Days Three and Four of the Conciliar Circus in the United Kingdom

Part One

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Well, the conciliar circus led by its ringmaster, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, has left the United Kingdom to return to its home tent, which has been pitched for five decades now on the property of the Catholic Church, the Vatican in the Eternal City of Rome. 

Ratzinger/Benedict's visit to the United Kingdom was a textbook exercise in Modernism as the false "pontiff" spoke in generically Christian terms to Protestants and spoke not a word about Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to those who deny His Sacred Divinity while speaking as something approximating a Catholic pastor of souls when speaking before Catholics. The mixture of truth and error that was on display in the United Kingdom between Thursday, September 16, 2010, the Feast of Saints Cornelius and Cyprian, and yesterday, Sunday, September 19, 2010, the Seventeenth Sunday after Pentecost and the Commemoration of Saint Januarius (San Gennaro) and his Companions), can be dizzying even to a seasoned observer of the conciliar scene as it defies rationality as it is humanly possible for so much confusion and chaos to exist within one man's mind.

Alas, there is, as longtime readers of this site know, an explanation for how a single mind can switch gears so readily and so regularly rom not mentioning the Holy Name of the Divine Redeemer, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, to mentioning Him in other venues. The explanation is that a mind that rejects Scholasticism will exist in a fog of ambiguity, paradox, contradiction and complexity as it seeks to make difficult what is simple: the Deposit of Faith that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has entrusted exclusively to His Catholic Church for Its eternal safekeeping and infallible explication.

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has told us that he found the teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas not to his liking:

The cultural interests pursued at the seminary of Freising were joined to the study of a theology infected by existentialism, beginning with the writings of Romano Guardini. Among the authors preferred by Ratzinger was the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber. Ratzinger loved St. Augustine, but never St. Thomas Aquinas: 'By contrast, I had difficulties in penetrating the thought of Thomas Aquinas, whose crystal-clear logic seemed to be too closed in on itself, too impersonal and ready-made' (op. cit., p.44). This aversion was mainly due to the professor of philosophy at the seminary, who 'presented us with a rigid, neo-scholastic Thomism that was simply too far afield from my own questions' (ibid.). According to Cardinal Ratzinger, whose current opinions appear unchanged from those he held as a seminarian, the thought of Aquinas was "too closed in on itself, too impersonal and ready-made," and was unable to respond to the personal questions of the faithful. This opinion is enunciated by a prince of the Church whose function it is to safeguard the purity of the doctrine of the Faith! Why, then, should anyone be surprised at the current disastrous crisis of Catholicism, or seek to attribute it to the world, when those who should be the defenders of the Faith, and hence of genuine Catholic thought, are like sewers drinking in the filth, or like gardeners who cut down a tree they are supposed to be nurturing? What can it mean to stigmatize St. Thomas as having a "too impersonal and ready-made" logic? Is logic "personal"? These assertions reveal, in the person who makes them, a typically Protestant, pietist attitude, like that found in those who seek the rule of faith in personal interior sentiment.

In the two years Ratzinger spent at the diocesan seminary of Freising, he studied literature, music, modern philosophy, and he felt drawn towards the new existentialist and modernist theologies. He did not like St. Thomas Aquinas. The formation described does not correspond to the exclusively Catholic formation that is necessary to one called to be a priest, even taking into account the extenuating circumstances of the time, that is, anti-Christian Nazism, the war and defeat, and the secularization of studies within seminaries. It seems that His Eminence, with all due respect, gave too much place to profane culture, with its "openness" to everything, and its critical attitude...Joseph Ratzinger loved the professors who asked many questions, but disliked those who defended dogma with the crystal-clear logic of St. Thomas. This attitude would seem to us to match his manner of understanding Catholic liturgy. He tells us that from childhood he was always attracted to the liturgical movement and was sympathetic towards it. One can see that for him, the liturgy was a matter of feeling, a lived experience, an aesthetically pleasing "Erlebnis," but fundamentally irrational (op. cit. passim.). (The Memories of a Destructive Mind: Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger's Milestones, found on a Society of Saint Pius X website.)

 

The "new theology" to which Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI exists in a fog of paradox and uncertainty and a constant "search for truth" that is unnecessary as Truth Incarnate has revealed Himself to us through His Catholic Church. The conciliar circus that he led to the United Kingdom in the past few days was a veritable showcase of this confusion and contradiction. This was evident on the first two days of Ratzinger/Benedict's journey to the United Kingdom. It was evident in the final two days of his journey.

