Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us
May 12, 2008

Calling Poison Health Food Doesn't Make It So

by Thomas A. Droleskey


The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a certain portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. "There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition" (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos).

The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodore :, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. "No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic" (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88).

The need of this divinely instituted means for the preservation of unity, about which we speak is urged by St. Paul in his epistle to the Ephesians. In this he first admonishes them to preserve with every care concord of minds: "Solicitous to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Eph. iv., 3, et seq.). And as souls cannot be perfectly united in charity unless minds agree in faith, he wishes all to hold the same faith: "One Lord, one faith," and this so perfectly one as to prevent all danger of error: "that henceforth we be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive" (Eph. iv., 14): and this he teaches is to be observed, not for a time only - "but until we all meet in the unity of faith...unto the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ" (13). But, in what has Christ placed the primary principle, and the means of preserving this unity? In that - "He gave some Apostles - and other some pastors and doctors, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ" (11-12).


Calling the apostasies of conciliarism Catholicism does not make this to be so any more than calling poison health food makes that so. In other words, the mere gratuitous assertion that the multiple ways in which conciliarism contradicts the Catholic Faith do not in fact represent any contradiction at all does not make such a gratuitous assertion true. Positivism is indeed the gratuitous assertion that something is so because it is asserted to be so.

It is the use of positivism by apologists of conciliarism that makes "inter-religious" dialogue with them as fruitless as conciliarism's "inter-religious" dialogue with Protestants and Jews and Mohammedans and Hindus and Buddhists and Druids and whatever other kind of pagans and reprobates its representations seek out as "partners" to advance the "civilization of love." There comes a time when one must recognize that endless colloquies and rebuttals wind up convincing no one of anything.

Those intent on believing that the very propositions termed "insanity" by past popes and anathematized by the authority of the Catholic Church can be accepted in light of "living tradition" have exculpated themselves from confronting the truly revolutionary departure from the Faith represented by the "Second" Vatican Council and its aftermath by claiming gratuitously that all must be well because "true popes" have been responsible for promulgating such things as the Novus Ordo service and the changes in the rites of episcopal consecration and priestly ordination. How can one argue with those intent on defending the indefensible that has been responsible for the emptying of the pews of Catholic parishes and a fundamental loss of Faith on the part of millions upon millions of Catholics?

Thus it is that this article, which has been prompted by Father Brian Harrison's "Sacramental Validity for Dummies" in the current edition of The Latin Mass: A Journal of Catholic Culture, is being written without any expectation that Father Harrison will be disabused of his embrace of his efforts to reconcile conciliarism with Catholicism.

After all, trained theologians have done superb work documenting the apostasies of the present moment. Much of this work has been referred to on this site repeatedly in the past two years. Fathers Francisco and Dominic Radecki's Tumultuous Times by Frs. Francisco and Dominic Radecki, CMRI is an excellent compendium of the the history of the Catholic Church's true councils, providing also a very good refutation of the view of papal infallibility as presented by the anti-sedevacantists. His Excellency Bishop Mark A. Pivarunas's lectures refuting the anti-sedevacantist arguments are also quite useful (Oct. 13, 2006 Sedevacantism Part I, Oct. 13, 2006 Sedevacantism Part II, Oct. 13, 2006 Sedevacantism Part III, Sedevacantism Part IV.) Other valuable resources, of course, including articles by His Excellency Bishop Donald Sanborn and Father Anthony Cekada, can be found at Traditional Latin Mass Resources. No new ground will be broken in this commentary. Nothing will be written that will convince those who have tried to defend the indefensible that we are indeed in the midst of the Great Apostasy.

While I have the highest of personal regard for Father Harrison, whom I have known for fifteen years, and believe that his work against evolutionism is very sound and makes an important contribution against a disproved ideology that is so responsible for the triumph of the Hegelian and Darwinian spirit of Modernism itself, I must note with profound sadness that his article, which was brought to my attention by a reader of this site and which Father Harrison was good enough to send to me via e-mail, is based upon a gratuitous assertion of the legitimacy of the "pontificate" of Giovanni Montini/Paul VI and upon the gratuitous assertion that God would "not permit" large numbers of Catholics to be misled by a false pope.

Father Harrison's article focused on the claim that sedevacantists have been attempting to use the claim of the invalidity of the Novus Ordo rite of episcopal consecration to prove the illegitimacy of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's claim to the papacy. My own focus on the illegitimacy of the Joseph Ratzinger's claims to the papacy have focused exclusively on his multiple defections from the Catholic Faith throughout his priestly life. Although I will outline these again in summary form later in this article, suffice to say for the moment that Joseph Ratzinger, a disciple of the New Theology that was condemned by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis, August 12, 1950, has asserted a notion of dogmatic truth that has been anathematized by the [First] Vatican Council and condemned by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.

Consider, once again, the comments of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI made on December 22, 2005, concerning the nature of dogmatic truth:

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)


Consider, once again, how this statement stands as anathematized by the authority of the Catholic Church:

Hence, that meaning of the sacred dogmata is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy Mother Church, and there must never be an abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.... If anyone says that it is possible that at some given time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmata propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has always understood and understands: let him be anathema. [Vatican Council, 1870.]


The then Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger thumbed his nose at this solemn declaration, which carries with it an anathema, on July 2, 1990:

The text [of the Second Vatican Council] also presents the various forms 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 a 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. Its nucleus remains valid, but the particulars, which the circumstances of the times have influenced, may need further ramifications.

“In this regard, one may think of the declarations of Popes in the last 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. 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 immersion in the liberal-bourgeois world. But in the details of the determinations they contain, they become obsolete after having fulfilled their pastoral mission at the proper moment.” (Joseph Ratzinger, L'Osservatore Romano, July 2, 1990)


Anyone who would assert that Joseph Ratzinger is unfamiliar with the anathematizing of his Hegelian view of dogmatic truth should be reminded that he swore in The Oath Against Modernism, September 1, 1910, to hold to his dying breath each of its statements, including its condemnation against those who contend that doctrine can change its meaning as men understand it differently in different times according to the changed circumstances of "modern" living.

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

Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way. [Pope Saint Pius X, The Oath Against Modernism, September 1, 1910.]

Consider, once again, how Ratzinger's view of dogmatic truth was eviscerated by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominci Gregis:

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

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


Consider also Pope Pius XII's simple reaffirmation of Pope Saint Pius X's condemnation of the ability of dogma to be understood differently at different times, contained in his direct condemnation of the New Theology in which Joseph Ratzinger the seminarian was being trained at the time.

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. (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, August 12, 1950.)


To disbelieve in the nature of dogmatic truth is defy simple reason and logic. It is also to disbelieve in the very nature of God Himself, subjecting one to the belief that all must be made new in light of the "needs" of the mythical entity known as "modern man." No sane individual can attempt to square Joseph Ratzinger's anathematized views on the nature of dogmatic truth with the Catholic Faith, which holds that the same meaning must be given at all times to the declarations of popes and councils.

Belaboring this point would turn this particular article into another version of Singing the Old Songs. Suffice it for the present moment, however, to point out that Joseph Ratzinger, acting as Benedict XVI, has rejected what he calls disparagingly the "ecumenism of the return," thereby placing him in direct and open contradiction to numerous popes prior to 1958, including (but not limited to) Pope Pius IX, Iam Vos Omnes, September 13, 1868, Pope Leo XIII, Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae, June 20, 1894, and Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1929:

We all know there are numerous models of unity and you know that the Catholic Church also has as her goal the full visible unity of the disciples of Christ, as defined by the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council in its various Documents (cf. Lumen Gentium, nn. 8, 13; Unitatis Redintegratio, nn. 2, 4, etc.). This unity, we are convinced, indeed subsists in the Catholic Church, without the possibility of ever being lost (cf. Unitatis Redintegratio, n. 4); the Church in fact has not totally disappeared from the world.

On the other hand, this unity does not mean what could be called ecumenism of the return:  that is, to deny and to reject one's own faith history. Absolutely not!

It does not mean uniformity in all expressions of theology and spirituality, in liturgical forms and in discipline. Unity in multiplicity, and multiplicity in unity:  in my Homily for the Solemnity of Sts Peter and Paul on 29 June last, I insisted that full unity and true catholicity in the original sense of the word go together. As a necessary condition for the achievement of this coexistence, the commitment to unity must be constantly purified and renewed; it must constantly grow and mature. Benedict XVI, Ecumenical meeting at the Archbishopric of Cologne English

It is for this reason that so many who do not share “the communion and the truth of the Catholic Church” must make use of the occasion of the Council, by the means of the Catholic Church, which received in Her bosom their ancestors, proposes [further] demonstration of profound unity and of firm vital force; hear the requirements [demands] of her heart, they must engage themselves to leave this state that does not guarantee for them the security of salvation. She does not hesitate to raise to the Lord of mercy most fervent prayers to tear down of the walls of division, to dissipate the haze of errors, and lead them back within holy Mother Church, where their Ancestors found salutary pastures of life; where, in an exclusive way, is conserved and transmitted whole the doctrine of Jesus Christ and wherein is dispensed the mysteries of heavenly grace.

It is therefore by force of the right of Our supreme Apostolic ministry, entrusted to us by the same Christ the Lord, which, having to carry out with [supreme] participation all the duties of the good Shepherd and to follow and embrace with paternal love all the men of the world, we send this Letter of Ours to all the Christians from whom We are separated, with which we exhort them warmly and beseech them with insistence to hasten to return to the one fold of Christ; we desire in fact from the depths of the heart their salvation in Christ Jesus, and we fear having to render an account one day to Him, Our Judge, if, through some possibility, we have not pointed out and prepared the way for them to attain eternal salvation. In all Our prayers and supplications, with thankfulness, day and night we never omit to ask for them, with humble insistence, from the eternal Shepherd of souls the abundance of goods and heavenly graces. And since, if also, we fulfill in the earth the office of vicar, with all our heart we await with open arms the return of the wayward sons to the Catholic Church, in order to receive them with infinite fondness into the house of the Heavenly Father and to enrich them with its inexhaustible treasures. By our greatest wish for the return to the truth and the communion with the Catholic Church, upon which depends not only the salvation of all of them, but above all also of the whole Christian society: the entire world in fact cannot enjoy true peace if it is not of one fold and one shepherd. (Pope Pius IX, Iam Vos Omnes, September 13, 1868.)

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. (Pope Leo XIII, addressing the Orthodox in Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae, June 20, 1894.)

So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it. . . .

