Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us
                  March 18, 2007

Dinnertime on the Titanic

by Thomas A. Droleskey

The human capacity for self-delusion is infinite. The darkened intellect each of us has a result of the vestigial after-effects of Original Sin (and as a result of the effects of our own Actual Sins) can convince us that black is white. The darkened intellect can convince us also that we are making "progress" in addressing certain problems, whether civilly or ecclesiastically, and that there is no need to address the root causes of these problems. This results in giddy celebrations in reaction to apparent "victories" that are but illusions of "progress" designed to keep people fat and happy in the main dining room of the Titanic as it is the process of sinking.

To wit, how many times have "conservatives" been fooled by the apparent "progress" of Republican presidential administrations and/or Republican majorities in Congress to "address" "family values" issues? For the sake of brevity (all right, stop laughing, will you?), I will confine myself to but two examples (others are to be found in Restoring Christ as the King of All Nations).

United States Representative Christopher Smith (Republican, New Jersey) announced on January 22, 2001, that newly-inaugurated President George Walker Bush would reinstate the "Mexico City Policy" of then-former President Ronald Wilson Reagan. The crowd on the Ellipse to the south of the South Lawn of the White House erupted in massive applause when Smith announced this news at the annual rally prior to the March for Life, believing that "international family" organizations would not receive funding from the government of the United States of America if they either performed abortions on their premises and/or referred women to baby-killers. This belief is delusional. The actual Executive Order issued by President Bush in April of 2001 permits employees of "family planning" organizations in other countries to counsel women for abortions off of the premises of the organization and on their own time. In other words, ladies and gentlemen, the policy is worse than a bad joke. It is a deliberate attempt to hoodwink well-meaning pro-life Americans into thinking that "something" is being done to retard evil. The "Mexico City Policy" is but an illusion.

Similarly, the very fact that so many think that George W. Bush is "pro-life" is a delusion. He is not. He believes that there are instances in which innocent preborn babies in their mothers' wombs can be sliced and diced with complete legal impunity. As I noted (for the ten millionth time) in Let Truth Ring in the Ears of Hollow Men, no one who supports a single-exception to the inviolability of innocent preborn life is "pro-life." Such a person is simply less pro-abortion than others who believe in the unconditional killing of preborn babies in all circumstances at all times. The Fifth Commandment's prohibition against the direct, intentional murder of innocent human beings is absolute. It admits of no exceptions, and it forbids also the chemical assassination of children by means of the abortifacient contraceptives that are funded with the full support of President George W. Bush and his administration. The average "conservative," however, wants to believe in the delusion that George W. Bush is pro-life. He is not.

Trying to convince people of these truths is quite difficult. Reasoned arguments are presented to them about the fact that the institutionalization of one more evil after another under cover of law and in every aspect of our society is but a symptom of the larger problem: the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King that was wrought by Martin Luther and the Protestant Revolution he began. This overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King was further promoted by the scions of Judeo-Masonry and the concomitant rise and mutation of endless numbers of naturalistic political ideologies and "philosophies" based in the belief that it is possible for man to know personal and social order without subordinating himself and the life of his nation to the Deposit of Faith that the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity made Man in Our Lady's Virginal and Immaculate Womb has entrusted exclusively to the Catholic Church and that it is possible for men to virtuous, both individually ad civically, without belief in, access to and cooperation with Sanctifying Grace. Most Catholics across the ecclesiastical fault-lines do not want to hear this. They want to believe that our problems are "short term" and that we are indeed making "progress" as a result of the "advancement" of "conservative" "values," spending their time listening to the sophisms of empty-headed pundits who do not realize that these words of Pope Leo XIII, contained in Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885, describe perfectly why the Modern state, founded in hostility or indifference to the fact of the Incarnation of Our Lord  and to the authority He has entrusted solely to the Catholic Church to direct men and nations in all that pertains to the good of souls, in is bound to deteriorate over time:

The sovereignty of the people, however, and this without any reference to God, is held to reside in the multitude; which is doubtless a doctrine exceedingly well calculated to flatter and to inflame many passions, but which lacks all reasonable proof, and all power of insuring public safety and preserving order. Indeed, from the prevalence of this teaching, things have come to such a pass that may hold as an axiom of civil jurisprudence that seditions may be rightfully fostered. For the opinion prevails that princes are nothing more than delegates chosen to carry out the will of the people; whence it necessarily follows that all things are as changeable as the will of the people, so that risk of public disturbance is ever hanging over our heads.