Day Three of Ratzinger/Benedict's visit to the United Kingdom began with a staging of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service at the Cathedral of the Most Precious Blood in the City of Westminster, England. It was there that Ratzinger/Benedict put on a twin billed cap. The front part of that cap was Catholic. The back part of that cap was conciliar. Ratzinger/Benedict's "homily," as it is called on the new order of things, took at least one swipe at the Protestant Revolution's attack on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass while at the very same time undermining Catholic doctrine by referring nebulously to "our justification in Christ" even though he helped to broker the Conciliar-Lutheran Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification whose essential premise was the Fathers of the Council of Trent came to the wrong conclusions about the Doctrine of Justification (see, for example, Bishop Donald Sanborn's analysis of the Joint Declaration on Justification.)

Take a look at this remarkable exercise in double-think and double-speak that can only come from the adversary as the average Catholic, including yours truly in his "rah-rah" days of "papal" cheerleading, thinks that what he has just heard is orthodox Catholicism without recognizing the the little bitty, teeny-weeny drop of poison that just happened to make its way into the mix:

Faithful to Christ’s command to “do this in memory of me” (Lk 22:19), the Church in every time and place celebrates the Eucharist until the Lord returns in glory, rejoicing in his sacramental presence and drawing upon the power of his saving sacrifice for the redemption of the world. The reality of the Eucharistic sacrifice has always been at the heart of Catholic faith; called into question in the sixteenth century, it was solemnly reaffirmed at the Council of Trent against the backdrop of our justification in Christ. Here in England, as we know, there were many who staunchly defended the Mass, often at great cost, giving rise to that devotion to the Most Holy Eucharist which has been a hallmark of Catholicism in these lands. (Mass in the Cathedral of the Most Precious Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, City of Westminster, 18 September 2010.)

 

Talk about hubris.

How can a man who has said--and with a straight face, mind you--that "so much unity" already exists between what he thinks is the Catholic Church and the Lutheran sect (see Appendix A) those who resisted the Protestant Revolution in England? How can there be "so much unity" when the Catholic Church teaches us solemnly that one must believe in everything she teaches without the slightest decree of dissent or disagreement whatsoever (see Appendix B)? Can there be "degrees" of "unity" between a man and a wife? They are either one or they are divided. It is that simple.

How can Ratzinger/Benedict praise those who resisted the Protestant Revolution in England to the point of their very deaths, sometimes after the most cruel forms of torture then known to man, and the false liturgical rites of the Anglican sect that were condemned as heretical by Pope Saint Pius V in Regnans in Excelsis, March 5, 1570, while he is permitting "Anglo-Catholics" who are shifting their allegiances in the S.S. One World Ecumenical Church from the Anglican sect to his conciliar sect to keep many of those condemned liturgical books?

How can Ratzinger/Benedict praise those who resisted that false, Protestantized liturgy of the Anglican sect that undermined belief in the Real Presence and did away with apostolic succession and thus true sacraments in what became the "worldwide Anglican communion," a phenomenon that was the result of British imperialism and colonialism, when his own conciliar sect has a false, Protestantized liturgy that has undermined belief in the Real Presence of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and ended apostolic succession almost entirely in the Roman Rite (it has been preserved, at least for the most part, in the Eastern rites that are attached to the counterfeit church of conciliarism), thus robbing most of the Catholics in the world of the true sacraments?

The tortuous, paradoxical, unclear, unsteady mind of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI does not even think of asking himself these questions. He reviews the texts that are prepared for him by his associates (this is how most "papal" addresses are developed as final touches are put on the messages by the "popes" themselves, noting some examples here and there) and then delivers the remarks. It does not occur to him that there is any conflict between what he says in one place and what he has said and done in other places over the course of time.

The English Martyrs praised by Ratzinger/Benedict would be in the Catholic catacombs today just as much as they were at the time of the Protestant Revolution in England, which began four hundred seventy-six years ago now, that is, in the year 1534.

A great deal of the "homily" Ratzinger/Benedict delivered in the Cathedral of the Most Precious Blood in Westminster, England, two days ago dealt with his apologizing yet again for the moral crimes committed by the member of the conciliar clergy. Once again, however, Ratzinger/Benedict, though apologetic, did not address the root cause of these moral crimes: the systematic recruitment, retention, promotion and protection of men steeped in perverse sins against nature as his own "bishops" and their chancery factotums sought to browbeat and intimidate the victims of these unrepentant moral reprobates.

The problem is not "child abuse," it is a lavender-friendly culture that has been fostered throughout the almost all of the nooks and crannies of the counterfeit church of conciliarism. To ignore this root cause is to ignore reality. And to assert, as he did in a response to a journalist's question that was submitted to him in advance so that he could "answer" them during the flight from Rome, Italy, to Scotland, four days ago now, that "these revelations were a shock for me" ( Meeting of Benedict XVI with journalists during the flight to the United Kingdom, 16 September 2010) is to take Catholics for fools yet again.

