Chastisements Under Which We Must Save Our Souls

Part Three

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Although defenders of all things conciliar are jumping up and down for joy at the "toughness" they believe is being exhibited by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI in "cracking down" on abusive clergymen under his authority, they are absolutely breathless with joy at the revisions announced yesterday, Thursday, July 15, 2010, by Father Federico Lombardi, S.J. director the Press Office of the Holy See and official spin doctor for Ratzinger/Benedict, that codify in hideous 1983 Code of Canon Law for the counterfeit church of conciliarism a 1997 Vatican ruling that declared the attempted "ordination" of women to be one of the most grave crimes that can be committed, one that is punishable by excommunication by the conciliar authorities (see Vatican Sets New Rules on Responding to Clergy Abuse).

Leaving aside entirely for the sake of this article any discussion of the merits or demerits of the supposedly tough standards to deal with clerical abusers in the conciliar structures (which "tough" standards still do not require conciliar "bishops" to remove abusers from their positions once and for all), there will be many "conservative" and "traditionally-minded" Catholics who consider the "hard line" taken against the ontological impossibility of ordaining "women" to the Catholic priesthood that Our Blessed Lord and and Saviour Jesus Christ instituted at the Last Supper a sign of the "pope's" doctrinal orthodoxy and his desire to "restore" the Catholic Church.

Guess again.

Monsignor Charles Scicluna, the conciliar church's "promoter of justice" within its Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith who prosecutes canonical cases against conciliar clergy accused of sins, both natural and unnatural, against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments, revealed a lot about the warped thinking of those immersed in conciliarism at the press conference held in the Vatican yesterday where the changes to the false church's Code of Canon Law were announced:

Monsignor Scicluna also attempted to blunt the impact of the Vatican’s linking of the attempted ordination of women with grave crimes like pedophilia.

“Sexual abuse and pornography are more grave dealings, they are an egregious violation of moral law,” he said. “Attempted ordination of women is grave, but on another level; it is a wound that is an attempt against the Catholic faith on the sacramental orders.” (Vatican Sets New Rules on Responding to Sex Abuse.)

 

Monsignor Scicluna is indeed correct when he states that the "attempted ordination of women is grave, but on another level." This is true. And is precisely because such an act is, as he put it very well, "a wound that is an attempt against the Catholic faith on the sacramental orders" that makes it a greater crime in the hierarchy of evils than that of clerical abuse as crimes against God and the Holy Faith are more evil than crimes against men, no matter how heinous they might be.

One true priest who is in the "resist but recognize" camp put it very well five years ago when we had lunch with him when he said that conciliarism is "an inversion," that is, it is a distortion of the Catholic Faith. Monsignor Scicluna's comments quoted above do indeed represent an inversion, leaving aside, of course, the inconvenient fact that the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church has invalid sacramental rites of its very own and that only those ordinations performed by true bishops, as few in number as such men be, in the unreformed Rite of Priestly Ordination are valid. That a man working in what most people in the world believe to be is the doctrinal office of the Catholic Church can put crimes against men as being more grave, more evil than crimes against God and the Holy Faith is indeed quite an "inversion" of Catholic truth.

Oh, sure, some will point out that Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II and Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI have "held the line" against the demands made by ultra-progressive "bishops" and presbyters to "ordain" women to what they think is the Catholic priesthood in the conciliar structures, that this "proves" that they have retained the "essentials" of the Catholic Faith despite giving the "appearance" of having defected from It in non-essential matters. This deserves just a bit of attention once again for the relatively small number of people that actually access these articles and read these words.

First, there is no such distinction as "essential" and "non-essential" or "fundamental" or "non-fundamental" truths contained in the Deposit of Faith that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ entrusted entirely and exclusively  for their eternal safekeeping and infallible explication to His Catholic Church that He Himself founded upon the rock of Saint Peter, the pope. Pope Pius XI stressed this point in Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928:

Besides this, in connection with things which must be believed, it is nowise licit to use that distinction which some have seen fit to introduce between those articles of faith which are fundamental and those which are not fundamental, as they say, as if the former are to be accepted by all, while the latter may be left to the free assent of the faithful: for the supernatural virtue of faith has a formal cause, namely the authority of God revealing, and this is patient of no such distinction. For this reason it is that all who are truly Christ's believe, for example, the Conception of the Mother of God without stain of original sin with the same faith as they believe the mystery of the August Trinity, and the Incarnation of our Lord just as they do the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, according to the sense in which it was defined by the Ecumenical Council of the Vatican. Are these truths not equally certain, or not equally to be believed, because the Church has solemnly sanctioned and defined them, some in one age and some in another, even in those times immediately before our own? Has not God revealed them all? For the teaching authority of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men, and which is daily exercised through the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops who are in communion with him, has also the office of defining, when it sees fit, any truth with solemn rites and decrees, whenever this is necessary either to oppose the errors or the attacks of heretics, or more clearly and in greater detail to stamp the minds of the faithful with the articles of sacred doctrine which have been explained. But in the use of this extraordinary teaching authority no newly invented matter is brought in, nor is anything new added to the number of those truths which are at least implicitly contained in the deposit of Revelation, divinely handed down to the Church: only those which are made clear which perhaps may still seem obscure to some, or that which some have previously called into question is declared to be of faith.

 

Second, it is not "enough" to retain some, perhaps even a large preponderance, of the truths of the Holy Faith to remain a member of the Catholic Church in good standing without expelling oneself from her maternal bosom by virtue of having violated the Divine Positive Law as a result of defecting knowingly from even one article of the Faith. Among many others, Pope Leo XIII, echoing the unanimous teaching of the Church Fathers, including that of Saint Augustine himself, taught us that to defect from even one truth of the Catholic Faith is to defect from It all, placing oneself outside of the pale of the Catholic Church:

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).

 

No, the mere fact that the past two conciliar "popes" have "held the line" against women's "ordination" to the howls and protests and cries of dissent from ultra-progressive conciliar revolutionaries in the conciliar structures does not acquit them of the grave crimes against God and man that they have committed, demonstrating to all of those who are truly interested in a dispassionate review of the truth of our ecclesiastical situation that they are enemies of Christ the King and of the souls He redeemed by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood the Holy Cross.