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.


The same kind of delusion that keeps "conservatives," including a lot of traditional Catholics in every conceivable camp into which they are divided at this present time, from looking at the truth of the root causes of our social problems keeps them from looking at the truth of the root causes of our ecclesiastical problems. Thus it is that even the slightest hint of something authentically Catholic is said to be a cause for great rejoicing. Horns are blared (in the forms of e-mails announcing "news of great joy). Fingers are pointed. Hosannas are exclaimed. "Victory" is around the corner. "Order" is being restored. The day of doctrinal dissent and liturgical disarray is nearing an end once and for all. It is the exact same phenomenon in the political ream described in the preceding paragraphs.

A matter of personal privilege will be asserted at this juncture: I know very well how the "conservative" ecclesiastical mind works. I used to get all excited and enthused about various documents issued early in the conciliar pontificate of John Paul II, projecting into the former Karol Cardinal Wojtyla's mind my own fondest desires for the restoration of authentic Catholicism and for an end to the confusion wrought by the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council. I thought, for example, that the release of Inaestimabile Donum by then-named Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship on April 17, 1980, was going to "solve" the problem of liturgical "abuses" in the Novus Ordo Missae, oblivious to the fact that the Novus Ordo Missae itself was the liturgical abuse par excellence. Yes, I thought a "crackdown" was occurring. I was wrong. These words from Inaestimabile Donum demonstrate quite clearly the Novus Ordo Missae is irreformable, that any set of "rules" that govern its offering are offset by the "exceptions" and "adaptations" contained throughout the text of the General Instruction to the Roman Missal:

Following the letter that Pope John Paul II addressed on February 24, 1980, to the bishops and, through them, to the priests, and in which he again considered the priceless gift of the Holy Eucharist, the Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship is calling to the bishops' attention certain norms concerning worship of this great mystery.

These indications are not a summary of everything already stated by the Holy See in the documents concerning the Eucharist promulgated since the Second Vatican Council and still in force, particularly in the Missale Romanum, the Ritual De Sacra Communione et de Cultu Mysterii Eucharistici Extra Missam, and the Instructions Eucharisticum Mysterium,Memoriale Domini, Immensae caritatis, and Liturgicae Instaurationes.

This Sacred Congregation notes with great joy the many positive results of the liturgical reform: a more active and conscious participation by the faithful in the liturgical mysteries, doctrinal and catechetical enrichment through the use of the vernacular, the the wealth of readings from the Bible, a growth in the community sense of liturgical life, and successful efforts to close the gap between life and worship, between Liturgical piety and personal piety, and between Liturgy and popular piety.

But these encouraging and positive aspects cannot suppress concern at the varied and frequent abuses being reported from different parts of the Catholic world: the confusion of roles, especially regarding the priestly ministry and the role of the laity (indiscriminate shared recitation of the Eucharistic Prayer, homilies given by lay people, lay people distributing Communion while the priests refrain from doing so); an increasing loss of the sense of the sacred (abandonment of liturgical vestments, the Eucharist celebrated outside church without real need, lack of reverence and respect for the Blessed Sacrament, etc.); misunderstanding of the ecclesial character of the Liturgy (the use of private texts, the proliferation of unapproved Eucharistic Prayers, the manipulation of the liturgical texts for social and political ends). In these cases we are face to face with a real falsification of the Catholic Liturgy: "One who offers worship to God on the Church's behalf in a way contrary to that which is laid down by the Church with God-given authority and which is customary in the Church is guilty of falsification."

None of these things can bring good results. The consequences are -- and cannot fail to be -- the impairing of the unity of Faith and worship in the Church, doctrinal uncertainty, scandal and bewilderment among the People of God, and the near inevitability of violent reactions.

The faithful have a right to a true Liturgy, which means the Liturgy desired and laid down by the Church, which has in fact indicated where adaptations may be made as called for by pastoral requirements in different places or by different groups of people. Undue experimentation, changes and creativity bewilder the faithful. The use of unauthorized texts means a loss of the necessary connection between the lex orandi and the lex credendi. The Second Vatican Council's admonition in this regard must be remembered: "No person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove or change anything in the Liturgy on his own authority." And Paul VI of venerable memory stated that: "Anyone who takes advantage of the reform to indulge in arbitrary experiments is wasting energy and offending the ecclesial sense".


