vatican II – proclaimed in the vernacular with use of a free-standing microphone. Since God is speaking to the people at this point it makes sense that they be able to understand without difficulty.

We also sing three vernacular hymns: at the Entrance, Offertory and Recessional as permitted pre-Vatican II (cf De Musica sacra et sacra liturgia #14, Sacred Congregation of Rites, 1958). This allows for continuation of both the characteristic silence of the Old Form and the verbal contribution of the people in a manner to which they have become accustomed.

We also supply missalettes with the people’s responses highlighted so as to enable participation in the rite itself. Missalettes for children are picture booklets showing the varying positions of the priest and servers at specific points, enabling the children – and adults new to this Form – to more easily follow the rite.

Finally, we ensure that those who wish to receive on the hand may continue to do so in accord with current canonical rights and obligations. Receiving in the hand while kneeling poses no problem, while those who cannot kneel make the required act of reverence by receiving on the tongue. (Why the Old Form thrives in my parish.)

 

Some Motu enthusiasts might object at this point by saying that what is happening in Father Gary Dickson's parish in England is an aberration, that it is not what happens in the Masses offered or simulated by the priests/presbyters in any of the "older" Motu communities.

So what?

As one of those who had to drive miles sometimes to find what I thought was a "reverent" offering of the Novus Ordo service, I see in all of this the exact same phenomenon as still exists in the simulations of that Novus Ordo service, namely, that some priests/presbyters make an extra effort to be as reverent and devout as they can to provide what appears to be a Catholic liturgy that befits a purported offering of the unbloody re-presentation of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ's Sacrifice of Himself to His Co-Equal and Co-Eternal Father in reparation for our sins while other priests/presbyters in the conciliar structures use every "option" permitted by the General Instruction to the Roman Missal to turn their "liturgies" into "happenings" worthy of the circuses of ancient Rome.

As so many have noted, the Novus Ordo service has introduced a form of Protestant congregationalism in which what purports to be the "ordinary form of the one Roman Rite" that is simulated with such wide variations, most of them thoroughly "approved" by conciliar authorities, as to make them almost unrecognizable from one parish to another. This is sometimes the case in a single parish under conciliar control as different priests/presbyters "do liturgy," if you will, with different "options" and even the same priest/presbyter might do different things at different services (a "folk" liturgy for the aging and sometimes quite aged hippies, a "youth" service replete with "rock" music for the teenagers and young adults, a quick simulation of the Novus Ordo at a liturgy without singing, etc.) Lo and behold, my good and very few readers, this is happening right now in the Motu world as some priests/presbyters "hold fast" to the "tradition" of the 1961/1962 Missal while others want to implement as much of Ratzinger/Benedict's desired changes as possible.

Ratzinger/Benedict is using "love" and the splendor of what appears to be a traditional form of the Catholic liturgy to help "rectify" what he believes to have been an ill-considered effort after the "Second" Vatican Council to introduce these things all at once. He wants traditionally-minded Catholics to believe that lay readers and altar girls and the use of the vernacular and the use of some of the Novus Ordo prefaces are not really all that bad after all. It is an absolutely brilliant strategy, and it is working admirably as Catholics who want to "keep their Mass" must be silent about things they know are wrong and that displease God Himself in order to live peacefully in the conciliar structures. Whatever this is, of course, it is not Catholicism.

The Catholic Faith will not be "restored" by means of any kind of concessions made to error. Pope Gregory XVI made this very clear in Singulari Nos, May 25, 1834:

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

 

All that I have to say to those who do not see and accept this is have a nice anniversary today.

How ironic it is that some of the very same people who do all kinds of intense, death-defying intellectual gymnastics to justify Ratzinger/Benedict's war on the nature of dogmatic truth to assert, sometimes with an entirely straight face, that the contradictions between conciliarism and Catholicism are not contradictions in the slightest will also decry "activist judges" who twist and distort the plain meanings of the words of the men who had a founding hatred for Christ the King, stating that we must "faithful" to the "original intent" of the words of the Constitution, which was written by mere men. You see, folks, there's a little inconsistency in all of this as Ratzinger/Benedict's Modernist efforts to deconstruct the immutable teaching contained in the Deposit of Faith have been condemned solemnly by Holy Mother Church on numerous occasions (as noted above). While it is indeed true that words, including those of the framers of the Constitution of the United States of America, do have meaning, it is also that without the sure guidance of Holy Mother Church men have no ultimate authority to guide them as to how to pursue the common temporal good in light of their Last End. (See the appendix a prime example of the late Associate Justice William Brennan's view of a "living Constitution" whose words can be understood anew in each passing age.)

