As New Dog and Pony Shows Come To Town

Part Two

by Thomas A. Droleskey

We are just three days away from the third anniversary of the one of the greatest sleights of hand ever performed by a "pope" of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, the issuance of Summorum Pontificum by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. Summorum Pontificum supposedly "liberated" the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition that had been promulgated by Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII in 1961 (incorporating the Bugnini changes to the liturgy in the 1950s and those that he himself made in 1960; see The Pius X and John XXIII Missals Compared) and the insertion of the name of Saint Joseph into the Roman Canon in 1962.

Summorum Pontificum was was at the time of its issuance in 2007 and remains now a trap to purchase silence from the last vestigial wandering remnants of "resistance" to the new ecclesiology and false ecumenism and inter-religious prayer services and religious liberty and separation of Church and State that existed amongst traditionally-minded Catholics attached to the conciliar structures.

Summorum Pontificum represents the biggest dog and pony show that has come to conciliar towns in a long time as many, although not all, of these "liberated" Masses are simulated by men who are not truly ordained to the Catholic priesthood and whether truly ordained or not, who must never seek to defend the honor and majesty and glory of the Most Blessed Trinity by uttering a word of condemnation of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's personally esteeming the symbols of false religions with his own priestly hands and calling falling places of worship as "sacred" daring to say that the "coexistence" of "religions" with other in a spirit of "harmony" is what constitutes "peace, that together the "world's religions" can fight "irreligion."

Do these public offenses given to God that deceive Catholics and non-Catholics just disappear all on their own?

Does silence about these--and so many other offenses that have been documented on this site in numerous articles--make these acts pleasing to God, who hates false religions and wants to see them eliminated as their adherents are converted unconditionally to the Catholic Church?

Does Summorum Pontificum justify silence about these public offenses that are, in the objective order of things, Mortal Sins pleasing to the true God of Divine Revelation?

Does Summorum Pontificum make irrelevant or "obsolete" these words of Pope Saint Leo the Great that condemned silence in the face of blasphemy:

But it is vain for them to adopt the name of catholic, as they do not oppose these blasphemies: they must believe them, if they can listen so patiently to such words. (Pope Saint Leo the Great, Epistle XIV, To Anastasius, Bishop of Thessalonica, St. Leo the Great | Letters 1-59 )

 

It is evidently the case that many of the people, including  Bishop Bernard F. Fellay, the Superior-General of the Society of Saint Pius X, who used to denounce most correctly the exact same outrages against the honor and majesty and glory of God that were committed repeatedly by Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II have been mostly silent as John Paul II's successor, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict has gone into synagogues and dared to say publicly that Christians and Jews "pray to the same Lord" and committed one public offense after another against the First and Second Commandments and as he as boldly sought to deconstruct the entire meaning of dogmatic truth to justify all of these--and other--outrages according to his thoroughly Modernist "hermeneutic of continuity and discontinuity." This silence has not escaped the notice of at least a few of priests within the Society of Saint Pius X who, though still steeped in the Society's false ecclesiology that is a recrudescence of the Gallicanism that was condemned by Pope Pius VI in Auctorem Fidei (August 28, 1794), recognize betrayals of Catholic truth when it is right before their very eyes.

A number of priests have or have been expelled from the Society of Saint Saint Pius X--or have chosen to leave on their own--in recent years because of what they perceive to be an effort to reconcile almost everything to do with concilairism, including the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service, with the Catholic Faith. Among those priests have been Fathers Basil Meramo, Florian Abramowicz, James Dolan, Father Juan Carlos Turco, and Joven Soliman. Fathers Meramo (Fr. Basilio Meramo expelled from SSPX by Bishop Fellay and Turco (see Another Priest Leaves the Society of Saint Pius X, excerpts of which were included on this site in To A Dead End on the Wrong Path) have written letters to Bishop Fellay to explain their reasons for leaving the society, although neither of those letters comes to the logical conclusion that was reached by the then twenty-five year-old Father Robert Neville stated in his own Letter to Bishop Bernard Fellay on December 17, 1997:

The ordinary universal magisterium is infallible. The Church of Christ cannot neglect the truth, much less can it persecute those who confess it. See Denzinger 1450.