The laundry list of common "abuses" in the Novus Ordo Missae contained in Inaestimabile Donum were supposed to stop. They did not. Indeed, Inaestimabile Donum contained a reaffirmation of the ban of "girl altar boys:

18. There are, of course, various roles that women can perform in the liturgical assembly: these include reading the Word of God and proclaiming the intentions of the Prayer of the Faithful. Women are not, however, permitted to act as altar servers.


We know only too well what happened to this matter, don't we? John Paul II himself "permitted" "girl altar boys" in 1994. There is nothing fixed, nothing certain in the Novus Ordo Missae except this: yesterday's "norms" are subject to change in the future, the very opposite of what a legitimate liturgical rite of the Catholic Church is supposed to convey. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is supposed to the convey the universality and immutability of God Himself. The Novus Ordo Missae admits of so many legitimate "exceptions" and "adaptations" that any talk of a "liturgical rite," over and above what I have come to recognize is its inherent invalidity, is absurd.

Well, just as "conservatives" in the political realm want to project into the minds and hearts of phony pro-life politicians and/or take refuge in the false assurances offered them by meaningless policy statements (such as the pro-life plank in the Republican Party national platform), so is it the case that "conservatives" in the ecclesiastical realm take refuge in "new" developments that are really nothing new at all but simply a continuation of the delusions that have been propagated by the counterfeit church of conciliarism for the past four decades. Such is happening at the present moment as a new generation of "conservative" Catholics, most of whom do not know how many documents have been issued to "fix" or "reform" the Novus Ordo Missae since 1969, are jumping up and down for joy with the release of Sacramentum Caritatis, the post-synodal exhortation issued with the approval of Benedict XVI on February 22, 2007. This document is nothing new. It contains a reiteration of points made in many, many other conciliarist documents and in the General Instruction to the Roman Missal.

Indeed, Sacramentum Caritatis represents an effort on the part of a true revolutionary, Joseph Ratzinger, to save his failed theological revolution and the liturgical revolution that followed in its wake, parts of which he found objectionable. Ratzinger's efforts to save the novelties and errors of the Second Vatican Council and its aftermath are quite analogous to those undertaken by Mikhail Gorbachev when he became the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on March 11, 1985, to "restructure" the Soviet economy. Gorbachev was--and remains--a committed Communist. His goal was not to end Communism in the Soviet Union but to restructure it in order to help it make certain accommodations to the changes that had taken place domestically and internationally since the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. Similarly, Ratzinger, an Hegelian who believes in the Modernist presupposition that truth is a concept grasped by the "mind" and is thus subject to different interpretations at different times (see Anathematized by His Own Words), wants to make sure that that conciliarism's doctrinal novelties are preserved as part of what he sees as the Catholic Church's "living tradition," a tradition in which we must see "continuity in discontinuity" and learn to "live with novelty" (as Benedict discussed in his December 22, 2005, address to the conciliarist curia in Rome).

Although, a noted above, Joseph Ratzinger has been a critic, albeit intermittently and inconsistently (part and parcel of the ethos of Hegelianism), of certain aspects of the Novus Ordo Missae, he is committed to a "proper" implementation of the postconciliar "Mass." Indeed, one can see his Hegelianism at work even in this desire. The Immemorial Mass of Tradition was supplanted by the Novus Ordo Missae, producing a clash that can be resolved only in the "synthesis" of the two, that is, a "reform of the reform," something that Ratzinger advanced as early as 1985 in his famous interview with journalist Vittorio Messori in what became known as The Ratzinger Report.

In all truth, however, Sacramentum Caritatis, is not even a "reform of the reform." Representing a consensus of the conciliar bishops who attended the 2005 Synod of Bishops in Rome, Sacramentum Caritatis is an affirmation of the "reform" with some mild cautionary notes that have been sung at other times by other conciliar pontiffs, including John Paul II in Dominicae Cenae, February 24, 1980, and Ecclesia De Eucharistia, April 17, 2003. And like the documents of his predecessor, Benedict's Sacramentum Caritatis contains only one gratuitous footnote citation (at note 10) out of 256 footnotes to the encyclical letters of popes that were issued prior to 1968, admitting that there are a few sprinklings of references to Saint Thomas Aquinas and the writings of a few other saints. Most of the 256 footnotes are to the documents of conciliarism, another sign of how the revolutionaries believe, all protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, that it is from the "modern documents" that the "needs" of "modern man" can be best recognized and addressed.