Let, therefore, the separated children draw nigh to the Apostolic See, set up in the City which Peter and Paul, the Princes of the Apostles, consecrated by their blood; to that See, We repeat, which is "the root and womb whence the Church of God springs," not with the intention and the hope that "the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth" will cast aside the integrity of the faith and tolerate their errors, but, on the contrary, that they themselves submit to its teaching and government. Would that it were Our happy lot to do that which so many of Our predecessors could not, to embrace with fatherly affection those children, whose unhappy separation from Us We now bewail. Would that God our Savior, "Who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth," would hear us when We humbly beg that He would deign to recall all who stray to the unity of the Church! In this most important undertaking We ask and wish that others should ask the prayers of Blessed Mary the Virgin, Mother of divine grace, victorious over all heresies and Help of Christians, that She may implore for Us the speedy coming of the much hoped-for day, when all men shall hear the voice of Her divine Son, and shall be "careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)


There is even a slight contrast to how Our Lady, the Mother of God herself, has sought converts now and again with the apostate approach to non-Catholics taken by the conciliarists, including Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI:

Heaven was watching over Pierre and after seven years, on March 25, 1656, Our Lady appeared to him. On that day, Pierre was working in the field and saw a Lady standing far away on a little hill. The Lady wore a white dress, a blue mantle and had a black veil over her head, which partly covered her face. As the Lady came toward Pierre, she suddenly picked up speed and in a flash, she stood beside him. With her beautiful, sweet voice, the Lady spoke to Pierre, "God be with you my friend!"

For a moment, Pierre stood in amazement. The Lady spoke again, "What is being said about this devotion? Do many people come?"

Pierre replied, "Yes many people come,"

Then the Lady said, "Where does that heretic live who cut the willow tree? Does he not want to be converted?"

Pierre mumbled an answer. The Lady became more serious, "Do you think that I do not know that you are the heretic? Realize that your end is at hand. If you do not return to the True Faith, you will be cast into Hell! But if you change your beliefs, I shall protect you before God. Tell people to pray that they may gain the good graces which, God in His mercy has offered to them." (See: If You Do Not Return to the True Faith, You Will Be Cast Into Hell!)


Our Lady even sought the conversion of the Catholic-hating Jewish man by the name of Alphonse Ratisbonne, did she not? She sought the conversion of all of the Americas when she appeared to Juan Diego on December 9, 10, and 12, 1531. What does this mean to Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. Nothing. Nothing at all. Remember, Ratzinger made not one public exhortation to anyone to pray Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary while he visited the United States of America recently. After a few brief references to Our Lady in his address to the conciliar "bishops" on Wednesday, April 16, 2008, Ratzinger mentioned not one word about the Mother of God publicly. Not one word. He didn't even make the Sign of the Cross before or after his Masonic prayer at "Ground Zero" on Sunday, April 20, 2008. Every Catholic makes the Sign of the Cross before and after he prays. But that is the point, you see. Making the Sign of the Cross is something that comes naturally to a Catholic. Seeking the conversion of non-Catholics also comes naturally to a Catholic.


Alas, Joseph Ratzinger does not consider himself bound by anything in the Catholic "past" that he does not "like. He did not "like" the Catholic Church's certain teaching on Limbo, thus paving the way for the findings (not binding, you understand, simply approved by the members) of the International Theological Commission that is headed by his own appointee, William Levada, who expressed sentiments of the evolution of dogma in early-2007 that were almost identical to those that he, Ratzinger, have uttered consistently throughout the course of his priesthood--seeAnathematized by His Own Words. He does not "like" the consistent teaching of the Catholic Church condemning the separation of Church and State, supporting such separation not as a matter of a necessary acquiescence to the regrettable reality of the moment but as a good in and of itself that provides a "protection" to the influence of "religion" in the "public market place" of ideas, spitting on these words of Pope Saint Pius X, contained in Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906:

That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him. Besides, this thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits the action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during this life only, which is but the proximate object of political societies; and it occupies itself in no fashion (on the plea that this is foreign to it) with their ultimate object which is man's eternal happiness after this short life shall have run its course. But as the present order of things is temporary and subordinated to the conquest of man's supreme and absolute welfare, it follows that the civil power must not only place no obstacle in the way of this conquest, but must aid us in effecting it.


Some might try to take refuge in the belief that Pope Saint Pius X's reiteration of the Church's consistent teaching that the civil state has a duty to recognize the true religion and to seek to foster those conditions in society that are conducive to the sanctification and salvation of the souls off its citizens is not "binding," that Catholics are "free" to dissent from such teaching and/or to re-define it. Oh, really? The Catholic Church says no to such contentions:

Many believe in or claim that they believe in and hold fast to Catholic doctrine on such questions as social authority, the right of owning private property, on the relations between capital and labor, on the rights of the laboring man, on the relations between Church and State, religion and country, on the relations between the different social classes, on international relations, on the rights of the Holy See and the prerogatives of the Roman Pontiff and the Episcopate, on the social rights of Jesus Christ, Who is the Creator, Redeemer, and Lord not only of individuals but of nations. In spite of these protestations, they speak, write, and, what is more, act as if it were not necessary any longer to follow, or that they did not remain still in full force, the teachings and solemn pronouncements which may be found in so many documents of the Holy See, and particularly in those written by Leo XIII, Pius X, and Benedict XV.

There is a species of moral, legal, and social modernism which We condemn, no less decidedly than We condemn theological modernism.

It is necessary ever to keep in mind these teachings and pronouncements which We have made; it is no less necessary to reawaken that spirit of faith, of supernatural love, and of Christian discipline which alone can bring to these principles correct understanding, and can lead to their observance. This is particularly important in the case of youth, and especially those who aspire to the priesthood, so that in the almost universal confusion in which we live they at least, as the Apostle writes, will not be "tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive." (Ephesians iv, 14) (Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922.)

Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me"; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians. (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, August 12, 1950.)

Assuming false and unjust premises, they are not afraid to take a position which would confine within a narrow scope the supreme teaching authority of the Church, claiming that there are certain questions -- such as those which concern social and economic matters -- in which Catholics may ignore the teachings and the directives of this Apostolic See.

This opinion -- it seems entirely unnecessary to demonstrate its existence -- is utterly false and full of error because, as We declared a few years ago to a special meeting of Our Venerable Brethren in the episcopacy:

"The power of the Church is in no sense limited to so-called 'strictly religious matters'; but the whole matter of the natural law, its institution, interpretation and application, in so far as the moral aspect is concerned, are within its power.

"By God's appointment the observance of the natural law concerns the way by which man must strive toward his supernatural end. The Church shows the way and is the guide and guardian of men with respect to their supernatural end."

This truth had already been wisely explained by Our Predecessor St. Pius X in his Encyclical Letter Singulari quadam of September 24, 1912, in which he made this statement: "All actions of a Christian man so far as they are morally either good or bad -- that is, so far as they agree with or are contrary to the natural and divine law -- fall under the judgment and jurisdiction of the Church."

Moreover, even when those who arbitrarily set and defend these narrow limits profess a desire to obey the Roman Pontiff with regard to truths to be believed, and to observe what they call ecclesiastical directives, they proceed with such boldness that they refuse to obey the precise and definite prescriptions of the Holy See. They protest that these refer to political affairs because of a hidden meaning by the author, as if these prescriptions took their origin from some secret conspiracy against their own nation. (Pope Pius XII, Ad Apostolorum Principis, June 29, 1958.)


Those seeking to reconcile conciliarism with Catholicism and/or who seek, at the very least, to excuse, if not deny altogether the existence of, these multiple defections from the Faith will never be convinced that they are wrong. They keep taking their swings at people deemed to be "materially schismatic" (which would be true if the conciliar "pontiffs" were true popes) while keeping their mouths shut and their computer keyboards locked up as Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI commits multiple Mortal Sins, objectively speaking, against the First Commandment by accepting with equanimity and even joy the symbols of false religions, each of which is loathed by God.( April 17, 2008 - 6:15 p.m. - Interreligious Gathering. The presentation of the symbols of the false religions begins at around 24 minutes, thirty seconds into the video.)

No mere passing reference to Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ can undo the harm of the images of a man accepted by most people to be the Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth accepting with joy the symbols of religions that are false and thus hated by God and destructive of souls and of social order. Saints gave up their lives rather than even give the appearance of doing that which Ratzinger has done in going to a mosque and praying in the direction of Mecca in the Mohammedan prayer position after taking off his shoes and by entering synagogues and by calling a mountain upon which Buddhists worship their devils as "sacred" (Mount Hiei in Japan). These things matter to God. Why don't they matter to us?

Saint Teresa of Avila reminded us that we should never wind up minimizing things that are offensive to God:

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

The case for sedevacantism and against the legitimacy of Joseph Ratzinger as a Successor to Saint Peter as the Supreme Pontiff does not rest on the invalidity of the Novus Ordo rite of episcopal consecration promulgated by Giovanni Montini/Paul VI in 1968. Each of the conciliar claimants to the papacy prior to Ratzinger were true bishops. Angelo Roncalli was named a bishop by Pope Pius XI on March 3, 1925, consecrated on March 19, 1925. Giovanni Montini was named a bishop by Pope Pius XII on November 1, 1954, consecrated on December 12, 1954. Albino Luciani (John Paul I) was named a bishop by Roncalli on December 15, 1958, consecrated on December 27, 1958 (a most interesting fact). Karol Wojtyla was named a bishop by Pope Pius XII on July 4, 1958, consecrated on September 28, 1958. The cases for the defections from the Faith of each of these true bishops has been made very well by others. (One elderly priest, who is not willing to speak publicly at this time, has said that each of these men could be considered not only antipopes but veritable Antichrists. I continue to pray that this priest, who is very sober and manly in his demeanor, will speak publicly about the information that he has on this matter.)

The case against the legitimacy of the conciliar "pontiffs" rests on conciliarism's defections from the Faith, some of which have been noted above, some of which will be noted below in comments provided to me by His Excellency, Bishop Donald A. Sanborn, not on the invalidity of the new rite of episcopal consecration.

There has been, as Father Harrison noted in his article in The Latin Mass: A Journal of Catholic Culture, a very scholarly effort by Father Anthony Cekada on the matter of the invalidity of the new rite of episcopal consecration. Father Cekada's treatise on the Novus Ordo rite of episcopal consecration has been critiqued by various individuals, including priests associated with the Society of Saint Pius X, each of whom took Father Cekada's arguments quite seriously. One critic had to return to his critique at least two additional times to fill gaps in his efforts to rebut Father Cekada's treatise (which can be read at Absolutely Null and Utterly Void, which was followed up by Father Cekada with detailed responses to his critics: Still Null and Still Void, New Bishops, Empty Tabernacle.)