It is impossible that someone who has placed himself outside the Roman Catholic Church through profession of public heresy be at the very same time the head of the Church. But John Paul II has placed himself outside the Church through profession of public heresy. Therefore it is impossible that he be the head of the Roman Catholic Church. It is obvious that someone could not be the head of something of which he is not even a member. John Paul II has taught heretical things, such as the following:

·All men are saved. (Osservatore Romano, May 6, 1980)

·The Mystical Body of Christ is not exclusively identified with the Roman Catholic Church. (Osservatore Romano, July 8, 1980)

·The Catholic Church is incapable of giving credibility to the Gospel, unless there is a “reunion of Christians.” (Osservatore Romano, May 20, 1980)

· A properly ordered society is one in which all religions are given free reign to practice, proselytize, and propagate. (Vatican II, Dignitatis Humanae.) John Paul II says that this document has a “particular binding force.”

· Non-Catholic religions are a means of salvation. (Vatican II decree on Ecumenism.) This is heretical, since it is directly contrary to Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, which Pope Pius IX called a notissimum catholicum dogma. But John Paul II promulgates Vatican II. He therefore adheres to heresy, he publicly professes it, and what is worse, he attempts to impose it upon the Church.

 

These are not the statements of a Catholic, especially not of one who took the oath against Modernism before his ordination. It is impossible that John Paul II be the legitimate Successor to St. Peter. Ubi Petrus ibi Ecclesia. If John Paul II is the infallible head of the Church, then all his actions as pope are of the Church. It is true that popes have erred on certain points of theology and made mistakes in the past, but these were isolated incidents which did not affect the whole Church. The case of John Paul II is entirely different. If one holds that he is the pope, then one must assuredly admit that he has erred in his official capacity as Vicar of Christ by imposing upon the Church an entirely new religion foreign to the Catholic Religion. He has without question implemented doctrines and disciplines which are contrary to the previous ones. This is contrary to the promise of Our Lord given to us in St. Matthew’s Gospel. A true pope cannot in his official capacity destroy the Church. “…And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in Heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in Heaven.” MT 16:18-19

“The authority of the Sovereign Pontiff is great, but it does not destroy, it builds up; it does not suppress, it supports…” From an allocution of Pope Pius IX to the Vatican Council, July 18, 1870.

 

The Magisterium of the Church is infallible both in an ordinary and in an extraordinary way. Yet the teaching of Vatican II and the post conciliar popes is full of error. It is impossible that this error come from the infallible Magisterium of the Church, either ordinary or extraordinary. Vatican II, if it were Catholic, would at the very least fall under the category of the ordinary universal magisterium of the Church. It was not an informal meeting. It was an assembly of the Pope and bishops which certainly produced teachings with regard to Faith and morals. Now Vatican II, instead of clearly teaching that the Church of Christ is exclusively identified with the Catholic Church, taught that the Church of Christ merely subsists in the Catholic Church. This is expressly contrary to Satis Cognitum of Leo XIII, Mortalium Animos of Pius XI, and Mystici Corporis of Pius XII. Who are we to believe? Since the ordinary universal magisterium is infallible, there are only two possibilities which face us. Either Vatican II was a false council or the Church has erred in teaching. There can be no middle solution. See Denzinger 1683,1792, 1449 and also CIC 1323.

If John Paul II is the supreme authority of the Church, then all Catholics must submit to his authority. The refusal to do so would result in schism, owing to its very definition. Now the Society of St. Pius X in practice refuses to submit to the authority of John Paul II. Its priests celebrate Mass and hear confessions in defiance of the bishops who have been appointed by John Paul II. If these bishops truly have authority over the various dioceses, how can that authority be recognized, but at the same time not obeyed? If John Paul II and the hierarchy in communion with him have authority and jurisdiction, then the Society of St. Pius X is raising its altars against the altar of the Vicar of Christ.