There are telltale signs by which one can see quite clearly that Sacramentum Caritatis means to further institutionalize practices that have been mandated as a result of the Novus Ordo Missae, two of these being the "Sign of Peace" and standing for the reception of what purports to be Holy Communion. There is no turning back from these conciliarist customs. While the "Sign of Peace" should be given in a "dignified" and "restrained" manner to those within one's immediate reach, there is no talk of its being an "option." It is mandated in Masses with a congregation (and the General Instruction to the Roman Missal frowns on Masses without a congregation!). Here are the two successive paragraphs in Sacramentum Caritatis dealing with these two practices:

49. By its nature the Eucharist is the sacrament of peace. At Mass this dimension of the eucharistic mystery finds specific expression in the sign of peace. Certainly this sign has great value (cf. Jn 14:27). In our times, fraught with fear and conflict, this gesture has become particularly eloquent, as the Church has become increasingly conscious of her responsibility to pray insistently for the gift of peace and unity for herself and for the whole human family. Certainly there is an irrepressible desire for peace present in every heart. The Church gives voice to the hope for peace and reconciliation rising up from every man and woman of good will, directing it towards the one who "is our peace" (Eph 2:14) and who can bring peace to individuals and peoples when all human efforts fail. We can thus understand the emotion so often felt during the sign of peace at a liturgical celebration. Even so, during the Synod of Bishops there was discussion about the appropriateness of greater restraint in this gesture, which can be exaggerated and cause a certain distraction in the assembly just before the reception of Communion. It should be kept in mind that nothing is lost when the sign of peace is marked by a sobriety which preserves the proper spirit of the celebration, as, for example, when it is restricted to one's immediate neighbours (150).

50. Another moment of the celebration needing to be mentioned is the distribution and reception of Holy Communion. I ask everyone, especially ordained ministers and those who, after adequate preparation and in cases of genuine need, are authorized to exercise the ministry of distributing the Eucharist, to make every effort to ensure that this simple act preserves its importance as a personal encounter with the Lord Jesus in the sacrament. For the rules governing correct practice in this regard, I would refer to those documents recently issued on the subject. (151) All Christian communities are to observe the current norms faithfully, seeing in them an expression of the faith and love with which we all must regard this sublime sacrament. Furthermore, the precious time of thanksgiving after communion should not be neglected: besides the singing of an appropriate hymn, it can also be most helpful to remain recollected in silence. (152)


Thus it is that the focus of those assisting at the Protestant-Masonic Novus Ordo service must be on their neighbors in the pews rather than on preparing for the reception of what is believed by them to be the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in Holy Communion, which must be received in a standing position. Anyone who fails to adhere to these norms is introducing "division" into the "community" and thus wounding the bond of "charity" that is meant to be signified in the "Sign of Peace" and by a humble "obedience" to the decisions of the conciliarists in the Vatican in the conciliarist"episcopal conferences" concerning standing for the reception of what is said to be Holy Communion. Even Inaestimabile Donum held out the option for the faithful to receive Holy Communion while kneeling:

11. The Church has always required from the faithful respect and reverence for the Eucharist at the moment of receiving it.

With regard to the manner of going to Communion, the faithful can receive it either kneeling or standing, in accordance with the norms laid down by the episcopal conference: "When the faithful communicate kneeling, no other sign of reverence towards the Blessed Sacrament is required, since kneeling is itself a sign of adoration. When they receive Communion standing, it is strongly recommended that, coming up in a procession, they should make a sign of reverence before receiving the sacrament. This should be done at the right time and place, so that the order of people going to and from Communion is not disrupted."


Thus, you see, Sacramentum Caritatis is actually a step backward from Inaestimabile Donum. Much has transpired in the counterfeit church of conciliarism in the past twenty-seven years. None of it is good. The various conciliar episcopal conferences, including the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), have petitioned their conciliar confreres in the Vatican to "standardize" the posture of standing for the reception of what purports to be Holy Communion in the Novus Ordo Missae. Benedict has placed his own "papal" stamp on this series of events. There is no turning back.