Leaving aside the matter of his own involvement in the reassignment of a know clerical abuser when he was the conciliar "archbishop" of Munich and Freising in 1980, the then Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger knew all about the extent of the moral crimes of conciliar clergy when he was the prefect of the conciliar church's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith from November 27, 1981, to April 2, 2005.

I mean, folks, where was he in the year 2002 when the files of the Archdiocese of Boston were released? Where was he when Roger "Cardinal" Mahony paid out six hundred million dollars to the victims of moral reprobates there?

Where was he when the Dioceses of Spokane, Washington, and San Diego, California, and Tucson, Arizona, filed for bankruptcy to protect their assets in the face of litigation that was filed against them for the systematic protection of moral perverts?

Shocked?

Shocked?

Shocked?

Those who want to see the truth will see it while those who want to pretend that "all is well" will not. I will only note at this juncture that Ratzinger/Benedict made no reference to the Mother of God or her Most Holy Rosary in the "homily" in the Cathedral of the Most Precious Blood in Westminster, England, two days ago, although he did ask for her intercession and that of Saint Joseph for the residents of the Saint Peter's Home for Older People in the London Borough of Lambeth, England. He did mention Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary in any of the addresses that he gave during his four day visit to the United Kingdom. Not once. So much for Our Lady's Fatima Message. All of his "new theology" talk of "love for God" is meaningless when one considers the fact that he refuses to believe that God Himself sent His Most Blessed Mother to exhort us at Fatima to pray her Most Holy Rosary in reparation for our sins and those of the whole world and to seek the conversion of poor sinners in order to save them from Hell. And there was that little detail of consecrating Russia to His Most Blessed Mother's Immaculate Heart, wasn't there?

The final major event of Day Three of the conciliar circus in England was his address during the Prayer Vigil on the Eve of the "Beatification" of John Henry Cardinal Newman, which was held on Saturday evening, September 18, 2010, the Feast of Saint Joseph Cupertino and Ember Saturday in September, in Hyde Park, London. Although I will leave it to others who have done true scholarly work on the writing of John Henry Cardinal Newman (which I have not done). who certainly did exhibit great courage to leave the Anglican sect and to convert to the Catholic Church, serving her as a true priest who offered Holy Mass according to the Missale Romanum that had been issued by Pope Saint Pius V in 1570, to assess the extent to which Ratzinger/Benedict (whose "homily" yesterday at the "beatification" service for John Henry Cardinal Newman focused almost exclusively on Cardinal Newman's life and work) properly understands Cardinal Newman's writing and his work and the extent to which he is misusing the late cardinal's work to advance the conciliar agenda, there is one interesting passage from this address that I want to bring to the attention of the twenty-three people who might happen upon this article in the next few days or so:

Newman’s life also teaches us that passion for the truth, intellectual honesty and genuine conversion are costly. The truth that sets us free cannot be kept to ourselves; it calls for testimony, it begs to be heard, and in the end its convincing power comes from itself and not from the human eloquence or arguments in which it may be couched. Not far from here, at Tyburn, great numbers of our brothers and sisters died for the faith; the witness of their fidelity to the end was ever more powerful than the inspired words that so many of them spoke before surrendering everything to the Lord. In our own time, the price to be paid for fidelity to the Gospel is no longer being hanged, drawn and quartered but it often involves being dismissed out of hand, ridiculed or parodied. And yet, the Church cannot withdraw from the task of proclaiming Christ and his Gospel as saving truth, the source of our ultimate happiness as individuals and as the foundation of a just and humane society. (Prayer Vigil on the Eve of the "Beatification" of Cardinal John Henry Newman, Hyde Park, London, 18 September 2010.)

 

More hubris. More unbelievable hubris.

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI was comparing himself to the martyrs of Tyburn, believe it or not, asserting that he is being figuratively "hanged, drawn and quartered" by his being "dismissed out of hand, ridiculed or parodied." Sure, he is referring to all Catholics who suffer because of their beliefs within their families and who are ostracized in their work places. We must indeed be ready to suffer with joy and gladness all manner of sufferings for the Faith. Absolutely correct.

However, Ratzinger/Benedict, who is no friend of dogmatic truth whatsoever, was also referring to himself and the "suffering" he has endured at the hands of the secular media and from those who protested against him during his visit to the United Kingdom. This is really a remarkable assertion as Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XIV does not show "fidelity to the Gospel."

How can a man who has asserted a notion of dogmatic truth that has been condemned by the Catholic Church and which is contrary to the very Oath Against Modernism that he took be said to have maintained "fidelity to the Gospel"?