(It is interesting to note that this juncture that the Society of Saint Pius X's recent "epiphany," if you will, of the unquestioned validity of the Novus Ordo rites of episcopal consecration and priestly ordination came after negotiations between its officials and the conciliar Vatican intensified in 2005. A not uncommon, although far from universal, practice in the Society of Saint Pius X was for men "ordained" by a conciliar "bishop" to be conditionally ordained by a bishop of the Society if, as was told to me by several Society priests, the man "ordained" in the Novus Ordo rite requested such a conditional ordination. One priest who works with the Society--and with whom I was in seminary for a year--told me that he expected only to be ordained to the offices of doorkeeper, lector and sub-deacon only to find out when he walked out for the ceremony that an entire conditional ordination to the priesthood was in store for him that day. I know of at least three other men, each of whom are ardent  anti-sedevacantists, who were "ordained" in the Novus Ordo rite but who sought conditional ordination in order to work with the Society of Saint Pius X. None of these three priests could answer me when I asked them why they believed that a validly reigning pontiff could nevertheless promulgate liturgical rites that were of dubious validity.)

While this issue is not essential to proving the illegitimacy of Joseph Ratzinger as a Successor of Saint Peter, it is important as it pertains to the very sanctification and salvation of our immortal souls. I am not going to take any chances with the salvation of wife and daughter's souls--or with my own. Although I had been taking a long, hard look at the issues raised by sedevacantism for about three months prior to the posting of Father Cekada's article, I read it dispassionately and without prejudice to the disagreement I had had with him in 2005 over the matter of Mrs. Theresa Schindler-Schiavo's death by dehydration and starvation at the order of a Florida court. Truth is the only thing that matters. Truth, and nothing else. We must be willing to assess the reasonableness of arguments in light of the truth and without regard to other disagreements.

Oh, yes, I had heard others talk about the invalidity of the Novus Ordo rite of episcopal consecration and that of the Novus Ordo rite of priestly ordination. Indeed, I made the exact same arguments in many instances as Father Harrison made in his article. However, I did listen to the people who were telling me that I was wrong. Father Cekada's article convinced me of a simple truth that had not dawned on me before: I had been wrong. Those who had explained this matter to me in the past had been correct. Father Cekada's article convinced me that we could not continue seeking the sacraments from men we admired and respected but were not in fact priests. Indeed, Father Cekada's article--and his masterful refutation of the attempted rebuttals of it--provides evidence, at least to those with the desire to seek the truth, that the Catholic Church could not be responsible

Father Harrison made no effort to respond to the substance of Father Cekada's articles, stating gratuitously that the Novus Ordo rite of episcopal consecration must be valid because it was promulgated by one he states was a true pope, Giovanni Montini/Paul VI, who believed in the same defections from the Faith as enumerated above. Most of Father Harrison's article after that point was an effort to "prove" that God would "not permit" so many Catholics to be deceived, left bereft without the sacraments, that God in His Mercy would not let such a thing happen.

Well, what is the Great Apostasy, which must occur before--and not necessarily immediately before--the coming of the Antichrist and thus before the Second Coming of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, going to look like? How will God keep massive numbers of people from being deceived at that time when He is keeping them from being deceived at the present time? How are we going to be assured that we will be immune from being deceived? Is it not possible that the "Second" Vatican Council and the Novus Ordo and the whole ethos of conciliarism are but manifestations of the Great Apostasy?

His Excellency Bishop Robert F. McKenna, O.P, put the matter very well to Father Harrison in a letter he wrote on April 21, 2008:

Dear Father Harrison:

In view of your parable in "Sacramental Validity for Dummies", how is it possible for the great apostasy foretold by St. Paul in II Thess. 2:3 to take place? How will Christ not be held to do then the same thing that you argue He is doing now, namely prevent the faithful from being led astray?

But if He not be so held, then consider whether the Vatican II crisis might not itself be the great apostasy--with you an unwitting proponent.   Sincerely in Christ, +Robert McKenna, O.P.


Father Harrison sent a response to His Excellency that raised the issue of perpetual successors to Saint Peter and how it could be that a true pope would be recognized if all of the cardinal-electors are invalidated. Bishop McKenna has not had time as of this writing to compose a response to Father Harrison's letter. His Excellency Bishop Donald Sanborn has treated the substance of Father Harrison's article and his letter to Bishop McKenna.

Here is Father Harrison's letter to Bishop McKenna, followed by Bishop Sanborn's cogent analysis of the former's article and letter:

Dear Bishop McKenna,

Thanks you for your letter of April 21, which was forwarded to me by The Latin Mass magazine.

If I am not mistaken, a good friend of mine, Mr. Charles Scott Gibson, visited Your Excellency several years ago. He spoke very favorably of you. And of course I remember with gratitude the information you gave me in 2006 when I was preparing my encyclopedia entry entitled “Traditionalist Catholic Movement”. (This has now been published: cf. Michael F. Coulter et al, [eds.], Encyclopedia of Catholic Social Thought, Social Science and Social Policy, [Lanham, MD: The Scarecrow Press, 2007], vol. 2, pp.1081-1084.)

I confess that, in writing my TLM article, I had not thought of the theological reductio ad absurdum objection you raise, namely, that on my premises, the final great apostasy – the reality of which is part of our faith – could never take place, because no matter what Satan and/or the Antichrist might devise, our Lord himself would have to intervene to “prevent the faithful from being led astray”.

However, I would answer your objection, first, by noting that the prophecy of 2 Thess. 2: 3-4, which you suggest is being fulfilled at the present time, specifies that the filius perditionis in question will be a personage “qui adversatur et extollitur supra omne, quod dicitur Deus aut quod colitur, ita ut in templo Dei sedeat, ostendens se quia sit Deus”. The post-conciliar occupants of the Apostolic Palace can scarcely be accused of claiming to be God, or even of setting themselves above and against all that is called God or is worshipped. So I do not see that this text supports the contemporary sedevacantist or sedeprivationist positions at all.

Secondly, quite apart from that particular text, I don’t believe my argument implies the theologically absurd – not to say unorthodox – conclusion that Your Excellency thinks it does. All that Scripture and Catholic doctrine require us to believe in this matter is that there will indeed come a final great persecution of the Church, in which vast numbers of believers will fall away from the true faith. Now, for one thing, those who you would see as the remnant of true Catholics – to wit, sedevacantists – are scarcely being “persecuted” at this time. Nearly all of them reside in countries where they enjoy religious liberty (the putative right to which, rather ironically, they claim is one of the heresies of Vatican Council II).

Also, my own premises by no means imply that Christ would have to intervene to prevent this apostasy. I would remind Your Excellency of the following passage in my article:

For, in this scenario [i.e., that in which invalid rites of Episcopal and/or priestly ordination have been imposed], the Catholic people would not be losing those sacraments because of some stiff-necked global rebellion of their own against Our Lord’s’ sacramental teaching and discipline (an offence which might conceivably deserve some such fearful calamity by way of chastisement). On the contrary, the calamity would be occurring precisely because these ingenuous lambs are trusting and obeying Jesus in His promises to Blessed Peter and his Successors! (p.15, emphasis in original)

Thus, my only premises here are: 1) that Christ would have to intervene thus only if a true pope were the source of potentially Church-destroying legislation; and 2) that Paul VI was indeed a true pope when he imposed the new post-Vatican II sacramental rites. But there is nothing in Catholic doctrine or biblical prophecy which in any way proves, or even suggests, that when the great apostasy comes, it will necessarily come as a result of Catholics obeying a man whom they believe to be – and much less one who truly is – a true Successor of Peter. Robert Hugh Benson’s famous novel The Lord of the World is one witness among many to the fact that most Catholics have anticipated that when the Antichrist comes, he will not be a person who even seems to be a true pope to most good-willed and simple Catholics; but rather, a political tyrant enjoying some sort with diabolically-bestowed powers of working seeming miracles, so as to convince vast numbers that he is some kind of divine figure. Benson’s evil Felsenburg, as you may remember, is not even thought to be a pope by ordinary faithful Catholics at the time of the apostasy. On the contrary, Benson has the true pope as a different figure in his novel, a holy man under persecution and taking refuge from the secular Antichrist figure, Felsenburg.

In short, all that is required as an effective rebuttal of Your Excellency’s objection is for me to point out that, according to traditional doctrine and biblical interpretation, the great apostasy will not necessarily have to come about as a result of wicked actions on the part of a man who poses as a pope. I think this is indeed quite evident from Catholic tradition.

Finally, if I may in turn be permitted to pose a question to Your Excellency, I would be interested to know your answer to the objection that, with each passing year, the possibility of reconciling sedevacantism, or even sedeprivationism, with Vatican I’s solemn definition that Blessed Peter has perpetual successors with primacy over the universal Church (cf. Dz 1825) more closely approaches zero. It seems to me that, were the parousia to occur tomorrow, Christ’s promises, and the said Vatican I definition, would be proven false; for in that event, the final historical record would be that, in fact, the line of Peter’s successors had been extinguished a good half-century before the end of the world – an interval too long to be ‘accommodated’ as being ‘approximately’ the end of the world. So I think your only alternative now is to insist confidently that the papacy will indeed be restored prior to the parousia, resting your case on the fact that nothing in revelation imposes a time-limit on just how long the Church can go without a true head on earth. But then, you have to deal with the question of how even God could restore the papacy in a way recognizable by all faithful Catholics, now that all the true Cardinal electors are (in your view) deceased. All I have seen from sedevacantists are vague references to God’s omnipotence. But in a matter such as this, God’s omnipotence is for practical purposes limited, not per se, of course, but quoad nos. For we humans have a limited capacity of discerning and understanding; and I myself can’t think of a scenario for restoring the papacy (assuming such restoration were needed) that could be guaranteed to persuade all good-willed believers that the man in question was indeed a true pope. Perhaps you could suggest a concrete scenario as to how God might accomplish this?

With best wishes, Yours sincerely in Christ, (Rev.) Brian W. Harrison, O.S.


Here is Bishop Sanborn's excellent response, for which I am most grateful:

As always, the entire argument, pro and con, regarding sedevacantism rests on a single question: Are the changes of Vatican II, doctrinal, disciplinary, and liturgical, Roman Catholicism or not? If they are, Then I will buy my clown suit posthaste, and appear this afternoon at Lynch's office in St. Petersburg to do my obeisance. If it is not Roman Catholicism, then clearly the N.O. "popes" are phonies, and we must denounce them as such and resist their wicked heresies with all our might, even to martyrdom.  All of the "this can't be" arguments are futile, since logically possibility cedes to existence.  If something exists, it is possible.  So the point of departure in this whole argument is to look at the reality, and not the possibilities.

I am sure you remember the old Clairol commercials: "Does she or doesn't she?" So in our case it is: "Is it Catholicism or not?" 

Furthermore, there is nothing impossible about a vacancy of the see for a long time. The problem of the perpetuity of the hierarchy in this case is solved by the Guerardian thesis, since it safeguards what proceeds from the Church in the formation and continuation of the hierarchy, and places the defect precisely where it truly is: in the defectible person of the pope-elect.  There is no guarantee from heaven that the persons elected to this exalted office become indefectible from the point of view of faith or morals. But, as St. Thomas points out, what is defectible will at some time defect, unless it is preserved from doing so by some extrinsic cause.  In other words, the Church has done its part in presenting a candidate to receive the power of the papacy, i.e., has presented another Peter to God; that candidate cannot receive the power because he places an intrinsic obstacle to it, namely the intention to promulgate doctrine, discipline, and liturgy which together constitute a substantial alteration of Roman Catholicism. There is no promise from God that this could not happen. Cum ex apostolatus  is documentary proof.