I was unwilling to undertake such a dispassionate review for quite a long time. True enough. There are, thanks be to God and the loving intercession of His Most Blessed Mother, a number of good sources to review if one is interested in reviewing the true state of the Church, many of which have been cited on these pages a number of times. The Letter of 'the Nine' to Abp. Marcel Lefebvre is a good place to start thinking outside of the "resist but recognize" and Society of Saint Pius X false ecclesiology. The then Father Robert Neville's Letter to Bishop Bernard Fellay is another excellent summary of proper ecclesiology on how a true pope can never give us a liturgy that is an incentive to impiety Session Twenty-Two, Chapter IX, Canon VII, Council of Trent, September 17, 1562, CT022) and that he must be obeyed. I continue to recommend Fathers Francisco and Dominic Radecki's Tumultuous Times an excellent resource to study the "Second" Vatican Council in light of Holy Mother Church's twenty legitimate, valid councils.

Mind you, these are just three of many examples that can get a dispassionate observer to think about the simple fact that the Catholic Church always brings her teaching to her children with, to quote Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos, "ease and security."

Anyone who says that the counterfeit church of conciliarism has brought forth its teaching with "ease and security" is not seeing things too clearly. Not only are the "ultra-progressive" conciliar revolutionaries arguing with Ratzinger/Benedict's more "restrained" view of the conciliar revolution as he seeks to institutionalize a "stabilized" view of the revolution by means of promoting false ecumenism and blasphemes the Most Blessed Trinity scandalously by esteeming the symbols of false religions and by calling places of false worship as "sacred," even some "conservative and traditionally-minded Catholics are still arguing about the meaning of "religious freedom" in Dignitatis Humanae almost forty-five years after its issuance on December 7, 1965 (you can read such an exchange by clicking on A Colloquy on Religious Liberty). 

Although many articles have been written on the subject of the "orthodoxy" of religious liberty as defined in Dignitatis Humanae, that there is even need for such a debate demonstrates that it cannot be understood with "ease and security." Lost on those who try to defend the document and those who believe that it is problematic but not truly reflective of the "intentions" of the conciliar "popes" is the fact that that those conciliar "popes" have turned the phrase "religious liberty" or "religious freedom" into a platform for a full-scale, public endorsement of the "virtues" contained in the false worship of false religions and how those false religions can all work together with the Catholic Church to fight "irreligion" in the world. It is the conciliar "popes," including the German peritus who is now considered by most people in the world to be "Pope" Benedict XVI, who have given the impression to Catholics and non-Catholics alike that false religions are not only to be tolerated for the sake of the common good and to do no violation to the consciences of others, which can never be coerced into accepting the true Faith, but that they are to be exalted for their "ability" to "contribute" to the "building" of that "better world," that "civilization of love."

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has personally chosen the theme of "religious freedom" as the centerpiece of his "2011 World Day of Peace Message. The Communique issued by the Press Office of the Holy See to announce this theme referred to "religious freedom" as the "freedom of freedoms." This would have surprised, shocked and bewildered every true pope prior to the death of Pope Pius XII on October 9, 1958, especially those who wrote stirring condemnations of religious liberty during their own pontificates (see the examples given in the appendix below).

The Vatican Communique included the following interesting passage that repeated the theme, cited immediately below it, that Ratzinger/Benedict emphasized just before Christmas of last year and has repeated throughout his "pontificate:" "religions" can fight irreligion or secularism if united in an effort to do so:

Today there are many areas of the world in which forms of restrictions and limitations to religious freedom persist, both where communities of believers are a minority, and where communities of believers are not a minority, and where more sophisticated forms of discrimination and marginalization exist, on the cultural level and in the spheres of public civil and political participation. "It is inconceivable" -- remarked Benedict XVI -- "that believers should have to suppress a part of themselves -- their faith -- in order to be active citizens. It should never be necessary to deny God in order to enjoy one’s rights. The rights associated with religion are all the more in need of protection if they are considered to clash with a prevailing secular ideology or with majority religious positions of an exclusive nature" (Address to the United Nations, cit.). (Vatican Statement on Peace Day Theme.)

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

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

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

 

Go tell that to Pope Saint Pius X and Pope Pius XI, who used Mortalium Animos to specifically condemn the sort of false ecumenism that was given birth at the "World Missionary Conference" in Edinburgh, Scotland, from June 14, 1910 to June 23, 1910, a conference that has been specifically and categorically praised by "Pope" Benedict XVI ( see Getting Bolder In His Apostasy):

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

This being said, what must be thought of the promiscuity in which young Catholics will be caught up with heterodox and unbelieving folk in a work of this nature? Is it not a thousand-fold more dangerous for them than a neutral association? What are we to think of this appeal to all the heterodox, and to all the unbelievers, to prove the excellence of their convictions in the social sphere in a sort of apologetic contest? Has not this contest lasted for nineteen centuries in conditions less dangerous for the faith of Catholics? And was it not all to the credit of the Catholic Church? What are we to think of this respect for all errors, and of this strange invitation made by a Catholic to all the dissidents to strengthen their convictions through study so that they may have more and more abundant sources of fresh forces? What are we to think of an association in which all religions and even Free-Thought may express themselves openly and in complete freedom? For the Sillonists who, in public lectures and elsewhere, proudly proclaim their personal faith, certainly do not intend to silence others nor do they intend to prevent a Protestant from asserting his Protestantism, and the skeptic from affirming his skepticism. Finally, what are we to think of a Catholic who, on entering his study group, leaves his Catholicism outside the door so as not to alarm his comrades who, “dreaming of disinterested social action, are not inclined to make it serve the triumph of interests, coteries and even convictions whatever they may be”? Such is the profession of faith of the New Democratic Committee for Social Action which has taken over the main objective of the previous organization and which, they say, “breaking the double meaning which surround the Greater Sillon both in reactionary and anti-clerical circles”, is now open to all men “who respect moral and religious forces and who are convinced that no genuine social emancipation is possible without the leaven of generous idealism.” (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)

All Christians, they [the ecumenists] add, should be as "one": for then they would be much more powerful in driving out the pest of irreligion, which like a serpent daily creeps further and becomes more widely spread, and prepares to rob the Gospel of its strength. These things and others that class of men who are known as pan-Christians continually repeat and amplify; and these men, so far from being quite few and scattered, have increased to the dimensions of an entire class, and have grouped themselves into widely spread societies, most of which are directed by non-Catholics, although they are imbued with varying doctrines concerning the things of faith. This undertaking is so actively promoted as in many places to win for itself the adhesion of a number of citizens, and it even takes possession of the minds of very many Catholics and allures them with the hope of bringing about such a union as would be agreeable to the desires of Holy Mother Church, who has indeed nothing more at heart than to recall her erring sons and to lead them back to her bosom. But in reality beneath these enticing words and blandishments lies hid a most grave error, by which the foundations of the Catholic faith are completely destroyed  (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)

 

The constant shows of "respect" that Ratzinger/Benedict displays towards false religions and their places of worship and their "values"and their nonexistent ability to build "peace"--and as he says that the separation of Church and State, termed a "thesis absolutely false" by Pope Saint Pius X in Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906, has having served the Church well in the past century--is pure Judeo-Masonry, and it was condemned in the most strong terms imaginable by Pope Leo XIII in Custodi Di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892:

In truth, on the face of this earth there is but one true and holy Religion, founded and established by Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself; this Religion – the fecund mother, the nurturer of all virtues, the enemy of vice, the liberator of souls and the mistress of true happiness – is called Catholic, Apostolic and Roman.