How can a man who has, objectively speaking, committed Mortal Sins against the First and Second Commandments by esteeming the symbols of false religions and who has called false places of worship as "sacred" be said to have maintained "fidelity to the Gospel"?

How can a man who has rejected what he terms disparagingly the "ecumenism of the return" that was specifically called for by pope after pope prior to the death of Pope Pius XII on October 9, 1958, be said to have maintained "fidelity to the Gospel"?

How can a man who has consistently endorsed what Pope Pius VII wrote in Post Tam Diuturnas, April 29, 1814, as a heresy and that Pope Gregory XVI wrote in Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832, was insanity, namely, religious liberty, be said to have maintained "fidelity to the Gospel"?

How can a man who has consistently endorsed the thesis of "separation of Church and State" that was called a thesis "absolutely false" by Pope Saint Pius X in Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906, and condemned by pope after pope prior to the death of Pope Pius XII on October 9, 1958, be said to have maintained "fidelity to the Gospel"? (For yet another review of the details of these statements, please see Ratzinger's War Against Catholicism, Witness Against Benedict XVI: The Oath Against Modernism, and Modernism's Eternal Foe, Our Eternal Friend.)

Ratzinger/Benedict's one and only address that focused on the Mother God was his Angelus Domini talk, wherein he briefly outlined John Henry Cardinal Newman's devotion to her. The false "pontiff's" remarks were pious and historically accurate. That he did not, however, speak of devotion to Our Lady and devotion to her Most Holy Rosary and Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart and her Brown Scapular, which was, after all (as noted in one of my earlier articles about the now concluded "papal" junket to the United Kingdom), given to an English Carmelite, Saint Simon Stock, reminds us. that he can mouth these pious words well enough. It is not part of his own constitution, however, to  exhort even the young to have a tender filial devotion to Our Lady as they fly unto her through her Most Holy Rosary, protect themselves with the shield of the Brown Scapular, and consecrated themselves as the slaves of her Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, through her own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart.

The putative "pope" also addressed the conciliar "bishops" of the United Kingdom and gave a "farewell" address at the Birmingham, England, International Airport before returning the mother ship of conciliarism back at the Vatican. As strength simply does not permit even a brief commentary on those talks, I will keep you all in utter and total suspense until tomorrow, Tuesday, September 21, 2010, the Feast of Saint Matthew the Apostle and Evangelist.

Today, Monday, September 19, 2010, is the Feast of Saint Eustace and his Companions (his wife and two sons) and the Vigil of Saint Matthew.

Saint Eustace, also known as Saint Eustachius and Saint Placidus, is someone to whom those of us who are estranged from family members and former friends and associates because of the wreckage wrought by the conciliar revolutionaries and/or by the mere state of the barbarous world in which we live that has descended rapidly into barbarism as a result of the loss of Sanctifying and Actual Graces that had once flowed so readily from Altars of Sacrifice in every Catholic Church in the world should be very devoted. Consider, yes, once again, the remarkable story of a Roman commander who was separated from his wife and two sons for many years, not being reunited with them until shortly before they were martyred together for the Holy Faith because they refused to offer any kind of recognition to the false idols of Rome, quite a contrast to conciliarism:

It was one evening during these celebrations, that word was brought to the city that the army of Placidus had arrived, and was already on the Appian Way. A new impulse was given to the rejoicings, and a new triumph and procession were prepared for the victorious army. There is nothing so calculated to excite a people's enthusiasm as the return of its armies from a triumphant campaign. Those who remember the day on which the heroes of the Crimea landed on the shores of England can well picture the veteran armies of Rome entering the capital in triumph. According to custom the Emperor went out to meet the general, and embraced him. As the evening was far advanced, and the sun was already sinking beneath the blue Mediterranean, the Emperor gave orders that the army should encamp outside the walls for the night, in order to enter the city in triumph next morning. Placidus and his family returned with the Emperor to the Palatine, and were entertained at a sumptuous banquet. He gave the Emperor the history of his campaign, and spoke until a late hour of his battles, his conquests, the bravery of his two sons, and the extraordinary discover of his wife and family.

Loud, shrill and cheerful were the trumpet blasts that roused the sleeping army on the following morning. The cup of joy for these poor creatures was full to the brim. They knew of no greater reward for years of hardship and trial, for the scars and wounds which disabled them for life, than the shouts of a brutal and barbarous mob, who hailed them along the road of triumph.