I do not agree that God would not permit the general deception of masses of people through a false pope. It is a gratuitous claim. It has happened many times in the past in the case of heresy and schism. Just read the volumes of the history of the Church. The reason why countries and large territories fell into heresy and schism is because their bishops did. Where the bishops did not embrace it, the heresy or schism usually was of little consequence. Think of Arius, Nestorius, Photius, the bishops of England, etc.  God is faithful in His grace, and where a hierarch has fallen into heresy, He gives the grace of discernment to those whom He will, and permits others to be destroyed, for His inscrutable reasons, by false shepherds.  Analogous situations took place in the Old Testament. Isaias spoke of a remnant, i.e., a small number which was preserved from a general apostasy. It is by the same act of faith that one assents to the orthodox teachings of a true pope, and dissents from the unorthodox teachings of a false one. The pope is merely the proposer of dogma, and not the author of it. We hold to Catholic dogma based on the authority of God revealing and of the Church proposing.  But where something is proposed to us which contradicts the Catholic Faith, the faith immediately demands the conclusion: This is not the Church proposing,  since it is contrary to Faith to imagine that the Church would propose falsehood and sin to us, just as much as it would be contrary to Faith to think that Christ Himself could do such a thing.

For this very reason, St. Paul says in Galatians: 

I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel. 7 Which is not another, only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. 9 As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema. 

In Father Harrison's theory, St Paul, an infallible (but not indefectible) Apostle should have said: "If we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel besides that which we have preached to you, just obey and accept it, because God would never permit you to be deceived by someone like me or an angel."

One could easily cite to Fr. Harrison a verse from II Thessalonians which speaks about the operation of error:

Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying:

 "God shall send"... That is God shall suffer them to be deceived by lying wonders, and false miracles, in punishment of their not entertaining the love of truth. That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity. (II: 10-11)

What could be more explicit about God's intention to send some agency of error, a perfect name for the modernist-infested Vatican, than this verse?   Also, Fr. Harrison pulls together verses that pertain to the Antichrist and verses that pertain to the great apostasy. But Antichrist and the great apostasy are not necessarily simultaneous, but the latter could very well be a preparation for the former. Indeed the reading of Thessalonians lends credence to this.  For how could Antichrist be universally accepted, unless a general apostasy from the Faith had already taken place?

The reason why the masses are deceived by a false pope is that they have already lost the faith in their souls.  For it is impossible that one who truly has the faith assent to anything which is contrary to Faith.  That is truly impossible. The assent to false teaching automatically ruins the Catholic Faith in the soul.  It is like smashing a light bulb. 

This operation of error, the Novus Ordo, merely confirms and embellishes the loss of faith in millions, who have accepted the apostasy of the thinking of the French Revolution, liberalism, and modernism.  St. Augustine in the City of God  speaks about the chilling reality that God will permit the hardened sinner to have an abundance of the very things that lead him into sin.

It is true that there could be a number of people still in the N.O. who retain the Catholic Faith, who hate the changes of Vatican II, but who have not drawn the conclusion, through invincible ignorance, of the non-papacy of the V-2 "popes."  These people have not been deceived, since they still retain the faith. Implicitly they repudiate the papacy of these apostates.  But in my experience, 95% of the Novus Ordites love the changes of Vatican II, and if a Saint Pius X were elected to the throne who restored the true Faith to Catholic institutions, they would march right out of the Church. They would become the sedevacantists in such a case, and would probably elect their own antipope.

In conclusion and summary, therefore, I would answer to Fr. Harrison that we should discuss primarily the doctrinal orthodoxy of Vatican II and of Ratzinger, who in his various writings and sayings, has denied the historicity of Christ's resurrection from the dead, the general resurrection of the dead, and Transsubstantiation (Christ is in the bread), and has performed ecumenical atrocities against the Catholic Faith, such as praying toward Mecca. Please, let us talk about these concrete realities, and  stop kidding ourselves by saying that the Tyrannosaurus Rex which we see with our eyes must in fact only be a pussycat.


Father Harrison missed the entire point of Bishop Sanborn's comments, accusing His Excellency and yours truly of attacking "straw men." There is nothing "straw" about the very real denial of the nature of truth and of the esteeming of false religions that has been one of the chief characteristics of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's "reign" in the past three years.

Bishop Sanborn was good enough to send along an additional set of comments in response to Father Harrison's objections:

Fr. Harrison missed the whole point of my response, which is that the whole question, including that of the papacy of Paul VI et al. turns on the question of the Catholicism or non-Catholicism of Vatican II.

His argument about validity, if I understood it correctly, is that it is impossible that the new rite be invalid, since it is impossible that a true pope could lead the Catholic people astray. We are arguing the opposite, namely that it is impossible that Paul VI be a true pope, since he has led the Catholic people astray with his false doctrines et practices, among which is an obviously invalid consecration rite.

It comes down to the question: which comes first, the Faith or apostolic authority? In other words, which has priority logically: the faith or apostolic authority? More practically: Do we conclude that Vatican II must be OK because Paul VI is pope, or do we conclude that Paul VI is not pope because Vatican II is not OK?

The answer is clearly that, logically speaking, the Faith precedes apostolic authority, since the latter is only knowable through the Faith. If Paul VI contradicts the Faith, it is  a clear sign of his non-papacy, since his papacy is known by an at least implicit verification of his profession of the Faith as a necessary condition of his papacy. So the papacy as such could not even be known without the Faith, and whether or not someone is the pope cannot be known except by first knowing the Faith. Here I am not referring to whether or not someone is  elected  to the papacy, for no one needs the virtue of faith in order to know that.  But to attain the papacy, it is necessary that the pope-elect profess the Catholic Faith, barring which he would remain a mere pope-elect.  This is exactly what we are saying about Benny.

The logical precedence of the Faith to apostolic authority is supported by Galatians I: 7, since otherwise it would read, as I said:

"If we, or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel besides that which has been preached to you, just figure that the new gospel is OK even though it contradicts the old one, since it is impossible that either I or and angel from heaven could defect from the Faith."

We MUST start at the bottom: Does Vatican II contradict the teaching and practice of the Catholic Church or not? Please, "yes" or "no."

And if Fr. Harrison is saying "no," then he should get his clown suit and forget about the traditional Latin Mass and any attempt to make a silk purse out of the sow's ear of Vatican II.  For indeed, if the answer is "no," then Vatican II is no sow's ear but a beautiful silk purse


Precisely! Thank you, Your Excellency.

Father Benedict Hughes, CMRI, offered his own very thoughtful analysis of Father Harrison's article and letter to Bishop McKenna, taking a different tack than Bishop Sanborn on the issue of how a true pope could be chosen, although it could be posited that both sedeprivationists and sedevacantists would agree that the scenario of an election without cardinals referred to by Father Benedict is canonically possibly and doctrinally sound:

I have read the articles.  Bishop McKenna raises an excellent point.  I also notice that Fr. Harrison is several times guilty of a "petitio principii," more commonly referred to as "begging the question."  In other words, he seems to take for granted what needs to be proved.  If Paul VI was validly elected, as even some sede-vacantists assert, then he could have lost the papacy before promulgating the new rite of orders.  (Bishop Sanborn, I have been told, believes that he lost the papal office when he signed the documents of Vatican II in 1965, which would have been before the new rite of consecration of bishops was issued.)  In other words, his argument that the new rite of consecration is valid because it was promulgated by a true pope is gratuitous.  IF Paul VI were a true pope when he promulgated this new rite, then Fr. Harrison should be able to go down the list of Fr. Cekada's arguments and refute them, point by point. 

His response to Bishop McKenna also makes reference to a restoration of the papacy.  Poor souls like Fr. Harrison hear our arguments and think that we believe there will never be another true pope again until the end of time.  They reason that, since we consider all the cardinals as heretics and hence without authority to elect a true pope, then we must believe there will never be a true pope again.  But cardinals are not needed to elect a true pope (for the college of cardinals was not instituted before the 11th century.)  In this regards, a review of Bishop Pivarunas' article on Answering the Objections to Sedevacantism would be helpful (http://www.cmri.org/02-answering-objections-sede.html.) 

Also, one article I really like on the subject was written by Bishop Sanborn 8 years ago.  It is entitled "Resistance and Indefectibility."  The article is excellent and is worth a re-reading, if you have already read it.  If you have not read it before, you will find it contains an excellent response to those who bring up Vatican I and the perpetual successors teaching.  See:  traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=21&catname=10


Father Benedict commented further upon reading a copy of the next to last draft of this article:

I was just reading through parts of your final draft and realized that I perhaps should have commented on the following statement of Fr. Harrison, in his letter to Bishop McKenna:

Now, for one thing, those who you would see as the remnant of true Catholics – to wit, sedevacantists – are scarcely being “persecuted” at this time. Nearly all of them reside in countries where they enjoy religious liberty (the putative right to which, rather ironically, they claim is one of the heresies of Vatican Council II)."

This statement of his is incredible.  It indicates to me that this priest doesn't even really understand our concerns about Vatican II, nor does he have a grasp of the Syllabus of Errors and traditional Catholic teaching regarding religious liberty.  To imply that our freedom to practice our faith at this point in time was what Vatican II had in mind, is a complete failure to understand what is at issue.  Vatican II taught that each individual has a right, GIVEN TO HIM BY GOD!!!, to choose whatever religion he wants to practice--as though God doesn't care how He is worshiped, or if He is worshiped.  That is something totally different from whether or not an individual can practice his religion without being persecuted for it.

I thought I would just point out this additional problem.  Our difficulty in trying to answer the questions or arguments of someone like this priest, is that, in a sense, they don't even speak the same language we do.  They may use the same words that we use, but they attribute to many of them a different meaning.  This shows how difficult it is to "rehabilitate" a Novus Ordo-trained V-II priest.  It is not just a matter of him learning how to say Mass and administer the sacraments in a traditional rite and then receiving a conditional ordination!  If this priest is sincere, I would suggest to him to take a year, or more, and read the Enchiridion, the encyclicals of the true popes, particularly from Pius IX to Pius XII, inclusive, and other sound doctrinal works. 