“…all those who glory in the title of Catholic must not only be united to him in matters of faith and dogmatic truth, but also be submissive to him in matters of liturgy and discipline.” From the Apostolic Letter Non Sine Gravissimo of Pope Pius IX, February 24, 1870, to the Apostolic Delegate at Constantinople. . . .

 

It is therefore of Faith that the Church cannot, through the liturgy of the Mass, incite the faithful to impiety.

 “Si quis dixerit, caeremonias, vestes et externa signa, quibus in Missarum celebratione Ecclesia Catholica utitur, irritabula impietatis esse magis quam officia pietatis: anathema sit.” (Council of Trent, Session XXII, Canon 7.) Denzinger 954.

 “It would be beyond any doubt blameworthy and entirely contrary to the respect with which the laws of the Church should be received by a senseless aberration to find fault with the regulation of morals, and the laws of the Church and her ministers; or to speak of this discipline as opposed to certain principles of the natural law, or to present it as defective, imperfect, and subject to civil authority.” Taken from Mirari Vos of Gregory XVI.

 “Are they not trying, moreover, to make of the Church something human; are they not openly diminishing her infallible authority and the divine power which guides her, in holding that her present discipline is subject to decay, to weakness, and to other failures of the same nature, and in imagining that it contains many elements which are not only useless but even prejudicial to the well being of the Catholic religion?” Taken from Quo Graviora of Gregory XVI.

To those who will say that we do not have the right to judge the Pope: I answer by making a distinction: that we cannot judge him with juridical authority, I concede; that we cannot judge his deeds and enactments by comparing them to the teaching and discipline of the Church, I deny. The Society of St. Pius X makes these judgments everyday when it sifts the magisterium, the laws and disciplines which emanate from the Vatican, and when it carries on its worldwide apostolate in defiance of John Paul II. What the Society fails to do is to draw the logical conclusions from the disagreement which it finds between the Vatican II magisterium and practice on the one hand, and the Catholic magisterium and practice on the other.

With these things in mind, I must in conscience resign from the Society of St. Pius X. I am willing and ready to celebrate two Masses in Redford and one in Mancelona on Sunday December 21, but please be advised that I fully intend to explain to the faithful why I have left the Society of St. Pius X.

The Society condemned the priests who recently left to establish themselves under the authority which it supposedly recognizes. It will also condemn me for refusing to make its numerous contradictions and inconsistencies the very basis for my priestly apostolate. Be that as it may, the God of truth is my judge. (Again, this is the link to the full text of  Bishop Neville's Letter to Bishop Bernard Fellay.)

 

Bishop Neville's letter stands the test of time. So does the Letter of 'the Nine' to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre that was written on March 25, 1983.

One of the great ironies of the negotiations--oh, excuse me, "doctrinal discussion" that have have wrought the corporate silence of the Society and Saint Pius X its priests about the blasphemies and outrages and apostasies of Ratzinger/Benedict is that a formal "reconciliation" with the counterfeit church of conciliarism would place them in "communion" with the very Motu communities that used to be excoriated in articles published in the Society's print publications and on its internet websites, including the priests referred in the final paragrah of Bishop Neville's letter to Bishop Fellay, those who formed the morally corrupt Society of Saint John that has fled the Diocese of Scranton, Pennsylvania, and is now under the protection of Bishop Rogelio Ricardo Livieres Plano, the conciliar "bishop" of the Diocese of Ciudad del Este.

The Society would also be "one" in the event of a "reconciliation" with Bishop Fernando Areas Rifan and the Society of Saint John Mary Vianney in Campos, Brazil, whose own "reconciliation" with the conciliar church on January 18, 2002, that in came even for scathing criticism from Father Peter Scott, then the Society's District Superior in the United States of Ameica (see Letter to Friends and Benefactors Regarding the "reconciliation" in Campos, January 15, 2002) and Bishop Fellay himself on November 10, 2004, in a conference he gave at Saint Vincent de Paul Church in Kansas City, Missouri (EXTRACT from Bishop Fellay's November 10, 2004 conference in Kansas City, MO regarding Bishop Rifan's actions), if it proceeds to the point of signing an agreement with "Pope" Benedict XVI.