As they poured in through the gates, each of them received a laurel crown, whose freshness and beauty contrasted deeply with the sunburnt features and tattered garments of the veterans. Round their necks and about their persons they carried a profusion of tinsel trinkets, which they took from the conquered people as ornaments for their wives and children. These were waggons drawn by oxen laded with spoils, that made the massive pavements of the Appian Way creak; armour, gold and brass ornaments, wild animals in cages, and everything that could show the habits and manners of the conquered people. The general, together with his wife and two sons, was in a gilt chariot, drawn by four white horses, in the rear of his army. None of the pride and flush of drunken joy that characterised the pagan conqueror was to be seen in the meek countenance of Placidus. All this rejoicing and gorgeous display was to him and his Christian family the funeral pomp that led them to their tomb. The king who, on this death-bed, had himself invested with his crown and royal robes to meet death as a monarch, was a picture of Placidus led in triumph to martyrdom--a tale of emptiness and instability of human greatness, often told in the vicissitudes of history! He was silent and collected; not even the deafening peals of applause from crowds of idle spectators, who made his name ring through the palaces and tombs that bend over the streets from the Capena gate to the Forum, induced him to look up with the smile of joyful approbation. He was well aware that in a few moments his belief in Christianity would be declared, for he could not sacrifice to the gods.

Whilst the procession was moving along, a murmur passed through the crowd. They asked one another where were the victims?--where the captive chiefs?--where the salves usually dragged at the chariot wheels of the conqueror?--where the wailing matrons and daughters of the conquered race to sound the mournful music of triumph? Arrived at the Forum, the procession halted as usual, and the executioners and keepers of the Mamertine prison looked in vain for their victims; it was the first time in the annals of triumph that axes had not bee steeped in the blood of heroes, whose only crime was that they fought bravely for their homes and their countries. They knew nothing of the sublime morality that can forgive an enemy. Placidus pardoned the moment he had conquered, and instead of dragging helpless victims from their country and family, to be immolated to the demons of Rome, he left his name in the traces of his march in love and benediction.

But now the process arrived at the entrance to the Temple of Jupiter. The priests were waiting in their robes, and snow-white oxen, with gilded horns and crowns of flowers, were held by the altar. Immense faggots were blazing in the heart of the temple to consume the victims, and fragrant incense was burning in golden vessels. Placidus and his family descended from their chariot and stepped on one side; they refused to enter; they would not sacrifice.

If an earthquake had shaken the temple to its foundations, or a sudden eclipse had darkened the sun, there could not have been given a greater shock or surprise to the assembled thousands. The news ran like fire in a train of powder through the vast crowd. A deep heavy murmur, like the swell of the troubled deep breaking on its boundaries, rose from the multitudes in the Forum. Indignation and fury were the passions that swayed the mob. The demon of paganism reigned in their hearts; pity, justice and liberty were virtues unknown. From shouts of applause with which they hailed Placidus as the conqueror, the glory of the Empire, and the beloved of the martial god, they know hooted him with groans and hisses; and loudly from the gilded temples of the Capitol were echoed the terrible cries of "Death to the Christians!"--"Away with the Christians!" But the hour of another and grander triumph had come for our hero. Let us hurry through the dark picture of cruelty and ingratitude that closed his career on this side of the grave, to usher in the triumph that was to last for ever.

The noble general and his family were brought before the Emperor. Was Adrian glad to have Placidus brought before him as a criminal? Doubtless he looked with a jealous eye on the glory, popularity and real triumph of one who, a few months before, was his equal as a commander of the army, and his acknowledged superior in skill and attainments, whilst his own triumph was but a mockery--the borrowed plumes of a deceased hero, whose panegyric he reluctantly preached from the chariot of triumph. Moreover, weak-minded and servile, he must have rejoiced in an opportunity of pandering to the depraved taste of a cruel and brutal mob, who were accustomed to look on all authority as usurpation and oppression, and who hated Christianity with satanic virulence. Like Trajan, he determined to prove his piety towards the gods by the public execution of the greatest man in the Empire. He received the old chief in the Temple of Apollo, and in a prepared speech, pretended what he never felt--sympathy for his folly. When asked by the haughty Adrian why he would not sacrifice to the gods, Placidus answered, bravely and fearlessly, "I am a Christian, and adore only the true God."

"Whence comes this infatuation?" asked the Emperor, quickly. "Why lose all the glory of the triumph, and bring the grey hairs to shame? Dost thou not know that I have the power to put thee to a miserable death?"

Placidus meekly replied: "My body is in your power, but my soul belongs to Him who created it. Never shall I forget the mercy He has down me in calling me to the knowledge of Himself, and I rejoice to be able to suffer for Him. You may command me to lead your legions against the enemies of the Empire, but never will I offer sacrifice to any other god than the One great and powerful God who created all thins, stretched out the heavens in their glory, decked the earth in its beauty, and created man to serve Him; He alone is worthy of sacrifice; all other gods are but demons who deceive men."