There is also another irony in all of this: if it is possible for Ratzinger/Benedict to cast aside dogmatic formulations and papal statements because they are conditioned according to the particular historical circumstances in which they were made, then why cannot a future "pope" in the conciliar structures cast aside his statements and allocution? Are not his statements and allocutions as "historically conditioned" as those of that past that he seeks to "re-read" anew or ignore entirely? This makes a mockery of the infallibility of Holy Mother Church, subjecting each succeeding generation of Catholics with as differing interpretations of Catholic teaching as there are such differing interpretations of the American Constitution. Thus it is that Pope Saint Pius X was very prophetic when he noted the following about the sophisms contained in Modernism:

It is thus, Venerable Brethren, that for the Modernists, whether as authors or propagandists, there is to be nothing stable, nothing immutable in the Church. . . . From all that has preceded, it is abundantly clear how great and how eager is the passion of such men for innovation. In all Catholicism there is absolutely nothing on which it does not fasten. They wish philosophy to be reformed, especially in the ecclesiastical seminaries. They wish the scholastic philosophy to be relegated to the history of philosophy and to be classed among absolute systems, and the young men to be taught modern philosophy which alone is true and suited to the times in which we live. They desire the reform of theology: rational theology is to have modern philosophy for its foundation, and positive theology is to be founded on the history of dogma. As for history, it must be written and taught only according to their methods and modern principles. Dogmas and their evolution, they affirm, are to be harmonized with science and history. In the Catechism no dogmas are to be inserted except those that have been reformed and are within the capacity of the people. Regarding worship, they say, the number of external devotions is to he reduced, and steps must be taken to prevent their further increase, though, indeed, some of the admirers of symbolism are disposed to be more indulgent on this head. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

 

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has indeed tried to fasten on everything in Catholicism as a disciple of the New Theology that was condemned by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis, August 12, 1950, and is merely an "indulgent" father to those who are attached to the "extraordinary form of the one Roman Rite" as he prods them along into an acceptance of conciliarism as being perfectly in accord with everything taught by the Catholic Church from Pentecost Sunday right up until the the time of the death of Pope Pius XII on October 9, 1958. What appears to be a new "dog and pony" show is merely a recycling of things that have been condemned throughout the history of the Catholic Church.

We know that Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart triumphs in the end. May it be our privilege to suffer all of the difficulties of the moment in the understand that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has known from all eternity that these problems would arise and that the graces He won for us by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross that flow into our souls through the loving hands of His Most Blessed Mother are sufficient for us to proper under them with much gratitude. The royal road of the Cross is the one and only road that can lead us home to Heaven safely as members of the Catholic Church.

God has known from all eternity that we would be alive in these troubling times. He has not abandoned us. He has given us true shepherds in our Catholic catacombs at this time who understand the apostasies of the moment and who have withdrawn from them quite rightly. Let us give great thanks to God for being alive at this time and there is work for us to do as His consecrated slaves through Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart to be faithful to Our Lady's Fatima Message by praying as many Rosaries as we can each day. A trite saying? Not at all. A simple fact of Catholic life that can never be stated enough.

We must be earnest about making reparation to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary for our sins and those of the whole world. We do not know if this day will be our last day alive as a member of the Church Militant on earth. Let us make this day and every day joyful by lifting high the Cross and thanking God that He has chosen us, as unworthy as we are, to plant a few seeds for the Resurrection of the Mystical Body of Christ and the restoration of the Social Reign of Christ the King.

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

 

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!

 

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us

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

Saints Cyril and Methodius, pray for us.

Saint Elizabeth of Portugal, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints

Appendix

The Late William Brennan's Understanding of a "Living Constitution"

[Thomas A. Droleskey preface: As noted in the body of the text above, the principal means by which Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI seeks to "reconcile" the conciliarism with Catholicism is by claiming that that the dogmatic statements of Holy Mother Church's true dogmatic councils, each of which met under the infallible guidance of God the Holy Ghost, and the past procurements of our true popes, each of whom was merely teaching what was contained in the Deposit of Faith without any deviation or alteration whatsoever, can be interpreted anew because those statements and pronouncements were "conditioned" by the historical circumstances in which they were made. He has been thoroughly consistent in this condemned view throughout the course of his priestly life, which began on June 29, 1951.