Such an agreement would also place the Society of Saint Pius X as "one" with freshly minted Ethiopian "charismatics" whose " neo-Pentecostal worship style 'attracts young people, gives them direction and challenges them -- it helps cultivate the life of young people to live their faith,'" according to an auxiliary "bishop," Bishop Lesane-Christos Matheos (http://www.zenit.org/article-29784?l=english), to say nothing of having a place in the conciliar "zoo," as Bishop Fellay put in a conference I heard with my own hears at Christ the King Church in Ridgefield, Connecticut, on Sunday, November 7, 2004, with other great paragons of Catholic Tradition (some of these are the already-established and approved groups calling itself by the label of "Catholic" Charismatic Renewal as well as, of course, Opus Dei, Focolare, Cursillo, the Sant'Egidio Community, the Shalom Catholic Community, the Chemin Neuf Community, the International Community of Faith and Light, Regnum Christi, Communion and Liberation, the Emmanuel Community, the Seguimi Lay Group of Human-Christian Promotion, and. among many, many "movements,"the Neocatechumenal Way), saying also that "some of his priests might succumb to the pressure" to accept the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service.

What kind of criticism has Bishop Fellay himself made of that Novus Ordo service lately? Still waiting. Have the concerns expressed by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre's friend and collaborator, the late Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer of Campos, Brazil in his LETTER TO PAUL VI no longer legitimate? If so, why is this letter still on a Society of Saint Pius X website? How have Bishop de Castro Mayer's concerns about the doctrinal integrity of the Novus Ordo been answered? Has the late Bishop de Mayer's letter proven prophetic? Does the possibility of "reconciliation" with Modernists require all logic and truth to be cast aside for the sake of "strategy"?

Although there have been many signs given us by Bishop Fellay since he met Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI on August 29, 2005, that he is slowly preparing his priests and members of the laity to accept having their own place alongside the "Anglo-Catholics" who are being received into what they is the Catholic Church even though they are not required to make any abjuration of their errors (having to make a statement of belief in the conciliar church's Catechism of the Catholic Church that was the subject of a blistering critique of its contents that is still found on the American website of the Society of Saint Pius X, The New Catechism: Is it Catholic?) and as they are permitted to retain and to use liturgical books that were deemed heretical by Pope Saint Pius V in Regnans in Excelsis, March 5, 1570, one of the surest signs of this is to be found on the DICI website, which has published an article (http://www.dici.org/en/news/our-holy-patrons-on-short-term-contract) that, in essence, says that Ratzinger/Benedict's about-face on the proclamation of the Cure of Arts, Saint John Mary Vianney, as the patron of all priests, secular and religious, in the conciliar church was the result of his being influenced badly by others who convinced him not to do so. In other words, the Society's official media organs are singing the old songs that I used to sing ("The pope is surrounded by bad men, he's getting pressured by all kinds of terrible influences," etc.) aplenty during the first fifteen years or so of the false "pontificate" of "Pope" John Paul II. This is a very telling sign, I  believe, that the white flag has been raised and that a final agreement between the Society of Saint Pius X and the counterfeit church of conciliarism may be pending. With apologies to the late Harry Cary, "it might be  . . . it could be." Time will tell whether, to complete the rest of Harry Caray's home run call, "it is."

A brief excerpt from the DICI article will illustrate the "poor suffering pope'" syndrome that makes Ratzinger/Benedict the prisoner of bad advice given by men of bad will, men who persuade the "poor suffering 'pope'" to do things that he really, really, really does not want to do:

 

According to Fr. Federico Lombardi, Director of the Press Office of the Holy See, “Benedict XVI withdrew his decision to proclaim St. John-Marie Vianney ‘patron saint of all the priests in the world’ on the occasion of the closing of the Year for Priests….  The figure of this French mystic, who has been ‘patron saint of parish priests’ since 1929, and ‘patron of French priests’ since 1905, ultimately did not seem sufficiently representative of the priesthood in the twenty-first century, nor sufficiently universal.”