So also answered his wife and two sons. They bantered the Emperor himself for his folly in worshipping senseless pieces of marble and wood. In vain did Adrian try promises and threats, and all the silly arguments which were used in the defense of paganism. The faithful family were inflexible; the eloquence of Placidus was simple, but powerful and earnest; and the palpable defeat of Adrian in his attempt to reason with one gifted with the eloquence promised to those dragged before earthly tribunals, roused his pride and his cruelty, and the desire of revenge. the Coliseum stood but a few paces from them; the games were going on; the criminals and slaves of the Empire were the daily victims of its amusements. The condemnation of Placidus would be a stroke of policy to enhance the prosperity of his reign; it was the fullest gratification of the cruel passions of jealousy and revenge which the demon had stirred up in his heart; he ordered the Christian general and his family to be exposed to the wild beasts in the amphitheatre. [Father A. J. O'Reilly, The Martyrs of the Coliseum, pp. 105-109.]

 

"...But never will I offer sacrifice to any other god than the One great and powerful God who created all thins, stretched out the heavens in their glory, decked the earth in its beauty, and created man to serve Him; He alone is worthy of sacrifice; all other gods are but demons who deceive men."

We must never offer any sacrifice to any "god" than the One great and powerful God Who is to be worshiped according to the rites He prescribed by the Catholic Church in the Immemorial Mass of Tradition, refusing to participate in the great deception that is the evil of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service that was staged with a "Latin touch" during the conciliar circus's visit to the United Kingdom in the past four days (see Calling Cesar Romero, Calling Cesar Romero, part one and Calling Cesar Romero, Calling Cesar Romero, part two). We will only know in eternity how many evils in the world have flowed forth out of this abominable offense to God that has deceived so many souls into behaving as barbarians in the context of what purports to be the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

 

Father A. J. O'Reilly described the scene as Saint Eustace and wife and sons were at the point of their martyrdom:

 

No nation could be sunk more deeply in idolatry, sensuality and vices than the great Empire whose capital has been considered the Babylon of impiety spoken of in The Apocalypse. "Our wrestling," says St. Paul, "is not against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places" (Eph. vi. 12). It was not in an amphitheatre stained with the blood of wild beasts and gladiators, and filled with an exited and unfeeling crowd, that the voice of pity or reason could be heard; the impatient clamours of the multitude denounced the Christians as the enemies of the gods and men, and the public condemnation of the Christian general had already rung loudly and repeatedly through the benches of the Coliseum. The coming of the Emperor was announced, the buzz of conversation was hushed, and all eyes were turned towards the entrance on the side of the Esquiline, which was specially reserved for the royal cortege. As soon as he entered the amphitheatre, all rose; the lictors lowered their fasces, and the senators and vestals bowed profoundly. Shouts of "great," "immortal, "divine," resounded from every seat. The crowd of spectators was nothing more than an assembly of miscreant slaves, who trembled at the beck of their rulers. Although the spectators of the Coliseum frequently hated the Emperor as an oppressor and a tyrant, yet, i the wild frenzy of fear, they cried out with lying tongues that he alone was great and powerful. He carried a sceptre of ivory, surrounded with a golden eagle, and a slave followed, bearing over his head a crown of solid gold and precious stones. As soon as he was seated, the shrill blast of a trumpet called for silence and the commencement of the games. After the process of the unfortunate wretches who were to take part in the cruel sport of that day's programme and the sham fight of the gladiators, it was usual to commence with sports of agility and skill, but on this day the order was changed. The crowd called for the condemnation of the Christians, and the Emperor gave the order that Placidus and his family be exposed to the wild beasts.  [Father A. J. O'Reilly, The Martyrs of the Coliseum, p.111.]

We should not fear anything in this world, not from the civil state and not from the counterfeit church of conciliarism--and not from our family members and'/or former friends and associates as we pray for happy reconciliation with them if not in this life then in eternity before the glory of the Beatific Vision of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost.

We must be prepared for martyrdom, both figuratively and literally, in order to remain steadfast apostles of Christ the King and Mary our Immaculate Queen, trusting that our few acts of reparation, offered in love to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, will help to plant a few seeds for the end of this era of chastisement and the resurrection of the Church Militant on earth.

There is great peace to be had when one recognizes that the Catholic Church is responsible for nothing of the outrages committed by its counterfeit ape of conciliarism. The jaws of Hell have not prevailed against the Church. We must simply do our part as the consecrated slaves of Our Lord through Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart to practice True Devotion to Mary as we endeavor to fulfill as best we can Our Lady's Fatima Message in our daily lives.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!

 

Isn't it truly time to pray a Rosary now?

 

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

 

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint 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 Eustace and his Companions, pray for us.