Ah, yes, religious liberty. Father Benedict brings up an excellent point. Then again, of course, Father Harrison has written an entire book in which he believes he has proved the orthodoxy of Dignitatis Humanae. Indeed, Father Harrison has written to me to say that I have to to rebut his defense of Dignitatis Humanae in order to keep claiming that this document of penultimate Americanism is compatible with the Catholic Faith. I have informed him, after reading an article in which his essential contentions, many of which are premised on limiting the binding nature of some papal encyclical letters by making them the prisoners of the historical circumstances in which they were written (making his exegetical approach stunningly similar to Ratzinger's in this regard), are contained, that I will write on this subject soon.

Never before have Catholics had to "strain" to find "continuity" in her teaching. As Bishop Donald Sanborn commented to us in Holy Week of 2007, an examination of Church documents in Denziger shows that she spoke with "one voice." There was a seamless quality to her teaching. The same has not been true since 1958. A different language has been spoken since that time, one that is in sharp contrast to the plain language of Pope Pius VII and Pope Gregory XVI:

But a much more grave, and indeed very bitter, sorrow increased in Our heart - a sorrow by which We confess that We were crushed, overwhelmed and torn in two - from the twenty-second article of the constitution in which We saw, not only that "liberty of religion and of conscience" (to use the same words found in the article) were permitted by the force of the constitution, but also that assistance and patronage were promised both to this liberty and also to the ministers of these different forms of "religion". There is certainly no need of many words, in addressing you, to make you fully recognize by how lethal a wound the Catholic religion in France is struck by this article. For when the liberty of all "religions" is indiscriminately asserted, by this very fact truth is confounded with error and the holy and immaculate Spouse of Christ, the Church, outside of which there can be no salvation, is set on a par with the sects of heretics and with Judaic perfidy itself. For when favour and patronage is promised even to the sects of heretics and their ministers, not only their persons, but also their very errors, are tolerated and fostered: a system of errors in which is contained that fatal and never sufficiently to be deplored HERESY which, as St. Augustine says (de Haeresibus, no.72), "asserts that all heretics proceed correctly and tell the truth: which is so absurd that it seems incredible to me." (Post Tam Diuturnas, April 29,1814.)

This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. "But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error," as Augustine was wont to say. When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly "the bottomless pit" is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws -- in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty.

Here We must include that harmful and never sufficiently denounced freedom to publish any writings whatever and disseminate them to the people, which some dare to demand and promote with so great a clamor. We are horrified to see what monstrous doctrines and prodigious errors are disseminated far and wide in countless books, pamphlets, and other writings which, though small in weight, are very great in malice. We are in tears at the abuse which proceeds from them over the face of the earth. Some are so carried away that they contentiously assert that the flock of errors arising from them is sufficiently compensated by the publication of some book which defends religion and truth. Every law condemns deliberately doing evil simply because there is some hope that good may result. Is there any sane man who would say poison ought to be distributed, sold publicly, stored, and even drunk because some antidote is available and those who use it may be snatched from death again and again?

The Church has always taken action to destroy the plague of bad books. This was true even in apostolic times for we read that the apostles themselves burned a large number of books. It may be enough to consult the laws of the fifth Council of the Lateran on this matter and the Constitution which Leo X published afterwards lest "that which has been discovered advantageous for the increase of the faith and the spread of useful arts be converted to the contrary use and work harm for the salvation of the faithful." This also was of great concern to the fathers of Trent, who applied a remedy against this great evil by publishing that wholesome decree concerning the Index of books which contain false doctrine. "We must fight valiantly," Clement XIII says in an encyclical letter about the banning of bad books, "as much as the matter itself demands and must exterminate the deadly poison of so many books; for never will the material for error be withdrawn, unless the criminal sources of depravity perish in flames." Thus it is evident that this Holy See has always striven, throughout the ages, to condemn and to remove suspect and harmful books. The teaching of those who reject the censure of books as too heavy and onerous a burden causes immense harm to the Catholic people and to this See. They are even so depraved as to affirm that it is contrary to the principles of law, and they deny the Church the right to decree and to maintain it. (Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832.)


This is not a matter of "discipline." This is the immutable doctrine of the Catholic Church, which Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, a firm proponent of the right of all religions to propagate themselves openly, can contribute to the cause of "peace."

I am glad to greet you and all the religious leaders gathered on the occasion of the Twentieth Anniversary of the Religious Summit Meeting on Mount Hiei. I wish also to convey my best wishes to Venerable Eshin Watanabe, and to recall your distinguished predecessor as Supreme Head of the Tendai Buddhist Denomination, Venerable Etai Yamada. It was he who, having participated in the Day of Prayer for Peace in Assisi on that memorable day of 27 October 1986, initiated the “Religious Summit Meeting” on Mount Hiei in Kyoto in order to keep the flame of the spirit of Assisi burning. I am also happy that Cardinal Paul Poupard, President of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, is able to take part in this meeting.

From the supernatural perspective we come to understand that peace is both a gift from God and an obligation for every individual. Indeed the world’s cry for peace, echoed by families and communities throughout the globe, is at once both a prayer to God and an appeal to every brother and sister of our human family. As you assemble on the sacred Mount Hiei, representing different religions, I assure you of my spiritual closeness. May your prayers and cooperation fill you with God’s peace and strengthen your resolve to witness to the reason of peace which overcomes the irrationality of violence!

Upon you all I invoke an abundance of divine blessings of inspiration, harmony and joy.” Benedict XVI sends message to interreligious meeting in Japan


Contrast this with Pope Pius XI's call for peace in Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922:

Since the Church is the safe and sure guide to conscience, for to her safe-keeping alone there has been confided the doctrines and the promise of the assistance of Christ, she is able not only to bring about at the present hour a peace that is truly the peace of Christ, but can, better than any other agency which We know of, contribute greatly to the securing of the same peace for the future, to the making impossible of war in the future. For the Church teaches (she alone has been given by God the mandate and the right to teach with authority) that not only our acts as individuals but also as groups and as nations must conform to the eternal law of God. In fact, it is much more important that the acts of a nation follow God's law, since on the nation rests a much greater responsibility for the consequences of its acts than on the individual.

When, therefore, governments and nations follow in all their activities, whether they be national or international, the dictates of conscience grounded in the teachings, precepts, and example of Jesus Christ, and which are binding on each and every individual, then only can we have faith in one another's word and trust in the peaceful solution of the difficulties and controversies which may grow out of differences in point of view or from clash of interests. An attempt in this direction has already and is now being made; its results, however, are almost negligible and, especially so, as far as they can be said to affect those major questions which divide seriously and serve to arouse nations one against the other. No merely human institution of today can be as successful in devising a set of international laws which will be in harmony with world conditions as the Middle Ages were in the possession of that true League of Nations, Christianity. It cannot be denied that in the Middle Ages this law was often violated; still it always existed as an ideal, according to which one might judge the acts of nations, and a beacon light calling those who had lost their way back to the safe road.

There exists an institution able to safeguard the sanctity of the law of nations. This institution is a part of every nation; at the same time it is above all nations. She enjoys, too, the highest authority, the fullness of the teaching power of the Apostles. Such an institution is the Church of Christ. She alone is adapted to do this great work, for she is not only divinely commissioned to lead mankind, but moreover, because of her very make-up and the constitution which she possesses, by reason of her age-old traditions and her great prestige, which has not been lessened but has been greatly increased since the close of the War, cannot but succeed in such a venture where others assuredly will fail.

It is apparent from these considerations that true peace, the peace of Christ, is impossible unless we are willing and ready to accept the fundamental principles of Christianity, unless we are willing to observe the teachings and obey the law of Christ, both in public and private life. If this were done, then society being placed at last on a sound foundation, the Church would be able, in the exercise of its divinely given ministry and by means of the teaching authority which results therefrom, to protect all the rights of God over men and nations.

It is possible to sum up all We have said in one word, "the Kingdom of Christ." For Jesus Christ reigns over the minds of individuals by His teachings, in their hearts by His love, in each one's life by the living according to His law and the imitating of His example. Jesus reigns over the family when it, modeled after the holy ideals of the sacrament of matrimony instituted by Christ, maintains unspotted its true character of sanctuary. In such a sanctuary of love, parental authority is fashioned after the authority of God, the Father, from Whom, as a matter of fact, it originates and after which even it is named. (Ephesians iii, 15) The obedience of the children imitates that of the Divine Child of Nazareth, and the whole family life is inspired by the sacred ideals of the Holy Family. Finally, Jesus Christ reigns over society when men recognize and reverence the sovereignty of Christ, when they accept the divine origin and control over all social forces, a recognition which is the basis of the right to command for those in authority and of the duty to obey for those who are subjects, a duty which cannot but ennoble all who live up to its demands. Christ reigns where the position in society which He Himself has assigned to His Church is recognized, for He bestowed on the Church the status and the constitution of a society which, by reason of the perfect ends which it is called upon to attain, must be held to be supreme in its own sphere; He also made her the depository and interpreter of His divine teachings, and, by consequence, the teacher and guide of every other society whatsoever, not of course in the sense that she should abstract in the least from their authority, each in its own sphere supreme, but that she should really perfect their authority, just as divine grace perfects human nature, and should give to them the assistance necessary for men to attain their true final end, eternal happiness, and by that very fact make them the more deserving and certain promoters of their happiness here below.

It is, therefore, a fact which cannot be questioned that the true peace of Christ can only exist in the Kingdom of Christ -- "the peace of Christ in the Kingdom of Christ." It is no less unquestionable that, in doing all we can to bring about the re-establishment of Christ's kingdom, we will be working most effectively toward a lasting world peace.


A different language indeed. The latter is Catholic. The other is not. Period.

The God "would never permit" argument is fallacious. Let's review, as I have in several recent articles on this site, what God has permitted since He created Adam out of the dirt of the earth and Eve out of Adam's side and then placed them in the Garden of Eden:

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

God permitted all but eight members of the human race to be deceived and deluded prior to the Great Flood prior to their being wiped off of the face of the earth.

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

God permitted all but a handful of people to stand by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as He suffered and died for us on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday.

God permitted most of the world's bishops and many Catholics to be deceived by the Arian heresy.

God permitted all but one bishop, Saint John Fisher of Rochester, England, and thousands upon thousands of ordinary Catholics to defect from the Faith at the time of the Protestant Revolt in England when King Henry VIII took this thoroughly Catholic country out of the Church.

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

God permitted millions upon millions of souls to be deceived by the likes of Martin Luther and John Calvin and Thomas Cranmer and John Wesley and Ulrich Zwingli and John Knox and Oliver Cromwell, et al. Entire generations of families have been lost to the true Faith as a result, dating as far back as the Sixteenth Century.


There is a special irony here. For Father Harrison to be right, God is permitting billions of people on the face of the earth to be deceived by a true Successor of Saint Peter into thinking that He looks favorably upon the symbols of false religions. Why? It's very simple. Joseph Ratzinger, accepted by all but a handful of people in the world as "Pope" Benedict XVI, stood up from his "papal" chair at the "Pope" John Paul II Cultural Center in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, April 17, 2008, to receive the symbols of those false religions. This clearly communicates the belief, albeit false and repugnant to God and injurious to souls, that the Catholic Church looks with kindness upon those false religions. She does not.