[Is the text Constitution of the United States of America, written by men who did not recognize the authority of the Catholic Church to govern men in all that pertains to the good of their immortal souls and thus who believed that they could provide the foundation for a just republic without any regard for what she teaches in the Holy Name of the Divine Redeemer, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, more "immutable" in its meaning than, say, the decrees of the Council of Florence on the fact that all non-Catholics, including Jews, need to convert to the Catholic Faith or those of the Council of Trent on the Doctrine of Justification? Are the words of the framers, each of whom was a product of Modernity--and to the extent that some of them might have been influenced by the writing of Saint Robert Bellarmine they did so through the filter provided by Protestantism and the "Enlightenment," more binding on the consciences of succeeding generations than the condemnations of religious liberty made by Popes Pius VI, Pope Pius VII, Gregory XVI, and Pius IX? Why should the words of the Constitution be any more "hallowed" than those given us to by the Fathers of true councils and by our true popes?

[Please read, therefore, the Catholic pro-abort William Brennan's words below as they are words of a son of Modernity. And these words are identical in their spirit to the words of a son of Modernism by way of the New Theology, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI.]

 

To remain faithful to the content of the Constitution, therefore, an approach to interpreting the text must account for the existence of these substantive value choices, and must accept the ambiguity inherent in the effort to apply them to modern circumstances. The Framers discerned fundamental principles through struggles against particular malefactions of the Crown; the struggle shapes the particular contours of the articulated principles. But our acceptance of the fundamental principles has not and should not bind us to those precise, at times anachronistic, contours. Successive generations of Americans have continued to respect these fundamental choices and adopt them as their own guide to evaluating quite different historical practices. Each generation has the choice to overrule or add to the fundamental principles enunciated by the Framers; the Constitution can be amended or it can be ignored. Yet with respect to its fundamental principles, the text has suffered neither fate. Thus, if I may borrow the words of an esteemed predecessor, Justice Robert Jackson, the burden of judicial interpretation is to translate "the majestic generalities of the Bill of Rights, conceived as part of the pattern of liberal government in the eighteenth century, into concrete restraints on officials dealing with the problems of the twentieth century." Board of Education v. Barnette, [319 U.S. 624, 639 (1943),] We current Justices read the Constitution in the only way that we can: as Twentieth Century Americans. We look to the history of the time of framing and to the intervening history of interpretation. But the ultimate question must be, what do the words of the text mean in our time. For the genius of the Constitution rests not in any static meaning it might have had in a world that is dead and gone, but in the adaptability of its great principles to cope with current problems and current needs. What the constitutional fundamentals meant to the wisdom of other times cannot be their measure to the vision of our time. Similarly, what those fundamentals mean for us, our descendants will learn, cannot be the measure to the vision of their time. This realization is not, I assure you, a novel one of my own creation. Permit me to quote from one of the opinions of our Court, Weems v. United States, [217 U.S. 349,] written nearly a century ago:

"Time works changes, brings into existence new conditions and purposes. Therefore, a principle to be vital must be capable of wider application than the mischief which gave it birth. This is peculiarly true of constitutions. They are not ephemeral enactments, designed to meet passing occasions. They are, to use the words of Chief Justice John Marshall, 'designed to approach immortality as nearly as human institutions can approach it.' The future is their care and provision or events of good and bad tendencies of which no prophesy can be made. In the application of a constitution, therefore, our contemplation cannot be only of what has been, but of what may be."

Interpretation must account for the transformative purpose of the text. Our Constitution was not intended to preserve a preexisting society but to make a new one, to put in place new principles that the prior political community had not sufficiently recognized. Thus, for example, when we interpret the Civil War Amendments to the charter—abolishing slavery, guaranteeing blacks equality under law, and guaranteeing blacks the right to vote—we must remember that those who put them in place had no desire to enshrine the status quo. Their goal was to make over their world, to eliminate all vestige of slave caste. ("Constitutional Interpretation by Justice William J. Brennan, Jr")

[Thomas A. Droleskey afterword: William Brennan could have been a "bishop" in the counterfeit church of conciliarism. Pray the Rosary!]