Saint Matthew the Apostle and Evangelist, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints

Appendix A

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's Address in the Lutheran Church of Rome, Laetare Sunday, March 10, 2010

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

I would like to offer my warm thanks to the whole Community, your leaders, and in particular to Pastor Kruse, for having invited me to celebrate this Laetare Sunday with you this day on which the crucial element is hope, which sees the light spread by Christ's Resurrection dispel the darkness of our daily routine and the unresolved matters of our lives. Dear Pastor Kruse, you have interpreted St Paul's Message of hope for us. The Gospel, from the 12th chapter of John which I would like to try to explain, is also a Gospel of hope. At the same time, it is a Gospel of the Cross. These two dimensions always go together. Since the Gospel refers to the Cross it speaks of hope and, since it gives hope, it must speak of the Cross.

John tells us that Jesus was going up to Jerusalem to celebrate the Passover and then he says: "Among those who went up to worship... were some Greeks". Without any doubt they were members of the group called phoboumenoi ton Theon, the "God-fearing", who, going beyond the polytheism of their world, were seeking the authentic God who is truly God, the one God to whom the whole world belongs and who is the God of all mankind. And they had found that God, whom they were seeking and asking for, and for whom every human being is silently yearning, in the Bible of Israel, recognizing him as that God who created the world. He is the God of all men and women and, at the same time, he chose a specific people and place in which to be present among us. They were searching for God and they came to Jerusalem to worship the one God, to know something of his mystery. Furthermore, the Evangelist tells us that these people, having heard talk of Jesus, approached Philip the Apostle who came from Bethsaida, in half of which Greek is spoken and said:  "We wish to see Jesus". Their desire to know God impels them to want to see Jesus and through him to become more closely acquainted with God. "We wish to see Jesus":  we are moved by these words since we all long ever more ardently to see and to know him. I think there are two reasons why these Greeks interest us:  on the one hand their situation is the same as ours; we too are pilgrims asking about God, in search of God. And we too would like to know Jesus better and truly to see him. Yet it is also true that, like Philip and Andrew, we should be Jesus' friends, friends who know him and can show others the way that leads to him. I therefore think that at this time we should pray like this:  Lord, help us to be people journeying towards you. Lord, grant that we may see you ever more clearly. Help us to be your friends, who open to others the door to you. Whether or not this effectively led to an encounter between Jesus and those Greeks, St John does not tell us. Jesus' answer, which he does report to us, goes far beyond that chance moment. It is a twofold response. He speaks of the glorification of Jesus that was then beginning:  "The hour has come for the Son of man to be glorified" (Jn 12: 23). The Lord explains this concept of glorification with the Parable of the Grain of Wheat:  "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit" (v. 24). Indeed the grain of wheat must die, it must sink in the ground in order to absorb energy from the earth and thus develop a stem and become an ear of wheat. With regard to the Lord, this is the parable of his own mystery. He himself is the grain of wheat which came from God, the divine grain that lets itself fall to the ground, that lets itself sink, be broken down in death and precisely by so doing germinates and can thus bear fruit in the immensity of the world. It is not merely a fleeting encounter with some person or another. Now, as the Risen One, he is "new" and goes beyond the limits of space and time. Now, he truly reaches the Greeks. Now, he shows himself to them and speaks to them and they speak to him; so it is that faith is born. The Church grows from all peoples, the community of the Risen Jesus Christ which will become his living Body, the ear of the grain of wheat. In this parable we also find a reference to the mystery of the Eucharist. He, who is the grain of wheat, falls to the ground and dies.

In this manner the holy multiplication of the "loaves" [bread] of the Eucharist comes about, in which he becomes Bread for the people of all times and places.

What the Lord says of himself here in this Christological parable is applied to us in two other verses:  "He who loves his life loses it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life" (v. 25). I think that when we first hear this we do not like it. We would like to say to the Lord:  "But what are you telling us, Lord? Must we even hate our life? Isn't our life a gift of God? Haven't we been created in his image and likeness? Shouldn't we be grateful and glad that he has given us life?". However, Jesus' words have another meaning. Of course the Lord has given us life and we are grateful for this. Gratitude and joy are fundamental attitudes of Christian life. Yes, we can be happy because we know that each of our lives comes from God. It is not a chance without meaning. I am wanted and loved. When Jesus says we must hate our life he means quite the opposite. He is thinking here of two fundamental attitudes. One is the attitude of wanting to keep my life selfishly, which is why I consider my life as my own property; I consider myself as my own property, which is why I want to make the very most of this life so as to live a full life, living for myself. Whoever does this, whoever lives for himself and thinks of and desires only himself, does not find himself but is lost. What the Lord tells us is precisely the opposite:  not seizing life but giving it. And it is not that in seizing life for ourselves that we receive it, but in giving it, in going beyond ourselves not in looking at ourselves but rather in giving ourselves to the other in the humility of love, giving our life to him and to others. Thus we become rich, distancing ourselves from ourselves, freeing ourselves from ourselves. It is by giving, and not by seizing life that we truly receive life.