For Father Harrison to be right, God is permitting billions of people on the face of the earth to be deceived by a true pope into believing that a dead, superseded religion, Judaism (more accurately, of course, the Talmudic version of Judaism that is not the same thing as the superseded Judaism of the Old Covenant), is esteemed by God and presents a valid means by which adherents of the Talmud may actually please God and save their souls. Why? Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict, the putative Vicar of Jesus Christ, the God-Man, the very Second Person of the Blessed Trinity made Man in the Virginal and Immaculate Womb by the power of God the Holy Ghost at the Annunciation, walked into the Park East Synagogue on Friday, April 18, 2008, to be treated as an inferior to Rabbi Arthur Schneier and listened with equanimity to a song that professed the Talmudic "faith" in its denial of the fact that the Messiah has come in the Person of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Or does Father Harrison not see such actions on the part of the man he recognizes as a true pope as offending the honor and majesty of God grievously and deceiving billions of souls in the process, reaffirming adherents of false religions unto their very deaths, a crime against God and against the souls of these adherents of false religions?

Bishop George Hay, the Vicar Apostolic for the Lowland Region of Scotland at the end of the Eighteenth Century and the beginning of the Nineteenth Century, wrote about the canonical sanctions that existed from time immemorial on actions such as those dared to be undertaken so brazenly by a man who is contemptuous of the nature of dogmatic truth and thus of the very honor and majesty due God Himself, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI:

The spirit of Christ, which dictated the Holy Scriptures, and the spirit which animates and guides the Church of Christ, and teaches her all truth, is the same; and therefore in all ages her conduct on this point has been uniformly the same as what the Holy Scripture teaches. She has constantly forbidden her children to hold any communication, in religious matters, with those who are separated from her communion; and this she has sometimes done under the most severe penalties. In the apostolical canons, which are of very ancient standing, and for the most part handed down from the apostolical age, it is thus decreed: "If any bishop, or priest, or deacon, shall join in prayers with heretics, let him be suspended from Communion". (Can. 44)

Also, "If any clergyman or laic shall go into the synagogue of the Jews, or the meetings of heretics, to join in prayer with them, let him be deposed, and deprived of communion". (Can. 63) (Bishop George Hay, (The Laws of God Forbidding All Communication in Religion With Those of a False Religion.)



Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI being greeted by Rabbi Arthur Schneier, Park East Synagogue, Borough of Manhattan, City of New York,  New York, Friday, April 18, 2008.


Bishop Hay's commentary puts the lie to Father Harrison's claim, made in Will Pope John Paul II Be Styled "the Great"?, that the prohibition of participation in inter-religious prayer services is merely a matter of discipline and not doctrine. Not so. Not so at all, as Bishop Hay attests:

Q. What are the particular laws on this subject?

A. In the three general commands above mentioned, God Almighty speaks, by the mouth of His holy apostle, as Lord and Master, and lays His orders upon us absolutely. In what follows, He unites the merciful Savior to the Sovereign; and whilst He no less strictly commands us to avoid all religious communication with those who are separated from His holy Faith and Church, He at the same time condescends to engage our obedience, by showing us the strongest reasons for it.

(1) "Beware of false prophets", says our blessed Master, "who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves". (Mat. 7:5) Here Jesus Christ commands His followers to "beware of false prophets" — that is, to flee from them, to be on their guard against them; and He adds this powerful motive, "Lest ye be seduced and ruined by them"; for, whatever appearance of godliness they may put on, though they come to you in the clothing of sheep, yet within they are ravenous wolves, and seek only to slay and to destroy.

To the same purpose He says in another place, "Take heed that no man seduce you; for many will come in My name, saying, I am Christ, and they will seduce many." (Mat. 24:4) "And many false prophets shall arise and seduce many." (ver. 2) Here He foretells the cunning of false teachers, and the danger of being seduced by them, and commands us to take care of ourselves, that such be not our fate.

But how shall we escape from them? He afterwards tells us how: do not believe them, have nothing to do with them, have no communication, with them. "Then", He says, "if any man shall say, to you, Lo, here is Christ, or there, do not believe him. For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive even the elect. Behold. I have told it you beforehand. If therefore, they shall say to you, Behold he is in the desert, go ye not out; behold he is in the closet, believe it not." (Mat. 24:23)

Can there be a more powerful reason to enforce the observance of His command, or a stronger motive to induce His followers to have no religious communication with such false teachers? Many will be certainly seduced by them; and so will you, if you expose yourself to the danger.

(2) St. Peter, considering the great mercy bestowed upon us by the grace of our vocation to the true faith of Christ, says, that it is our duty to "declare the praises and virtues of Him who hath called us out of darkness into His admirable light". (1 Pet. 2:9) St. Paul also exhorts us to "give thanks to God the Father, who hath made us worthy to be partakers of the lot of the saints in light, who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of His beloved Son." (Col. 1:12) Where it is manifest that as the true Faith of Jesus Christ is the only light that conducts to salvation, and that it is only in His Kingdom — that is, in His Church — where that heavenly light is to be found, so all false religions are darkness; and that to be separated from the Kingdom of Christ is to be in darkness as to the great affair of eternity. And indeed what greater or more miserable darkness can a soul be in than to be led away by seducing spirits, and "departing from the faith of Christ, give heed to the doctrine of devils". (1 Tim. 4:1) St. Paul, deploring the state of such souls, says that they "have their understandings darkened, being alienated from the life of God, through the ignorance: that is in them, because of the blindness of their hearts". (Eph. 4:18)

On this account the same holy apostle exhorts us in the most pressing manner to take care not to be seduced from the light of our holy Faith by the vain words and seducing speeches of false teachers, by which we would certainly incur the anger of God; and, to prevent so great a misery, He not only exhorts us to walk as children of the light in the practice of all holy virtues, but expressly commands us to avoid all communication in religion with those who walk in the darkness of error. "Let no man deceive you with vain words, for because of these things cometh the anger of God upon the children of unbelief; be ye not, therefore, partakers with them. For ye were theretofore darkness; but now light in the Lord; walk ye as the children of the light,. . . and have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness". (Eph. 5:6)

Here, then, we have an express command, not only not to partake with the unfruitful works of darkness — that is, not to join in any false religion, or partake of its rites or sacraments — but also, not to have any fellowship with its professors, not to be present at their meetings or sermons, or any other of their religious offices, lest we be deceived by them, and incur the anger of the Almighty, provoke Him to withdraw His assistance from us, and leave us to ourselves, in punishment of our disobedience.

(3) St. Paul, full of zeal for the good of souls, and solicitous to preserve us from all danger of losing our holy Faith, the groundwork of our salvation, renews the same command in his Epistle to the Romans, by way of entreaty, beseeching us to avoid all such communication with those of a false religion. He also shows us by what sign we should discover them, and points out the source of our danger from them: "Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who cause dissensions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and to avoid them; for they that are such serve not Our Lord Christ, but their own belly, and by pleasing speeches and good words seduce the hearts of the innocent". (Rom. 16:17)


See here whom we are to avoid — "those that cause dissensions contrary to the ancient doctrine"; all those who, hating, left the true Faith and doctrine which they had learned, and which has been handed down to us from the beginning by the Church of Christ, follow strange doctrines, and make divisions and dissensions in the Christian world. And why are we to avoid them? Because they are not servants of Christ, but slaves to their own belly, whose hearts are placed upon the enjoyments of this world, and who, by "pleasing speeches and good words, seduce the hearts of the innocent" — that is, do not bring good reasons or solid arguments to seduce people to their evil ways, so as to convince the understanding, for that is impossible; but practice upon their hearts and passions, relaxing the laws of the gospel, granting liberties to the inclinations of flesh and blood, laying aside the sacred rules of mortification of the passions and of self-denial, promising worldly wealth, and ease, and honors, and, by pleasing speeches of this kind, seducing the heart, and engaging people to their ways.

(4) The same argument and command the apostle repeats in his epistle to his beloved disciple Timothy, where he gives a sad picture, indeed, of all false teachers, telling us that they put on an outward show of piety the better to deceive, "having an appearance, indeed, of godliness, but denying the power thereof;" then he immediately gives this command: "Now these avoid: for of this sort are they that creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, who are led away with divers desires"; and adds this sign by which they may be known, that, not having the true Faith of Christ, and being out of His holy Church — the only sure rule for knowing the truth — they are never settled, but are always altering and changing their opinions, "ever learning, and never attaining to the knowledge of the truth"; because, as he adds, "they resist the truth, being corrupted in their mind, and reprobate concerning the Faith". (2 Tim. 3:5)

Here it is to be observed that, though the apostle says that silly weak people, and especially women, are most apt to be deceived by such false teachers, yet he gives the command of avoiding all communication with them in their evil ways, to all without exception, even to Timothy himself; for the epistle is directed particularly to him, and to him he says, as well as to all others, "Now these avoid", though he was a pastor of the church, and fully instructed by the apostle himself in all the truths of religion; because, besides the danger of seduction, which none can escape who voluntarily expose themselves to it, all such communication is evil in itself, and therefore to be avoided by all, and especially by pastors, whose example would be more prejudicial to others.

(5) Lastly, the beloved disciple St. John renews the same command in the strongest terms, and adds another reason, which regards all without exception, and especially those who are best instructed in their duty: "Look to yourselves", says he, "that ye lose not the things that ye have wrought, but that you may receive a full reward. Whosoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine the same hath both the Father and the Son. If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, nor say to him, God speed you: for he that saith to him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works". (2 John, ver. 8)

Here, then, it is manifest, that all fellowship with those who have not the doctrine of Jesus Christ, which is "a communication in their evil works" — that is, in their false tenets, or worship, or in any act of religion — is strictly forbidden, under pain of losing the "things we have wrought, the reward of our labors, the salvation of our souls". And if this holy apostle declares that the very saying God speed to such people is a communication with their wicked works, what would he have said of going to their places of worship, of hearing their sermons, joining in their prayers, or the like?

From this passage the learned translators of the Rheims New Testament, in their note, justly observe, "That, in matters of religion, in praying, hearing their sermons, presence at their service, partaking of their sacraments, and all other communicating with them in spiritual things, it is a great and damnable sin to deal with them." And if this be the case with all in general, how much more with those who are well instructed and better versed in their religion than others? For their doing any of these things must be a much greater crime than in ignorant people, because they know their duty better.

Q. These laws are very clear and strong; but has the Christian church always observed and enforced the observance of them?