We have already spoken about what we should think of those who live outside of this ark of salvation in the consistory allocution of December 9, 1854, and here we confirm that same doctrine.

To those who, for the good of Religion, invite us to extend our hand to contemporary civilization, we ask whether the Vicar of Christ, divinely established by Christ to preserve the purity of His heavenly doctrine and to nourish and confirm His lambs and sheep in this same doctrine, could join forces with contemporary civilization without a very grave danger of conscience and causing the greatest of scandals. For it was this civilization that produced evils so numerous that we could never deplore them sufficiently, as well as so many poisonous opinions, errors and principles which are extremely opposed to the Catholic Religion and her doctrine. (Pius IX, Allocution Jamdudum cernimus, March 18, 1861, in Recueil des Allocutions consistoriales, encycliques et autres lettres apostoliques, Paris: Adrien Leclere, 1865, p. 435, found at  Pope Cannot Accept Modern Civilization.)

Everyone should avoid familiarity or friendship with anyone suspected of belonging to masonry or to affiliated groups. Know them by their fruits and avoid them. Every familiarity should be avoided, not only with those impious libertines who openly promote the character of the sect, but also with those who hide under the mask of universal tolerance, respect for all religions, and the craving to reconcile the maxims of the Gospel with those of the revolution. These men seek to reconcile Christ and Belial, the Church of God and the state without God. (Pope Leo XIII, Custodi di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892.)

 

Behold the "pope" who believes in the "reconciliation" of what he thinks is the Catholic Church with the "new principles" of that "new era" that was inaugurated in 1789, the "pope" who dares to praise in Portugal, a once Catholic country who owes a lot to a brave soldier, Blessed Nuno Álvares Pereira, who become a humble Carmelite doorkeeper following his valorous service to King John I of Portugal and to his beloved country, the very same law of separation of Church and State that was condemned by Pope Saint Pius X in no uncertain terms:

From a wise vision of life and of the world, the just ordering of society follows. Situated within history, the Church is open to cooperating with anyone who does not marginalize or reduce to the private sphere the essential consideration of the human meaning of life. The point at issue is not an ethical confrontation between a secular and a religious system, so much as a question about the meaning that we give to our freedom. What matters is the value attributed to the problem of meaning and its implication in public life. By separating Church and State, the Republican revolution which took place 100 years ago in Portugal, opened up a new area of freedom for the Church, to which the two concordats of 1940 and 2004 would give shape, in cultural settings and ecclesial perspectives profoundly marked by rapid change. For the most part, the sufferings caused by these transformations have been faced with courage. Living amid a plurality of value systems and ethical outlooks requires a journey to the core of one’s being and to the nucleus of Christianity so as to reinforce the quality of one’s witness to the point of sanctity, and to find mission paths that lead even to the radical choice of martyrdom. (Official Reception at Lisbon Portela International Airport, Tuesday, May 11, 2010.)

 

Is it any accident that Portugal "legalized" surgical baby-killing up through the first ten weeks of pregnancy and in certain circumstances up to the end of the second trimester in 2007? Is it any accident that this same country of Portugal only last month "legalized" "marriage" between persons of the same gender who are engaged in perverse moral crimes about the Sixth and Ninth Commandments? Is it any accident that once Catholic Spain has now "legalized" surgical-baby killing or that King Juan Carlos, who countersigned the law so as to give it full legal effect, has retained his full canonical status in the counterfeit church of conciliarism (see King Juan Carlos, Meet Pope Leo XIII). Is it any accident that once Catholic Argentina has now "legalized" those same sort of perverse "marriages."

Behold the fruit of conciliarism's "reconciliation" with the modern world. "New area of freedom for the Church"? Take a look at these prophetic words of Pope Saint Pius X that condemned the very law of separation in Portugal and a reader with any sense of honesty will come to understand that apostasy does indeed have fatal consequences for men and for their nations:

2. Whilst the new rulers of Portugal were affording such numerous and awful examples of the abuse of power, you know with what patience and moderation this Apostolic See has acted towards them. We thought that We ought most carefully to avoid any action that could even have the appearance of hostility to the Republic. For We clung to the hope that its rulers would one day take saner counsels and would at length repair, by some new agreement, the injuries inflicted on the Church. In this, however, We have been altogether disappointed, for they have now crowned their evil work by the promulgation of a vicious and pernicious Decree for the Separation of Church and State. But now the duty imposed upon Us by our Apostolic charge will not allow Us to remain passive and silent when so serious a wound has been inflicted upon the rights and dignity of the Catholic religion. Therefore do We now address you, Venerable Brethren, in this letter and denounce to all Christendom the heinousness of this deed.

3. At the outset, the absurd and monstrous character of the decree of which We speak is plain from the fact that it proclaims and enacts that the Republic shall have no religion, as if men individually and any association or nation did not depend upon Him who is the Maker and Preserver of all things; and then from the fact that it liberates Portugal from the observance of the Catholic religion, that religion, We say, which has ever been that nation's greatest safeguard and glory, and has been professed almost unanimously by its people. So let us take it that it has been their pleasure to sever that close alliance between Church and State, confirmed though it was by the solemn faith of treaties. Once this divorce was effected, it would at least have been logical to pay no further attention to the Church, and to leave her the enjoyment of the common liberty and rights which belong to every citizen and every respectable community of peoples. Quite otherwise, however, have things fallen out. This decree bears indeed the name of Separation, but it enacts in reality the reduction of the Church to utter want by the spoliation of her property, and to servitude to the State by oppression in all that touches her sacred power and spirit. (Pope Saint Pius X, Iamdudum, May 24, 1911; please see also see my discussion of the 1940 and 2004 Concordats in Mocking Pope Saint Pius X and Our Lady of Fatima.)