The Lord continues and in a second verse says:  "If anyone serves me he must follow me; and where I am, there shall my servant be also; if anyone serves me, the Father will honour him." (v. 26). This self-giving, which really is the essence of love, is identical to the Cross. In fact, the Cross is nothing other than this fundamental law of the grain of wheat that died, the fundamental law of love:  that we ourselves become only when we give ourselves. But the Lord adds that this gift of self, this acceptance of the Cross, this distancing of oneself from oneself means going with him, since, in following him and in following the process of the grain of wheat, we find the way to love. This immediately seems a way fraught with difficulty and effort but for this very reason it is the way to salvation. The sequela, this going with him, who is himself the Way, the Truth and the Life, is inherent in the way of the Cross which is the way of love, of losing and of giving oneself. This concept also includes the fact that this sequela is carried out as "we", that none of us has his own Christ, his own Jesus. It implies that we can follow him only if we walk with him all together, entering this "we" and learning with him the love that he gives. The sequela is carried out in this "we". Being Christian means "being we" in the community of Christ's disciples. And this poses for us the question of ecumenism:  sorrow at having broken this "we", at having split the one path into so many paths. As a result the witness we must give is obscured and love cannot find its full expression. What must we say in this regard? Today we hear many complaints about the fact that ecumenism has reached a stalemate and that there are mutual accusations. Yet I think we should first of all be grateful that so much unity already exists. It is wonderful that today, Laetare Sunday, we can pray together, sing the same hymns, listen to the same word of God, explain it and seek to understand it together; that we look to the one Christ whom we see and to whom we wish to belong and that, in this manner, we are already witnessing that he is one, the One who has called us all and to whom, in the deepest way possible, we all belong. I believe that above all it is this that we should show the world:  not every sort of dispute and conflict, but joy and gratitude at the fact that the Lord is granting this to us and that real unity exists that can become ever deeper and become increasingly a testimony of Christ's word, of Christ's way in this world. Of course, this must not satisfy us, although we must be grateful for these shared dimensions. Yet the fact that in the essentials, in the celebration of the Blessed Eucharist we are unable to drink from the same cup, we are unable to gather round the same altar, cannot but fill us with sorrow for it is we who are guilty of this, we who cloud this testimony. It must make us inwardly restless on our journey toward greater unity in the knowledge that, basically, the Lord alone can give this to us. For a unity agreed by us would be a human act, hence brittle, like everything made by the human hand. Let us give ourselves to him, let us seek to know and love him, to see him ever better. Let us therefore allow him to lead us, truly, to full unity, for which we should pray with every urgency at this moment.

Dear friends, once again I would like to thank you for extending this invitation to me, for the cordiality with which you have welcomed me, and also for your words, kind Ms. Esch [editorial note: "Ms." Esch praised the false "pontiff" for the role that he played to broker the Conciliar-Lutheran Joint Declaration on Justification]. Let us give thanks for having been able to pray and sing together. Let us pray for each other, let us pray together that the Lord will grant us unity and help the world so that it may believe. Amen. (Visit to the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Rome, March 14, 2010.)

Appendix B

Membership in the Catholic Church Is All or Nothing as There is No "Partial Unity"

Pope Leo XIII, Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae, June 20, 1894:

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

 

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896:

Agreement and union of minds is the necessary foundation of this perfect concord amongst men, from which concurrence of wills and similarity of action are the natural results. Wherefore, in His divine wisdom, He ordained in His Church Unity of Faith; a virtue which is the first of those bonds which unite man to God, and whence we receive the name of the faithful - "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Eph. iv., 5). That is, as there is one Lord and one baptism, so should all Christians, without exception, have but one faith. And so the Apostle St. Paul not merely begs, but entreats and implores Christians to be all of the same mind, and to avoid difference of opinions: "I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms amongst you, and that you be perfect in the same mind and in the same judgment" (I Cor. i., 10). Such passages certainly need no interpreter; they speak clearly enough for themselves. Besides, all who profess Christianity allow that there can be but one faith. It is of the greatest importance and indeed of absolute necessity, as to which many are deceived, that the nature and character of this unity should be recognized. And, as We have already stated, this is not to be ascertained by conjecture, but by the certain knowledge of what was done; that is by seeking for and ascertaining what kind of unity in faith has been commanded by Jesus Christ. (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896.)

 

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943:

Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. "For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free." As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered - so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit. (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943.)