A. The spirit of Christ, which dictated the Holy Scriptures, and the spirit which animates and guides the Church of Christ, and teaches her all truth, is the same; and therefore in all ages her conduct on this point has been uniformly the same as what the Holy Scripture teaches. She has constantly forbidden her children to hold any communication, in religious matters, with those who are separated from her communion; and this she has sometimes done under the most severe penalties. In the apostolical canons, which are of very ancient standing, and for the most part handed down from the apostolical age, it is thus decreed: "If any bishop, or priest, or deacon, shall join in prayers with heretics, let him be suspended from Communion". (Can. 44)

Also, "If any clergyman or laic shall go into the synagogue of the Jews, or the meetings of heretics, to join in prayer with them, let him be deposed, and deprived of communion". (Can. 63)

So also, in one of her most respected councils, held in the year 398, at which the great St. Augustine was present, she speaks thus: "None must either pray or sing psalms with heretics; and whosoever shall communicate with those who are cut off from the Communion of the Church, whether clergyman or laic, let him be excommunicated". (Coun. Carth. iv. 72 and 73)

The same is her language in all ages; and in this she shows herself to be the true mother, who will not suffer her children to be divided. She knows her heavenly spouse has declared that "no man can serve two masters; we cannot serve God and Mammon;" and therefore she must either have them to be hers entirely, or she cannot acknowledge them as such. She knows His holy apostle has protested that there can be no "participation, no fellowship, no concord, no pact, no agreement between the faithful and the unbeliever;" and therefore she never can allow any of her faithful children to have any religious communication with those of a false religion and corrupted Faith. (The Laws of God Forbidding All Communication in Religion With Those of a False Religion.)


Father Harrison might retort also that his church's 1983 Code of Canon Law provides no such sanctions as those listed by Bishop Hay, a retort that would only prove the point that we are in the Great Apostasy. How can something be true from the earliest times of the Church and not true now? The conciliar church is counterfeit. It is not of God. It is an ape of the Catholic Church. How could apostates who engage in wanton acts of apostasy and unspeakable blasphemies and sacrileges against God continue canonical sanctions against themselves and their own apostate, blasphemous, sacrilegious words and deeds? Talk about begging the question! Father Harrison can spend all of the time he wants trying to rationalize conciliarism's defects from the Faith. Doing so, of course, means that Bishop George Hay did not know the truth of Catholic doctrine.


The same is her language in all ages; and in this she shows herself to be the true mother, who will not suffer her children to be divided. She knows her heavenly spouse has declared that "no man can serve two masters; we cannot serve God and Mammon;" and therefore she must either have them to be hers entirely, or she cannot acknowledge them as such. She knows His holy apostle has protested that there can be no "participation, no fellowship, no concord, no pact, no agreement between the faithful and the unbeliever;" and therefore she never can allow any of her faithful children to have any religious communication with those of a false religion and corrupted Faith.


God cannot contradict Himself. The counterfeit church of conciliarism's "permission" for "inter-religious prayer" a direct and undeniable contradiction of the doctrine of the Catholic Church. Anyone who minimizes this participates in justifying grave offenses against the First Commandment.

Indeed, won't the Great Apostasy be characterized by a "strategic silence" on the part of those who believe that it is impossible for them to be deceived, that they have things "all figured out," and that there is no danger of them misleading others by their silence in the face of such outrages against God and souls as those perpetrated by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI during his recent visit to the United States of America?

As I have noted many times before in recent months, I was deceived for a long time. I was also silent for a long time about those things during the "reign" of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II that troubled me. Look, I am no better than anyone else in this regard. As I do have some degree of reparation to make for permitting myself for being deceived for so long and for my willfulness in refusing to listen to those who knew more than I did, I am simply imploring others at the present time to take a new look at the evidence that has been put forth by the conciliarists themselves as to the depth of their contempt for the Catholic Faith as it has been handed down to us from time immemorial. This is not a "game" about who can "prove" his case. This is about life and death truth, eternal life and death truth.

Those who bury their heads in the sands and refuse to speak out and to denounce apostate acts might want to consider, yes, once again, these words of Pope Saint Leo the Great:

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 )


Those who take refuge in silence or, worse yet, seek to justify the apostasies of the present moment that have led to such a loss of Faith on the part of millions of Catholics worldwide. Silence is not an option for a Catholic, as Pope Leo XIII made plain in Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890:

But in this same matter, touching Christian faith, there are other duties whose exact and religious observance, necessary at all times in the interests of eternal salvation, become more especially so in these our days. Amid such reckless and widespread folly of opinion, it is, as We have said, the office of the Church to undertake the defense of truth and uproot errors from the mind, and this charge has to be at all times sacredly observed by her, seeing that the honor of God and the salvation of men are confided to her keeping. But, when necessity compels, not those only who are invested with power of rule are bound to safeguard the integrity of faith, but, as St. Thomas maintains: "Each one is under obligation to show forth his faith, either to instruct and encourage others of the faithful, or to repel the attacks of unbelievers.'' To recoil before an enemy, or to keep silence when from all sides such clamors are raised against truth, is the part of a man either devoid of character or who entertains doubt as to the truth of what he professes to believe. In both cases such mode of behaving is base and is insulting to God, and both are incompatible with the salvation of mankind. This kind of conduct is profitable only to the enemies of the faith, for nothing emboldens the wicked so greatly as the lack of courage on the part of the good. Moreover, want of vigor on the part of Christians is so much the more blameworthy, as not seldom little would be needed on their part to bring to naught false charges and refute erroneous opinions, and by always exerting themselves more strenuously they might reckon upon being successful. After all, no one can be prevented from putting forth that strength of soul which is the characteristic of true Christians, and very frequently by such display of courage our enemies lose heart and their designs are thwarted. Christians are, moreover, born for combat, whereof the greater the vehemence, the more assured, God aiding, the triumph: "Have confidence; I have overcome the world." Nor is there any ground for alleging that Jesus Christ, the Guardian and Champion of the Church, needs not in any manner the help of men. Power certainly is not wanting to Him, but in His loving kindness He would assign to us a share in obtaining and applying the fruits of salvation procured through His grace.


Anyone seeking to reaffirm priests in the Motu world that there is no need for them to defend the honor and majesty of God in response to outrages such as those committed by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI during his recent visit to the United States of America, to say nothing of his lifelong, Modernist effort to re-define the Catholic Faith according to the terms of his condemned New Theology, is, whether wittingly or unwittingly, helping these outrages to be accepted in the minds of so many Catholics who are yet attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism and who believe that everything must be acceptable if the "pope" says it is so. However, no true pope prior to 1958 ever said that such things were so, and God cannot contradict Himself.

Does Father Harrison believe, as Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI recently said upon his tranquil reception of a second copy of the Koran in but two weeks, that this Mohammedan screed is a "dear and precious" document? If not, why the silence? Why the silence? Why the silence in the face of blasphemy and apostasy? Why the silence?

Although some of those who seek to defend the apostasies of the present moment as somehow reconcilable to the Faith do not want to admit even the possibility that sedevacantism is the doctrinal teaching of the Catholic Church, explicated by Pope Paul IV in Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, February 15, 1559,  the late head of the Apostolic Signature in conciliar captivity, Mario Francesco "Cardinal" Pompedda, admitted that, yes, the See of Peter would be vacant in the case of heresy:

It is true that the canonical doctrine states that the see would be vacant in the case of heresy. ... But in regard to all else, I think what is applicable is what judgment regulates human acts. And the act of will, namely a resignation or capacity to govern or not govern, is a human act. (Cardinal Says Pope Could Govern Even If Unable to Speak, Zenit, February 8, 2005.)


See no heresy, hear no heresy. Poison is health food if we say that it is so, right? No. Pope Leo XIII, quoted in Satis Cognitum at the beginning of this article, explained that those who believe in things contrary to Faith fall from the Church because of those false beliefs. Apostates need to make no public declaration or to attempt to "impose" their beliefs as binding upon all other Catholics. One falls from the state of Sanctifying Grace as a result of falling into Mortal Sin without any ecclesiastical declaration of this fact by virtue of violating the Divine Positive Law. One falls as a member of the Catholic Church by believing in, no less asserting publicly and repeatedly, propositions condemned by--or in contradiction to--her teaching authority by violating that same Divine Positive Law. It is that simple:

The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a certain portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. "There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition" (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos).

The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodore :, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. "No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic" (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88).


One is restored to state of Sanctifying Grace after committing a Mortal Sin by making a good, integral Confession to a validly ordained priest. One is restored to the bosom of the Catholic Church as a member in good standing after making a public abjuration of his errors and performing whatever penance is assigned as a condition for his acceptance back into the Church. No one can deny the nature of dogmatic truth and reject the necessity of the unconditional conversion of non-Catholics to the Catholic Church, no less engage in public acts esteeming the symbols of false religions and engaging exercises of "inter-religious" prayer that have been forbidden from Apostolic times, and remain a member of the Catholic Church. As Pope Leo XIII testifies above, a claim that all it takes to remain a Catholic in good standing is to hold a "minimum" number of the truths of the Faith is completely unsupportable. No one can make this claim unless, of course, he wants to assert that Pope Leo XIII had a poor understanding of the Church Fathers and used Saint Augustine's writings out of context. The "minimum number of truths" standard for remaining a Catholic is a fabrication of the first order. There is no such standard.

Father Frederick Faber reminded us in The Dolors of Mary/The Foot of the Cross that we must hate heresy, not make our terms with it:

The love of God brings many new instincts into the heart. Heavenly and noble as they are, they bear no resemblance to what men would call the finer and more heroic developments of character. A spiritual discernment is necessary to their right appreciation. They are so unlike the growth of earth, that they must expect to meet on earth with only suspicion, misunderstanding, and dislike. It is not easy to defend them from a controversial point of view; for our controversy is obliged to begin by begging the question, or else it would be unable so much as to state its case. The axioms of the world pass current in the world, the axioms of the gospel do not. Hence the world has its own way. It talks us down. It tries us before tribunals where our condemnation is secured beforehand. It appeals to principles which are fundamental with most men but are heresies with us. Hence its audience takes part with it against us. We are foreigners, and must pay the penalty of being so. If we are misunderstood, we had no right to reckon on any thing else, being as we are, out of our own country. We are made to be laughed at. We shall be understood in heaven. Woe to those easy-going Christians whom the world can understand, and will tolerate because it sees they have a mind to compromise!