 

The conciliarists were indeed heralding the "triumph" of the "new relationship" between Portugal and what they think is the Catholic Church in the preamble of the Concordat of 2004:

The Holy See and the Portuguese Republic, recognising that the Catholic Church and the State are, each and severally, autonomous and independent; taking into account the deep and historical ties between the Catholic Church and Portugal and bearing in mind the reciprocal responsibilities which bind them together, within the limits of religious freedom, and for the benefit of the common good and the duty of building a society which promotes the dignity of the mankind, justice and peace; recognising the Concordat of 7 May 1940, agreed between the Holy See and the Portuguese Republic, and its application has contributed to a considerable extent in to strengthen their historical ties and consolidate the activity of the Catholic Church in Portugal for the benefit of the faithful and for the Portuguese community in general; mindful of the need of an up-date in the light of profound changes on a national and international scale, and in particular as regards the Portuguese legal system, the new Democratic Constitution, revised provisions of European Community law and contemporary international law, and in so far as this affects the church, and the evolution of its relations with the political community; have agreed to stipulate the following Concordat in the terms laid down:

Article 1

The Holy See and the Portuguese Republic declare the commitment of the state and the Catholic Church to cooperate in promoting the dignity of mankind, justice and peace.

The Portuguese Republic recognises the legal status of the Catholic Church.

Relations between the Holy See and the Portuguese Republic are assured through the auspices of an Apostolic Nuncio, as attaché to the Portuguese Republic, and a Portuguese Ambassador to the Holy See. (Church-State Concordat in Portugal 2004)

 

Chemical and surgical baby-killing and "marriages" between practitioners of moral perversity? How has Church-State separation in Portugal promoted "the dignity of mankind, justice and peace"?

Pope Saint Pius X, summarizing the consistent, perennial, immutable teaching of the Catholic Church that was defended so ably and eloquently by pope after pope in the Nineteenth Century, explained that, as the great kings of Christendom, such as the one whose feast we celebrated yesterday, Saint Henry the Emperor, knew so very well, the civil state has a positive obligation to recognize the Catholic Church as its true religion and to pursue the common temporal good in light of man's Last End (the possession of the glory of the Beatific Vision of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost for all eternity in Heaven), helping to fostering those conditions in society by which men can better sanctify and thus save their souls as members of the Catholic Church:

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. The same thesis also upsets the order providentially established by God in the world, which demands a harmonious agreement between the two societies. Both of them, the civil and the religious society, although each exercises in its own sphere its authority over them. It follows necessarily that there are many things belonging to them in common in which both societies must have relations with one another. Remove the agreement between Church and State, and the result will be that from these common matters will spring the seeds of disputes which will become acute on both sides; it will become more difficult to see where the truth lies, and great confusion is certain to arise. Finally, this thesis inflicts great injury on society itself, for it cannot either prosper or last long when due place is not left for religion, which is the supreme rule and the sovereign mistress in all questions touching the rights and the duties of men. Hence the Roman Pontiffs have never ceased, as circumstances required, to refute and condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State. (Pope Saint Pius X, Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906.)

 

The conciliar "pontiffs" have not only refused to condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State. They have dared to support, promote and praise this separation of Church and State even pope after pope had condemned it as in violation of the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

Some would say, "Oh, well, things change. There is the hermeneutic of continuity and discontinuity, after all." Dream on. Truth never changes. While it might be true, as I have noted in article after article on this site, that Holy Mother Church will have to make certain concessions and accommodations to the actual reality of her situation in a given country in order to continue her work of sanctifying and instructing her prodigy, she nevertheless has never ceased to exhort her children to know her Social Teaching and to exhort them to pray for the conversion of their nations.

Others would say, "Benedict doesn't have to believe this. He is the 'pope,' you know. He can do what he want. What other popes have said is in the past. We live in the present. The Church has to move with the times, which change from one era to the next." Dream on:

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.)

 

No amount of argumentation or documentation is going to convince those who do not want to see the evidence of the apostasies of the moment. We can provide others with information. No amount of discussion or colloquy is going to get anywhere, save for some very rare and exceptional circumstances. We need to pray more, especially more Rosaries. We need to make more sacrifices. We need to live more penitentially as we deny ourselves voluntarily certain legitimate pleasures as we offer these penances with love and joy to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary in reparation for our sins and those of the whole world. And must bear ourselves charitably to all others in this time of apostasy and betrayal, recognizing that we must will the good of all others, the ultimate expression of which is the salvation of their immortal souls, even though we will at times disagree strongly with them and might even have to suffer some period of earthly estrangement from them.

So what?

All that matters in the end is that we save our souls, and we are not going to do that by appearing self-righteously omniscient to others or by pestering them to death with endless e-mails about this or that "new" development in the conciliar church. These articles are written, for example, knowing full well that very few people read them. I do not send out "RSS" alerts as to their publication. I do not e-mail them out far and wide to bedevil those who I know disagree with me and are not ready to take another look at the canonical and doctrinal principles that support the teaching that those who defect from the Faith in even one thing privately, no less what they assert publicly or attempt to "bind" upon all Catholics in the world, cannot hold ecclesiastical office within the Catholic Church legitimately. These articles are there for people who want to read them. Some read them and walk away in utter disgust. A few might them of value. This is all I can do. Everything else must be given to the throne of the Most Blessed Trinity through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary without regard for earthly results.

Although there will always be those who cling to the myths that the conciliarism just needs to be "understood" properly and that the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service does not offend God, those who have come to reject that which simply cannot from God or His Holy Church have not "invented" the doctrine that those who defect privately on even one point of the Catholic Faith have expelled themselves from the Catholic Church and thus deprived themselves of any right to hold offices within her legitimately. Although one can attempt to argue, in spite all evidence to the contrary, that the conciliar"popes" have not knowingly and pertinaciously adhered to any heresy, even conciliar canonist admitted in February of 2005 that 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.)

 

Admittedly, "Cardinal" Pompedda, who was the head of the counterfeit church of concilairism's Apostolic Signatura from 1997 to 2004, did not admit the canonical-doctrinal truth of sedevacantism applied during the "pontificate" of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II. Unlike what many traditionally-minded Catholics have heard from the theologians of the Society of Saint Pius X, however, Pompedda was intellectually honest enough to admit that sedevacantism is indeed a part of the canonical doctrine of the Catholic Church. Only a handful of Catholics, priests and laity alike, accepted this doctrine and recognized that it applied in our circumstances in the aftermath of the "Second" Vatican Council. I was not one of them.

Indeed, officials within the Society of Saint Pius X, including Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who was alive at the time, denied with vehemence the claim that t the archbishop had signed Dignitatis Humanae after voting against it even though Father Brian Harrison, O.S., who is very much opposed to sedevacantism, had presented proof that the archbishop had in fact done so (see Marcel Lefebvre: Signatory to Dignitatis Humanae.) It is the Society's way or the highway even when cold, hard facts are presented to point out how various statements and positions of its officials are contrary to the truth.