However, on March 16, 2009, when Benedict XVI unexpectedly announced his intention to organize a special “year for priests”, from June 19, 2009, to June 11, 2010, the Holy See had noted that the Pope, on that occasion, would proclaim St. John-Marie Vianney “patron of all the priests of the world”.  On June 8 [2010,] at the Vatican, certain offices of the Curia continued to announce “the proclamation of St. John-Marie Vianney universal patron of priests”.

Vatican sources confided to I.Media that it was decided that the proclamation would not take place, basically because the Curé of Ars “is not the complete reflection of a priestly figure today, in the age of communication”, but also because there are already, throughout the world, several patron saints for priests belonging to particular countries and cultures.  Although the “saintly Curé” remains “an ascetic and an exemplary mystic, his social and pastoral activity are not those of a priest of today,” they went on to explain.  Who are these anonymous Vatican sources?  Still other, equally confidential sources have let it be known that two Roman prelates had succeeded in persuading a close collaborator of Benedict XVI that such a proclamation would be inopportune, and the Pope had followed that advice.

The Press Office of the Holy See published an embarrassed commentary by its director, Fr. Federico Lombardi, in order to explain this sudden reversal:  “In recent days there has been talk about the possibility that on June 11, during the celebration marking the conclusion of the Year for Priests, the Pope might proclaim the saintly Curé of Ars—who is already the patron saint of parish priests—patron of all priests as well.”  This was not a hypothetical possibility, since the Congregation for the Clergy and the different media outlets of the Vatican had been broadcasting announcements of that proclamation throughout the year.  According to Fr. Lombardi, the Pope “preferred to retain the specific title, patron saint of parish priests,” for the French saint, “given that it was a question of his own ministry [as a parish priest—DICI Editor’s note], whereas there are many other great priestly figures who can serve as an inspiration and as models for those who carry out many other forms of priestly ministry.”

Other sources at the Vatican put forward the hypothesis of a “purely administrative error”:  the Pope, they say, had not really been informed about that initiative—which was disputed within the Curia—until the last minute and hence did not have the time (or the intention) of signing the Motu Proprio ratifying the proclamation.  At any rate, in his homily during the Mass celebrated on June 11, Benedict XVI presented the Curé of Ars, who is already the “universal patron of parish priests”, as a “model of priestly ministry in our world”.  He declared that “through the Curé of Ars we have let ourselves be guided, so as to comprehend anew the greatness and the beauty of the priestly ministry.” (http://www.dici.org/en/news/our-holy-patrons-on-short-term-contract.)

 

Sure, of course, there are reasons why the "suffering 'pope'" was convinced by two Roman "prelates" to carry out his own publicly stated intention to proclaim Saint John Mary Vianney the patron all of his conciliar priests/presbyters.

The Cure of Ars spent up to eighteen hours a day in the confessional. "Reconciliation," as it is termed in many conciliar parishes, is available in some parishes that are fully staffed with priests/presbyters on an "appointment only" basis. I kid you not.

The Cure of Arts ate very little, and the little that he did eat was usually not very tasty. Many are the "bishops" and 'priests/presbyters who eat like piggy-wiggies and who dine out at least once a week (lest you point fingers, I am not a priest or a presbyter and I have now lost about fifty eight pounds since February 17, 2010, and am attempting to lose between forty and forty-five more as I offer this tortuous penance in reparation for my own sins of gluttony).

The Cure of Ars gave stern sermons admonishing his people to dress modestly and to speak decently without using profanity or taking the Holy Name of God in vain. Those priests/presbyters in the conciliar structures who attempt to do so are not all too infrequently called into their local chancery offices as it is considered "unpastoral" by most conciliar "prelates" to preach about such matters, thereby permitting men and women alike to dress--or, as the case might be, to not dress with many clothes--in ways that would shock the consciences of our Catholic forefathers and that greatly offend God and Our Lady and are in some instances actual enticements to sin.