The love of souls is one of these instincts which the love of Jesus brings into our hearts. To the world it is proselytism, the mere wish to add to a faction, one of the selfish developments of party spirit. One while the stain of lax morality is affixed to it, another while the reproach of pharisaic strictness! For what the world seems to suspect least of all in religion is consistency. But the love of souls, however apostolic, is always subordinate to love of Jesus. We love souls because of Jesus, not Jesus because of souls. Thus there are times and places when we pass from the instinct of divine love to another, from the love of souls to the hatred of heresy. This last is particularly offensive to the world. So especially opposed is it to the spirit of the world, that, even in good, believing hearts, every remnant of worldliness rises in arms against this hatred of heresy, embittering the very gentlest of characters and spoiling many a glorious work of grace. Many a convert, in whose soul God would have done grand things, goes to his grave a spiritual failure, because he would not hate heresy. The heart which feels the slightest suspicion against the hatred of heresy is not yet converted. God is far from reigning over it yet with an undivided sovereignty. The paths of higher sanctity are absolutely barred against it. In the judgment of the world, and of worldly Christians, this hatred of heresy is exaggerated, bitter, contrary to moderation, indiscreet, unreasonable, aiming at too much, bigoted, intolerant, narrow, stupid, and immoral. What can we say to defend it? Nothing which they can understand. We had, therefore, better hold our peace. If we understand God, and He understands us, it is not so very hard to go through life suspected, misunderstood and unpopular. The mild self-opinionatedness of the gentle, undiscerning good will also take the world's view and condemn us; for there is a meek-loving positiveness about timid goodness which is far from God, and the instincts of whose charity is more toward those who are less for God, while its timidity is searing enough for harsh judgment. There are conversions where three-quarters of the heart stop outside the Church and only a quarter enters, and heresy can only be hated by an undivided heart. But if it is hard, it has to be borne. A man can hardly have the full use of his senses who is bent on proving to the world, God's enemy, that a thorough-going Catholic hatred of heresy is a right frame of man. We might as well force a blind man to judge a question of color. Divine love inspheres in us a different circle of life, motive, and principle, which is not only not that of the world, but in direct enmity with it. From a worldly point of view, the craters in the moon are more explicable things than we Christians with our supernatural instincts. From the hatred of heresy we get to another of these instincts, the horror of sacrilege. The distress caused by profane words seems to the world but an exaggerated sentimentality. The penitential spirit of reparation which pervades the whole Church is, on its view, either a superstition or an unreality. The perfect misery which an unhallowed  touch of the Blessed Sacrament causes to the servants of God provokes either the world's anger or its derision. Men consider it either altogether absurd in itself, or at any rate out of all proportion; and, if otherwise they have proofs of our common sense, they are inclined to put down our unhappiness to sheer hypocrisy. The very fact that they do not believe as we believe removes us still further beyond the reach even of their charitable comprehension. If they do not believe in the very existence our sacred things, how they shall they judge the excesses of a soul to which these sacred things are far dearer than itself?

Now, it is important to bear all this in mind while we are considering the sixth dolor. Mary's heart was furnished, as never heart of saint was yet, yet with these three instincts regarding souls, heresy, and sacrilege. They were in her heart three grand abysses of grace, out of which arose perpetually new capabilities of suffering. Ordinarily speaking, the Passion tires us. It is a fatiguing devotion. It is necessarily so because of the strain of soul which it is every moment eliciting. So when our Lord dies a feeling of repose comes over us. For a moment we are tempted to think that our Lady's dolors ought to have ended there, and that the sixth dolor and the seventh are almost of our own creation, and that we tax our imagination in order to fill up the picture with the requisite dark shading of sorrow. But this is only one of the ways in which devotion to the dolors heightens and deepens our devotion to the Passion. It is not our imagination that we tax but our spiritual discernment. In these two last dolors we are led into greater refinements of woe, into the more abstruse delicacies of grief, because we have got to deal with a soul rendered even more wonderful than it was before by the elevations of the sorrows which have gone before. Thus, the piercing of our Lord with the spear as to our Blessed Lady by far the most awful sacrilege which it was then in man's power to perpetrate upon the earth. To break violently into the Holy of Holies in the temple, and pollute its dread sanctity with all manner of heathen defilement, would have been as nothing compared to the outrage of the adorable Body of God. It is in vain that we try to lift ourselves to a true appreciation of this horror in Mary's heart. Our love of God is wanting in keenness, our perceptions of divine things in fineness. We cannot do more than make approaches  and they are terrible enough. (Father Frederick Faber, The Foot of the Cross, published originally in England in 1857 under the title of The Dolors of Mary, republished by TAN Books and Publishers, pp. 291-295.)


Sedevacantism is not a heresy. It is the canonical doctrine of the Catholic Church. Those who do not accept that it applies at this time are free to persist in their belief that we are not in the Great Apostasy. To so believe, however, one must spend his entire life either being silent--or at least muting his criticism--about things one knows to be wrong or actually attempts to convince Catholics that contradictions of the Faith represent no contradiction at all, an exercise in complete and utter insanity.

Pope Gregory XVI, who is not exactly much quoted by the conciliarists, put the matter this way in Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832:

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."


Who are the ones who have severed themselves from the See of Peter? It is the conciliarists, not the sedevacantists. It is the conciliarists who have dared to diminish, change and add things, refusing to preserve the expression and meaning of the Church's doctrine as it has been handed down to us from time immemorial unchanged, defying anathematized propositions and sanctioning liturgical abominations that no true pope has ever--or would ever--do anything other than denounce as unbridled exercises in paganism.

Why would God permit millions of Catholics to be misled by a false pope and be denied the true sacraments? Chastisement. Chastisement is an important element of the Great Apostasy, as is taught in any course in Eschatology (the one that I took at Holy Apostles Seminary in Cromwell, Connecticut, was taught the late, great Father John Joseph Sullivan). God is permitting the Church Militant on earth, which must experience every phase of His own life on earth, to undergo its Mystical Passion, Death and Burial.

Saint John Eudes spoke of a chastisement involving men who were priests more in name than in deed:

The most evident mark of God’s anger and the most terrible castigation He can inflict upon the world are manifested when He permits His people to fall into the hands of clergy who are priests more in name than in deed, priests who practice the cruelty of ravening wolves rather than charity and affection of devoted shepherds ... “When God permits such things, it is a very positive proof that He is thoroughly angry with His people, and is visiting His most dreadful anger upon them. That is why He cries unceasingly to Christians, ‘Return O ye revolting children ... and I will give you pastors according to My own heart’. (Jer. 3:14,15) Thus, irregularities in the lives of priests constitute a scourge upon the people in consequence of sin.” ( Saint John Eudes, The Priest: His Dignity and Obligations, P. J. Kenedy and Sons, 1947, pp. 9-10.)

Yes, God could indeed chastise His people with not only true priests who are moral reprobates and/or heretics. God can chastise us with bogus bishops and priests who appear to represent Him but who are, whether wittingly or unwittingly, but precursors of the Antichrist. Father Cekada and others have provided solid evidence in this regard. Such evidence cannot be dismissed by the use of gratuitous claims that beg the question repeatedly.

In the midst of this era of apostasy and betrayal, therefore, we have recourse, as always, to the Mother of God, Our Lady, especially by means of her Most Holy Rosary and by total consecration to her Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart. She promised us at Fatima that her Immaculate Heart would triumph in the end. It will. We can be assured of this. And that triumph will be glorious beyond all telling.

We must, until that Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit, entrusting our souls to true bishops and true priests who make no concessions to conciliarism or to the nonexistent legitimacy of its false shepherds, being sure, of course, to make reparation for our own many sins, which have worsened the state of the Church Militant on earth and thus of the world-at-large, to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through that same Immaculate Heart.

We must also be most assiduous in commending our fellow Catholics, including those from whom were are estranged at the present moment because of situation created by the doctrinal and liturgical revolutionaries of conciliarism, to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Immaculate Heart of Mary. The conciliar revolutionaries have succeeded in pitting believing Catholics against each other, affording them the luxury of getting bolder and bolder in their attacks on the Faith and more and more open in their offenses given quite publicly to the honor and majesty of the Most Holy Trinity. This is one of the greatest tragedies of the past fifty years. Believing Catholics should not be pitted against each other as men posing as representatives of the Catholic Church do and say things that were never done and said by Catholics in the past.

Such is our situation, however. God has known from all eternity that we would be living in these times. The graces that He won for us on Calvary by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross and that flow into our hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, the Mediatrix of All Graces, are sufficient for us to bear the crosses of the present time and to prosper under them as His consecrated slaves through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Pope Pius XI explained why God permits such trials to occur:

History, in fact, tells us that in the course of ages these festivals have been instituted one after another according as the needs or the advantage of the people of Christ seemed to demand: as when they needed strength to face a common danger, when they were attacked by insidious heresies, when they needed to be urged to the pious consideration of some mystery of faith or of some divine blessing. Thus in the earliest days of the Christian era, when the people of Christ were suffering cruel persecution, the cult of the martyrs was begun in order, says St. Augustine, "that the feasts of the martyrs might incite men to martyrdom." The liturgical honors paid to confessors, virgins and widows produced wonderful results in an increased zest for virtue, necessary even in times of peace. But more fruitful still were the feasts instituted in honor of the Blessed Virgin. As a result of these men grew not only in their devotion to the Mother of God as an ever-present advocate, but also in their love of her as a mother bequeathed to them by their Redeemer. Not least among the blessings which have resulted from the public and legitimate honor paid to the Blessed Virgin and the saints is the perfect and perpetual immunity of the Church from error and heresy. We may well admire in this the admirable wisdom of the Providence of God, who, ever bringing good out of evil, has from time to time suffered the faith and piety of men to grow weak, and allowed Catholic truth to be attacked by false doctrines, but always with the result that truth has afterwards shone out with greater splendor, and that men's faith, aroused from its lethargy, has shown itself more vigorous than before.. . .

It would be the duty of Catholics to do all they can to bring about this happy result [that is, the Triumph of Christ the King]. Many of these, however, have neither the station in society nor the authority which should belong to those who bear the torch of truth. This state of things may perhaps be attributed to a certain slowness and timidity in good people, who are reluctant to engage in conflict or oppose but a weak resistance; thus the enemies of the Church become bolder in their attacks. But if the faithful were generally to understand that it behooves them ever to fight courageously under the banner of Christ their King, then, fired with apostolic zeal, they would strive to win over to their Lord those hearts that are bitter and estranged from him, and would valiantly defend his rights. (Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas, December 23, 1925.)


We may not see the restoration with our own eyes. May it be our privilege as the consecrated slaves of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary to plant a few seeds for the restoration to occur sooner rather than later.

Our Lady was in the Upper Room in Jerusalem when God the Holy Ghost descended in tongues of flame upon her and the Apostles who were gathered together with her on Pentecost Sunday. She prayed for Saint Peter, the first Pope, as He preached His discourse that day to seek the unconditional conversion of the Jews. She prayed for each of the other Apostles as they commenced their work to convert men and nations in total fidelity to the mission that had been entrusted to them by her Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, before He Ascended to His Father's right hand in glory on Ascension Thursday. She is praying for us as we seek to give to her Divine Son's Most Sacred Heart through her own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart all of our poor efforts at this moment to plant seeds for the day when the men of all nations everywhere will exclaim with joy:

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

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.

Saint Antoninus, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints

© Copyright 2008, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.