For the Society's theologians to be correct about sedevacantism, then it must be the case that Mario Francesca Pompedda, who is now deceased, did not know what in the world he was talking about in 2005. For this to be so, of course, a logical person would have to ask why a curial "cardinal" in what is the Society's leaders believe to be the Catholic Church admit that sedevacantism is a canonical doctrine of the Catholic Church? Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is not the only one who lives in a world of positivism, contradiction and paradox, remaining stone faced in the face of the facts that are presented to him.

Oh, yes, there are some who argue against sedevacantism by claiming that God would never "permit" as long of a vacancy in the See of Saint Peter as has occurred since the death of Pope Pius XII on October 9, 1958, and the present time. Father Martin Stepanich, O.F.M., S.T.D., has dissected this assertion in An Objection to Sedevacantism: 'Perpetual Successors' to Peter.

Still others try to reason, speciously, from the consequences that would result if the See of Peter was truly vacant. I would only point out in all charity that we are eyewitnesses to these consequences, that the men accepted and defended by the sedeplenists as true, valid and legitimate Successors of Saint Peter can permit clown "Masses" and "rock" Masses and liturgical dancing and esteem the symbols of false religions publicly and flatly contradict the teaching of the Catholic Church, making it appear, no matter their subjective motivations, which are known only to God and are judged by Him while their external words and deeds speak for themselves very plainly, to Catholics and non-Catholics alike that the Catholic Church can indeed "change with the times."

The old adage about a picture being worth a thousand words is very true, which is why the appearance of practical religious indifferentism given by Giovanni Montini/Paul VI, Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, and Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI by treating non-Catholic "clergymen" as valid ministers of God and by esteeming the symbols of false religions reaffirms non-Catholics in their false beliefs and also scandalizes some evangelical and fundamentalist Protestants in their firm conviction that the Catholic Church is indeed the whore of Babylon. A true Successor of Saint Peter gives no such impression.

No, the "God would never permit so many Catholics to be deceived about the legitimacy of claimants to the papal throne" argument is indeed specious and without any merit. Truth is what it is. The mere fact that a particular truth bears within itself a requirement that we come to face to face with the chastisements of the present moment with sobriety and with a total trust in God's Holy Providence and the loving care of His Most Blessed Mother as we enfold ourselves in the garment of her Brown Scapular and and use the shield of her Most Holy Rosary does not make that truth go away or in any way invalid.

Truth will discomfit us now and again. Few people want to face the reality of their mortality when they are told that they have some sort of incurable disease. "Not me? Not now. It's too soon. It's not fair. I have too much to do so." All of that protestation, however, does not and cannot change the reality of the imminent deaths of those who have been diagnosed with incurable diseases. All of the protestation about the "impossibility" of sedevacantism even being a doctrine of the Catholic Church, no less that it applies in our times of apostasy and betrayal, does not make this truth go away. People are either going to see this or they are not.

To come to the conclusion that the conciliarists are spiritual robber barons and that they belong to a false church that is but a counterfeit ape of the Catholic Church is not the path to popularity, career success or financial well-being. We have lost friends and major financial supporters in the past four years. This is all within God's Holy Providence as we remember with fondness and gratitude the friendships and financial support of the past, remembering that friendship and financial support are free gifts that can be bestowed or withdrawn at will. They cannot be earned, coerced or forced in any way.

No one put a gun to my head and said, "Sedevacantism or die!" I made a choice, and I alone am responsible for the consequences that I knew would befall me as a result. Choices carry consequences with them. No one in my acquaintance comes to the conclusions that the conciliarists are imposters for the "money" as, believe me, there is no "money" to be "made" from joining the warring ranks of the tiny, tiny number of people in the world who have come to see our situation as it is. Some of the Catholics who opposed the Protestant Revolt in England in the Sixteenth Century were at war with each other almost as much, if not more, than with the English civil authorities who were trying to arrest and kill them. Why should it be any different now?

Our Lady of La Salette prophesied that families would indeed be estranged in these days of apostasy. Behold so many estrangements, so much misunderstand and suspicion, so much hostility, so much condemnation of the persons of others as opposed to the rejection of their mistaken positions. We are indeed living in a time that requires us to accept the chastisements of the moment with joy and gratitude, knowing full well that God has willed us to be alive at this specific time in salvation history. Is not the grace He won for us on Calvary that flows into our hearts and souls through the loving hands of His Most Blessed Mother still sufficient to weather these storms as we see Our Lady's help to get through them in serenity on our path to Heaven?

God has indeed permitted large numbers of people in the past to be deceived:

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.

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.

All but a handful of people stood 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.

All but a handful of bishops remained faithful to the Church during the Arian heresy that was fought by Saint Athanasius. Saint Jerome, of those who fought Arianism, wrote "The whole world groaned, and was astonished to find itself Arian."

All but one bishop, Saint John Fisher of Rochester, England, defected 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.

All but thirty bishops defected from the Faith at the time Queen Elizabeth I took England out of the Church once again in the 1560s following the brief restoration that took place under the reign of her half-sister, Queen Mary, from 1553 to 1558.

The "mainstream" is not be followed. We need apostolic courage in these times of apostasy and betrayal. God's greater honor and glory must be defended against the against of men who have proved themselves to be precursors of the Antichrist.

God does indeed permit massive numbers of people to be deceived. His greater honor and glory are defended in most cases by a relative handful of the most unlikely souls, whom He raises up to confound the mighty and the powerful and the respected.

How do we think that we are going to recognize, no less resist and reject, the Antichrist when he comes when we are so complacent and smug in the face of the groundwork that is being laid by his conciliar minions for his coming? Will the emotionalism of sentimentality and the delusion of positivism not prevail then in the minds and hearts of most men?

 

What I wrote in Apologizing to Everyone Save For God Himself on April 23, 2010, is worth repeating once again.

The Catholic Church can never give us any liturgy that is in any way defective or that is an incentive to impiety or that can be used a means of institutionalizing gross offenses to God. Who says so? The Council of Trent:

CANON VII.--If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema. (Session Twenty-Two, Chapter IX, Canon VII, Council of Trent, September 17, 1562, CT022.)