The Cure of Ars warned constantly about worldliness and of being immersed in the spirit of the world. The Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service centers around embracing the world with its egalitarianism (the proliferation of the laity in the sanctuary, which many churches in conciliar captivity do not even have, possessing a "table" in the center of the "audience," the distribution of what purports to be Holy Communion to those who stand and in the hand of communicants, etc.) and its use of profane music, including "rock" music, for "youth liturgies" "folk music" for the "Peter, Paul and Mary" generation. Many are the priests/presbyters who speak with glowing praise for motion pictures and television programs filled with blasphemy and indecency right from their "homily" lecterns without being given a single world of reprimand. Then again, how can they reprimanded when their "pope" has thus refused to publicly "Archbishop" Robert Zollitsch for denying that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ died on the wood of the Holy Cross in atonement for our sins on Good Friday?

The Cure of Ars warned parents to watch their children at all times, warning them specifically never to let them "go into the fields" by themselves. This is all considered to be terribly "controlling" and "tyrannical" in the conciliar structures, whose "bishops" and priests/presbyters encourage parents to send their children off to the triennial spectacle called "World Youth Day" as boys and girls do indeed lie down together quite literally the fields in proximities that used to be call the near occasions of sin, including during what purports to be the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

The Cure of Ars is indeed an "inappropriate" model for the conciliar notion of "priestly ministry" as he would be denouncing the things above and separating himself from it as his parents separated him as a child from the "Constitutional Church" of France that had made its own accommodation to the spirit of the French Revolution in the name of the Catholic Church.

The end of the DICI article is truly laughable as it calls upon Catholics to sign a petition to convince the "pope" that he should indeed proclaim Saint John Mary Vianney the patron of all conciliar priests/presbyters in the world. Lotsa luck, folks, lotsa luck. Where's the petition to demand that Ratzinger/Benedict stop praising false religions and calling their places of false worship as "sacred"? Where's the petition to demand that the "suffering 'pope') make reparation for these crimes against honor and glory and majesty of the Most  Blessed Trinity? Lots luck, folks, lotsa luck. I'm glad to see that the new dog and pony shows in the One World Ecumenical Church of conciliarism are getting your attention and support. Lotsa luck.

And make no mistake about it: the counterfeit church of conciliarism is part of the One World Ecumenical Church. Lest anyone there in Motu la-la land, including those in the Society of Saint Pius X who might be on the cusp of Motu la-la land, where there are dog and pony shows aplenty, that the recent retirement of Walter "Cardinal" Kasper, the President of the "Pontifical" Council for Christian Unity and the President of the Council for Religious Relations with the Jews, was going to usher in a "change" concerning false ecumenism, let me introduce you to Kasper's newly-named successor. Who is he?

Ah, the suspense.

He is a Kasper acolyte, "Bishop" Kurt Koch, the conciliar "bishop" of Basel, Switzerland who was instrumental in shaping The Ravenna Document, October 13, 2007, one of those "unofficial" statements that bind no one in the conciliar church, you understand, which featured a longtime goal of the late Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II and Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's, that is, proposing that the "Petrine ministry" could be understood now as it the conciliarists contend that it was understood during the First Millennium (see http://www.zenit.org/article-29762?l=english ). "Bishop" Koch in 2006 expressed his disagreement with those who opposed the building of more Mohammedan "minuets" in Switzerland. He is a full-throated ecumenism and a believer in "religious liberty."