 

The Catholic Church cannot be stained by any taint of error, as pope after pope has taught us:

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

Just as Christianity cannot penetrate into the soul without making it better, so it cannot enter into public life without establishing order. With the idea of a God Who governs all, Who is infinitely Wise, Good, and Just, the idea of duty seizes upon the consciences of men. It assuages sorrow, it calms hatred, it engenders heroes. If it has transformed pagan society--and that transformation was a veritable resurrection--for barbarism disappeared in proportion as Christianity extended its sway, so, after the terrible shocks which unbelief has given to the world in our days, it will be able to put that world again on the true road, and bring back to order the States and peoples of modern times. But the return of Christianity will not be efficacious and complete if it does not restore the world to a sincere love of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. In the Catholic Church Christianity is Incarnate. It identifies Itself with that perfect, spiritual, and, in its own order, sovereign society, which is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ and which has for Its visible head the Roman Pontiff, successor of the Prince of the Apostles. It is the continuation of the mission of the Savior, the daughter and the heiress of His Redemption. It has preached the Gospel, and has defended it at the price of Its blood, and strong in the Divine assistance and of that immortality which has been promised it, It makes no terms with error but remains faithful to the commands which  it has received, to carry the doctrine of Jesus Christ to the uttermost limits of the world and to the end of time, and to protect it in its inviolable integrity. Legitimate dispenser of the teachings of the Gospel it does not reveal itself only as the consoler and Redeemer of souls, but It is still more the internal source of justice and charity, and the propagator as well as the guardian of true liberty, and of that equality which alone is possible here below. In applying the doctrine of its Divine Founder, It maintains a wise equilibrium and marks the true limits between the rights and privileges of society. The equality which it proclaims does not destroy the distinction between the different social classes. It keeps them intact, as nature itself demands, in order to oppose the anarchy of reason emancipated from Faith, and abandoned to its own devices. The liberty which it gives in no wise conflicts with the rights of truth, because those rights are superior to the demands of liberty. Not does it infringe upon the rights of justice, because those rights are superior to the claims of mere numbers or power. Nor does it assail the rights of God because they are superior to the rights of humanity. (Pope Leo XIII, A Review of His Pontificate, March 19, 1902.)

For the teaching authority of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men, and which is daily exercised through the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops who are in communion with him, has also the office of defining, when it sees fit, any truth with solemn rites and decrees, whenever this is necessary either to oppose the errors or the attacks of heretics, or more clearly and in greater detail to stamp the minds of the faithful with the articles of sacred doctrine which have been explained. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)

 

Please note that Pope Gregory XVI wrote that the truth can be found in the Catholic Church without "even a slight tarnish of error."

Please note that Pope Leo XIII stressed that the Catholic Church "makes no terms with error but remains faithful to the command which it has received, to carry the doctrine of Jesus Christ to the uttermost limits of the world and to the end of time, and to protect it in its inviolable integrity."

Please note that that Pope Pius XI explained that the Catholic Church brings forth her teaching "with ease and security to the knowledge of men."

Anyone who says that this has been done by the counterfeit church of concilairism, which has made its "reconciliation" with the false principles of Modernity that leave no room for the confessionally Catholic civil state and the Social Reign of Christ the King, is not thinking too clearly (and that is as about as charitably as I can put the matter). If the conciliar church has brought forth its teaching "with ease and security to the knowledge of men," why, as noted earlier in this article, is there such disagreement even between the "progressive" conciliarists and "conservative" conciliarists concerning the proper "interpretation" of the "Second" Vatican Council and its aftermath? Or does this depend upon what one means by "ease and security"?

 

Fathers Francisco and Dominic Radecki, CMRI, explained in Tumultuous Times that the Catholic Church can never give us "novelties" of any kind, no less those that have been institutionalized by the counterfeit church of conciliarism:

 

A legitimate pope cannot contradict or deny what was first taught by Christ to His Church. An essential change in belief constitutes the establishment of a new religion.

The attribute of infallibility was given to the popes in order that the revealed doctrines and teaching of Christ would remain forever intact and unchanged. It is contrary to faith and reason to blindly follow an alleged pope who attempts to destroy the Catholic Faith--for there have been 41 documented antipopes. Papal infallibility means that the Holy Ghost guides and preserves the Catholic Church from error through the succession of legitimate popes who have ruled the Church through the centuries. All Catholics, including Christ's Vicar on earth, the pope, must accept all the doctrinal pronouncements of past popes. These infallible teachings form a vital link between Christ and St. Peter and his successors.

If a pope did not accept and believe this entire body of formulated teachings (the Deposit of Faith), he could not himself be a Catholic. He would cease to belong to Christ's Church. If he no longer belongs to the Catholic Church, he cannot be her Head. (Fathers Francisco and Dominic Radecki, CMRI, Tumultuous Times, p. 274.)

"Do not be misled by various and passing doctrines. In the Catholic Church Herself we must be careful to hold what has been believed everywhere, always and by all; for that alone is truly and properly Catholic." (Saint Vincent of Lerins, quoted in Tumultuous Times by Frs. Francisco and Dominic Radecki, CMRI, p. 279.)

Accepting the truth of our situation makes us not one whit better than anyone else. Indeed, there are some sedevacantists who are so oblivious to the human sense in their dealing with others on a one-on-one basis that they make themselves to appear to be "so right that they are wrong," to paraphrase the best teacher I ever had, a professor at Saint John's University who convinced me to pursue a college teaching career in the summer of 1972, meaning that they simply do not know when to let well enough be and simply let souls find the truth on their own as they respond to the graces sent to them by Our Lady.

Each of us has enough sins of our own to make reparation for without heaping more hot coals upon us by casting stones at those who may be as firm in their rejecting what we tell them as many of us were for decades when we heard these same truths from the mouths of others who were truly concerned about our spiritual well-being. We must pray for each other other in this time of apostasy and betrayal, trusting in the care of our dear Blessed Mother to help us and others negotiate the troubling waters that conciliarism has produced.

May we simply trust in Our Lady on this great feast day under title of Our Lady of Mount Carmel so that the errors of the day, including the false ecumenism that she meant us to protect us from by means of her Brown Scapular, will be vanquished once and for all as our daily Rosaries help to plant a few seeds for the triumph of her Immaculate Heart and the restoration of the Church Militant on earth and of the Social Reign of Christ the King that the likes of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI reject so utterly.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.

 

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

 

Our Lady of Mount Carmel, 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 Simon Stock, pray for us.

Saint John of the Cross, pray for us.

Saint Teresa of Avila, pray for us.

Saint Therese of the Child Jesus and of the Holy Face, pray for us.

Saint Andrew Corsini, pray for us.

Saint Mary Magdane de Pazzi, pray for us.

Blessed Don Nuno Alvares Periera, pray for us.

The Carmelite Martyrs of Compiegne, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints

Appendix

Papal Statements Condemning Religious Liberty

"The necessary effect of the constitution decreed by the Assembly is to annihilate the Catholic Religion and, with her, the obedience owed to Kings. With this purpose it establishes as a right of man in society this absolute liberty that not only insures the right to be indifferent to religious opinions, but also grants full license to freely think, speak, write and even print whatever one wishes on religious matters – even the most disordered imaginings. It is a monstrous right, which the Assembly claims, however, results from equality and the natural liberties of all men.

"But what could be more unwise than to establish among men this equality and this uncontrolled liberty, which stifles all reason, the most precious gift nature gave to man, the one that distinguishes him from animals?

"After creating man in a place filled with delectable things, didn’t God threaten him with death should he eat the fruit of the tree of good and evil? And with this first prohibition didn’t He establish limits to his liberty? When, after man disobeyed the command and thereby incurred guilt, didn’t God impose new obligations on him through Moses? And even though he left to man’s free will the choice between good and evil, didn’t God provide him with precepts and commandments that could save him “if he would observe them”? …

"Where then, is this liberty of thinking and acting that the Assembly grants to man in society as an indisputable natural right? Is this invented right not contrary to the right of the Supreme Creator to whom we owe our existence and all that we have? Can we ignore the fact that man was not created for himself alone, but to be helpful to his neighbor? …

"Man should use his reason first of all to recognize his Sovereign Maker, honoring Him and admiring Him, and submitting his entire person to Him. For, from his childhood, he should be submissive to those who are superior to him in age; he should be governed and instructed by their lessons, order his life according to their laws of reason, society and religion. This inflated equality and liberty, therefore, are for him, from the moment he is born, no more than imaginary dreams and senseless words." (Pope Pius VI, Brief Quod aliquantum, March 10, 1791; Religious Liberty, a “Monstrous Right").

For how can We tolerate with equanimity that the Catholic religion, which France received in the first ages of the Church, which was confirmed in that very kingdom by the blood of so many most valiant martyrs, which by far the greatest part of the French race professes, and indeed bravely and constantly defended even among the most grave adversities and persecutions and dangers of recent years, and which, finally, that very dynasty to which the designated king belongs both professes and has defended with much zeal - that this Catholic, this most holy religion, We say, should not only not be declared to be the only one in the whole of France supported by the bulwark of the laws and by the authority of the Government, but should even, in the very restoration of the monarchy, be entirely passed over? 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." (Pope Pius VII, Post Tam Diuturnas, April 29, 1814, POST TAM DIUTURNAS)

"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? (Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832.)

"But, although we have not omitted often to proscribe and reprobate the chief errors of this kind, yet the cause of the Catholic Church, and the salvation of souls entrusted to us by God, and the welfare of human society itself, altogether demand that we again stir up your pastoral solicitude to exterminate other evil opinions, which spring forth from the said errors as from a fountain. Which false and perverse opinions are on that ground the more to be detested, because they chiefly tend to this, that that salutary influence be impeded and (even) removed, which the Catholic Church, according to the institution and command of her Divine Author, should freely exercise even to the end of the world -- not only over private individuals, but over nations, peoples, and their sovereign princes; and (tend also) to take away that mutual fellowship and concord of counsels between Church and State which has ever proved itself propitious and salutary, both for religious and civil interests.

"For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of "naturalism," as they call it, dare to teach that "the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones." And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that "that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require." From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity," viz., that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way." But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;" and that "if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling."

"And, since where religion has been removed from civil society, and the doctrine and authority of divine revelation repudiated, the genuine notion itself of justice and human right is darkened and lost, and the place of true justice and legitimate right is supplied by material force, thence it appears why it is that some, utterly neglecting and disregarding the surest principles of sound reason, dare to proclaim that "the people's will, manifested by what is called public opinion or in some other way, constitutes a supreme law, free from all divine and human control; and that in the political order accomplished facts, from the very circumstance that they are accomplished, have the force of right." But who, does not see and clearly perceive that human society, when set loose from the bonds of religion and true justice, can have, in truth, no other end than the purpose of obtaining and amassing wealth, and that (society under such circumstances) follows no other law in its actions, except the unchastened desire of ministering to its own pleasure and interests?" (Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864.)

"To hold, therefore, that there is no difference in matters of religion between forms that are unlike each other, and even contrary to each other, most clearly leads in the end to the rejection of all religion in both theory and practice. And this is the same thing as atheism, however it may differ from it in name. Men who really believe in the existence of God must, in order to be consistent with themselves and to avoid absurd conclusions, understand that differing modes of divine worship involving dissimilarity and conflict even on most important points cannot all be equally probable, equally good, and equally acceptable to God.

"So, too, the liberty of thinking, and of publishing, whatsoever each one likes, without any hindrance, is not in itself an advantage over which society can wisely rejoice. On the contrary, it is the fountain-head and origin of many evils. Liberty is a power perfecting man, and hence should have truth and goodness for its object. But the character of goodness and truth cannot be changed at option. These remain ever one and the same, and are no less unchangeable than nature itself. If the mind assents to false opinions, and the will chooses and follows after what is wrong, neither can attain its native fullness, but both must fall from their native dignity into an abyss of corruption. Whatever, therefore, is opposed to virtue and truth may not rightly be brought temptingly before the eye of man, much less sanctioned by the favor and protection of the law. A well-spent life is the only way to heaven, whither all are bound, and on this account the State is acting against the laws and dictates of nature whenever it permits the license of opinion and of action to lead minds astray from truth and souls away from the practice of virtue. To exclude the Church, founded by God Himself, from the business of life, from the making of laws, from the education of youth, from domestic society is a grave and fatal error. A State from which religion is banished can never be well regulated; and already perhaps more than is desirable is known of the nature and tendency of the so-called civil philosophy of life and morals. The Church of Christ is the true and sole teacher of virtue and guardian of morals. She it is who preserves in their purity the principles from which duties flow, and, by setting forth most urgent reasons for virtuous life, bids us not only to turn away from wicked deeds, but even to curb all movements of the mind that are opposed to reason, even though they be not carried out in action." (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885.)

Her deportment has not changed in the course of history, nor can it change whenever or wherever, under the most diversified forms, she is confronted with the choice: either incense for idols or blood for Christ. The place where you are now present, Eternal Rome, with the remains of a greatness that was and with the glorious memories of its martyrs, is the most eloquent witness to the answer of the Church. Incense was not burned before the idols, and Christian blood flowed and consecrated the ground. But the temples of the gods lie in the cold devastation of ruins howsoever majestic; while at the tombs of the martyrs the faithful of all nations and all tongues fervently repeat the ancient Creed of the Apostles. (Pope Pius XII, Ci Riesce, December 6, 1953.)