Bishop Koch, who will be made a conciliar "archbishop" when he takes formal control of his new position, promised that he would continue Walter Kasper's "work." Press reports indicate that he has served as a member of the "Pontifical" Council for Christian Unity since 2002. It is also very telling that the pro-abortion, pro-perversity, pro-One World Government, pro-Communist, pro-everthing-bad "World Council of Churches," which was formed in 1937 to provide a "united" front in behalf of the work World Missionary Conference" in Edinburgh, Scotland, June 14-23, 1910, a "conference" that has been praised by Ratzinger/Benedict on at least three occasions in recent months, endorsed Koch's appointment wholeheartedly:

"We rejoice at the appointment of Bishop Kurt Koch as president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity", said Tveit commenting on the news. "We welcome his appointment and look forward to working with him for the visible unity of the church", he added.

Tveit said that "Bishop Koch is well known for his openness and deep ecumenical commitment. His book 'That all may be one; Ecumenical perspectives' is an excellent summary of the present state of ecumenical dialogue and relations".

"We see in Bishop Koch a reliable partner for all those involved in the ecumenical movement and trust he will continue Cardinal Walter Kasper's emphasis on spiritual ecumenism", Tveit said.

"Bishop Koch has been given a very important responsibility as the call for all Christians to be one comes from Jesus Christ himself", Tveit said. "I wish him much joy in fulfilling this calling, and that God may give him strength." 

Currently bishop of the Diocese of Basel, Switzerland, Koch has been a member of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity since 2002. According to news reports, he will succeed Kasper, who is retiring, on 1 July. (WCC welcomes Vatican's new chief ecumenist.)

 

Walter Kasper is gone. Walter Kasper lives on. And so is must ever go in the apostate world of conciliarism. Who's going to be replace Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI when he dies or if he decides to resign beforehand? Someonewho is not in favor of false ecumenism and religious liberty and separation of Church and State? The dog and pony shows continue to play out on the conciliar stages.

Mind you, none of this is to disparage the priestly zeal of the true priests within the ranks of the Society of Saint Pius X, many of whom have been, at least up until now, stalwart defenders of the Social Reign of Christ the King. We profited much from our intermittent association with these priests from 2003 to 2006. And I can tell you from personal experience that some of them are willing to put aside the differences of the moment to seek to bring back to the Faith baptized and confirmed Catholics who have been away from the Faith for seventy years who appear to be at death's doorstep.

One of these priests, who I will not name publicly, did so recently for a relative of mine when I telephoned him after consulting with a true priest who makes no concessions of any kind to conciliarism and who warns his people of associating with the Society of Saint Pius X. A true priest, even one in the conciliar structures, can always administer the Catholic Sacrament of Extreme Unction, in case of the danger of death. And I was edified to by the true charity shown for the soul of my relative by the priest of the Society of Saint Pius X, who is indeed aware of my criticism o the Society and of its false positions as he put all of that aside to put the salvation of a soul first (I have not heard what happened as a result of the priest's visit; I am grateful, however, that he tried to bring the relative back to the Faith).

Such gratitude, however, cannot blind one to the truth. We must put truth above all human respect. No spiritual favor that any true priest extends to us should be a cause for us to lose sight of the truth or diminish our adherence to it. And the truth is that those who defect knowingly from the Catholic Faith are no longer Catholics and cannot hold ecclesiastical office in the Catholic Church legitimately.

As  I noted two days ago now, it is important for us to continue our participation in Bishop McKenna's 2010 Rosary Crusade as we pray the mysteries of the Most Holy Rosary in reparation for our sins and those of the whole world, including those sins committed by the conciliar revolutionaries and those committed by their compatriots in the midst of the world, as we pray also for the conversion of the conciliarists and the restoration of the Church Militant on earth.

In fidelity to Our Lady's Fatima Message, we must pray as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit, conscious of the fact that must make reparation for our sins, which are so responsible for the worsening of the state of the Church Militant and of the world-at-large, accepting with joy and with gratitude each of the sufferings and calumnies and difficulties that come our way as the consecrated slaves of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary. The Rosary is, after Holy Mass and Eucharistic piety, the best means to avoid the distractions of the dog and pony shows put on by the conciliarists to convince that they are Catholics after all and are about the business of "restoring" the Church..

Aren't we willing to suffer some more for the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Immaculate Heart of Mary?

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.

See also: A Litany of Saints