Appendix B

A Compendium of the Errors of the Society of Saint Pius X, compiled in 2009 by Mr. Michael Creighton (and reprinted with his permission, granted in 2009)

To briefly enumerate some of the problems in the SSPX, they are:

1  A rejection of the of the ordinary magisterium (Vatican I; Session III - Dz1792) which must be divinely revealed. For instance Paul VI claimed that the new mass and Vatican II were his “Supreme Ordinary Magisterium” and John Paul II promulgated his catechism which contains heresies and errors in Fide Depositum by his “apostolic authority” as “the sure norm of faith and doctrine” and bound everyone by saying who believes what was contained therein is in “ecclesial communion”, that is in the Church.

2  A rejection of the divinely revealed teaching expressed in Vatican I , Session IV, that the faith of Peter [the Pope] cannot fail. Three ancient councils are quoted to support this claim. (2nd Lyons, 4th Constantinople & Florence). Pope Paul IV’s bull Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio teaches the same in the negative sense of this definition.

3  A distortion of canon law opposed to virtually all the canonists of the Church prior to Vatican II which tell us a heretical pope ipso facto loses his office by the operation of the law itself and without any declaration. This is expressed in Canon 188.4 which deals with the divine law and footnotes Pope Paul IV’s bull, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio. The SSPX pretends that sections of the code on penalties somehow apply to the pope which flatly contradicted by the law itself. The SSPX pretends that jurisdiction remains in force when the code clearly says jurisdiction is lost and only ‘acts’ of jurisdiction are declared valid until the person is found out (canons 2264-2265). This is simply to protect the faithful from invalid sacraments, not to help heretics retain office and destroy the Church. Charisms of the office, unlike indelible sacraments, require real jurisdiction. The SSPX pretends that penalties of the censure of ipso facto excommunication cannot apply to cardinals since it reserved to Holy See (canon 2227). This is another fabrication since the law does not refer to automatic (latae sententiae) penalties but only to penalties in which a competent judge is needed to inflict or declare penalties on offenders. Therefore it only refers to condemnatory and declaratory sentences but not automatic sentences. To say that ipso facto does not mean what it says is also condemned by Pope Pius VI in Auctorem Fidei.

4  The SSPX holds a form of the Gallican heresy that falsely proposes a council can depose a true pope. This was already tried by the Council of Basle and just as history condemned those schismatics, so it will condemn your Lordship. This belief also denies canon 1556 “The First See is Judged by no one.” This of course means in a juridical sense of judgment, not remaining blind to apostasy, heresy and crime which automatically takes effect.

5  The SSPX denies the visible Church must manifest the Catholic faith. They claim that somehow these men who teach heresy can’t know truth. This is notion has been condemned by Vatican I, Session III, Chapter 2. It is also condemned by canon 16 of the 1917 code of canon law. Clearly LaSalette has been fulfilled. Rome is the seat of anti-Christ & the Church is eclipsed. Clearly, our Lords words to Sr. Lucy at Rianjo in 1931 have come to pass. His “Ministers [Popes] have followed the kings of France into misfortune”.

6  The SSPX reject every doctor of the Church and every Church father who are unanimous in stating a heretic ipso facto is outside the Church and therefore cannot possess jurisdiction & pretends that is only their opinion when St. Robert states “... it is proven, with arguments from authority and from reason, that the manifest heretic is ipso facto deposed.” The authority he refers to is the magisterium of the Church, not his own opinion.

7  Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis is misinterpreted by the SSPX to validly elect a heretic to office against the divine law. A public heretic cannot be a cardinal because he automatically loses his office. This decree only refers to cardinals and hence it does not apply to ex-cardinals who automatically lost their offices because they had publicly defected from the Catholic faith. The cardinals mentioned in this decree who have been excommunicated are still Catholic and still cardinals; hence their excommunication does not cause them to become non-Catholics and lose their offices, as does excommunication for heresy and public defection from the Catholic faith. This is what the Church used to call a minor excommunication. All post 1945 canonists concur that Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis does not remove ipso facto excommunication: Eduardus F. Regatillo (1956), Matthaeus Conte a Coronata (1950), Serapius Iragui (1959), A. Vermeersch - I. Creusen (1949), Udalricus Beste (1946) teach that a pope or cardinal or bishop who becomes a public heretic automatically loses his office and a public heretic cannot legally or validly obtain an office. Even supposing this papal statement could apply to non-Catholics (heretics), Pope Pius XII goes on to say “at other times they [the censures] are to remain in vigor.” Does this mean the Pope intends that a notorious heretic will take office and then immediately lose his office? It is an absurd conclusion, hence we must respect the interpretation of the Church in her canonists.

Errors/Heresies typical of an SSPX chapel attendees & priests:

1)  We are free to reject rites promulgated by the Church. [Condemned by Trent Session VII, Canon XIII/Vatican I, Session II]

2)  The Pope can’t be trusted to make judgments on faith and morals. We have to sift what is Catholic. [Condemned by Vatican I, Session IV, Chapter III.]

3) We are free to reject or accept ordinary magisterial teachings from a pope since they can be in error. This rejection may include either the conciliar ‘popes’ when teach heresy or the pre-conciliar popes in order to justify the validity of the conciliar popes jurisdiction, sacraments, etc [Condemned by Vatican I (Dz1792)/Satis Cognitum #15 of Leo XIII]

4)  The Kantian doctrine of unknowability of reality. We can’t know what is heresy, therefore we can’t judge. [Condemned by Vatican I, Session III, Chapter 2: On Revelation, Jn7:24].

5)  The faith of the Pope can fail. Frequently this is expressed as “we work for” or “we pray for the Popes conversion to the Catholic faith”. [condemned by Vatican I and at least 3 earlier councils mentioned above].

6)  Universal salvation, ecumenism, religious liberty, validity of the Old Covenant, etc. can be interpreted in a Catholic sense. [Condemned by every saint, every doctor of the Church and every Pope who comments on such issues; for instance Pope Eugene IV (Cantate Domino – Council of Florence)

7)  Contraries can be true. [Hegelian doctrine against Thomistic Philosophy]. If these positions appear to be contradictory, they are.

When I [Michael Creighton] point out these positions are against the Faith, frequently the Hegelian doctrine is employed by those in attendance at the SSPX chapel.

Appendix C

From the Tombstone of Blessed Nuno of Saint Mary, O. Carm. (as it read before a 1755 earthquake in Lisbon, Portugal)

"Here lies that famous Nuno, the Constable, founder of the House of Bragança, excellent general, blessed monk, who during his life on earth so ardently desired the Kingdom of Heaven that after his death, he merited the eternal company of the Saints. His worldly honors were countless, but he turned his back on them. He was a great Prince, but he made himself a humble monk. He founded, built and endowed this church in which his body rests."