Much is being made by "conservative" Catholics about the fact that Benedict is "getting tough" about the distribution of Holy Communion to non-Catholics. This is simple nonsense. He is not. Sacramentum Caritatis is simply calling for the strict adherence to the "norms," stated in the 1983 conciliar Code of Canon Law and in the 1993 Vatican Ecumenical Directory, for the distribution of Holy Communion to non-Catholics, both of which state for the first time in the history of the Catholic Church that there are indeed some conditions under which non-Catholics may receive Holy Communion. Here is the text from Sacramentum Caritatis:

The subject of participation in the Eucharist inevitably raises the question of Christians belonging to Churches or Ecclesial Communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church. In this regard, it must be said that the intrinsic link between the Eucharist and the Church's unity inspires us to long for the day when we will be able to celebrate the Holy Eucharist together with all believers in Christ, and in this way to express visibly the fullness of unity that Christ willed for his disciples (cf. Jn 17:21). On the other hand, the respect we owe to the sacrament of Christ's Body and Blood prevents us from making it a mere "means" to be used indiscriminately in order to attain that unity. (172) The Eucharist in fact not only manifests our personal communion with Jesus Christ, but also implies full communio with the Church. This is the reason why, sadly albeit not without hope, we ask Christians who are not Catholic to understand and respect our conviction, which is grounded in the Bible and Tradition. We hold that eucharistic communion and ecclesial communion are so linked as to make it generally impossible for non-Catholic Christians to receive the former without enjoying the latter. There would be even less sense in actually concelebrating with ministers of Churches or ecclesial communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church. Yet it remains true that, for the sake of their eternal salvation, individual non-Catholic Christians can be admitted to the Eucharist, the sacrament of Reconciliation and the Anointing of the Sick. But this is possible only in specific, exceptional situations and requires that certain precisely defined conditions be met (173). These are clearly indicated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (174) and in its Compendium (175). Everyone is obliged to observe these norms faithfully.


The "conditions" that "are clearly indicated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church" and in the 1983 conciliar Code of Canon Law are novelties that having nothing to do with the Catholic Faith. Here are the pertinent passages from the conciliar Code of Canon Law:

Can.  844 §1. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments licitly to Catholic members of the Christian faithful alone, who likewise receive them licitly from Catholic ministers alone, without prejudice to the prescripts of §§2, 3, and 4 of this canon, and can. 861, §2.

§2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

§3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.

§4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.

§5. For the cases mentioned in §§2, 3, and 4, the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops is not to issue general norms except after consultation at least with the local competent authority of the interested non-Catholic Church or community.


The Vatican Ecumenical Directory of 1993, issued by the Pontifical Council for the Promoting of Christian Unity on March 25, 1993, which remains fully in force and conflicts not one whit with anything contained in Sacramentum Caritatis or the 1983 conciliar Code of Canon Law, states the following on the matter of the administration of what purports to be Holy Communion to non-Catholics:

129. A sacrament is an act of Christ and of the Church through the Spirit.130 Its celebration in a concrete community is the sign of the reality of its unity in faith, worship and community life. As well as being signs, sacraments—most specially the Eucharist—are sources of the unity of the Christian community and of spiritual life, and are means for building them up. Thus Eucharistic communion is inseparably linked to full ecclesial communion and its visible expression.

At the same time, the Catholic Church teaches that by baptism members of other Churches and ecclesial Communities are brought into a real, even if imperfect communion, with the Catholic Church 131 and that "baptism, which constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn... is wholly directed toward the acquiring of fullness of life in Christ".132 The Eucharist is, for the baptized, a spiritual food which enables them to overcome sin and to live the very life of Christ, to be incorporated more profoundly in Him and share more intensely in the whole economy of the Mystery of Christ.

It is in the light of these two basic principles, which must always be taken into account together, that in general the Catholic Church permits access to its Eucharistic communion and to the sacraments of penance and anointing of the sick, only to those who share its oneness in faith, worship and ecclesial life.133 For the same reasons, it also recognizes that in certain circumstances, by way of exception, and under certain conditions, access to these sacraments may be permitted, or even commended, for Christians of other Churches and ecclesial Communities.134

130. In case of danger of death, Catholic ministers may administer these sacraments when the conditions given below (n. 131) are present. In other cases, it is strongly recommended that the diocesan Bishop, taking into account any norms which may have been established for this matter by the Episcopal Conference or by the Synods of Eastern Catholic Churches, establish general norms for judging situations of grave and pressing need and for verifying the conditions mentioned below (n. 131).135 In accord with Canon Law,136 these general norms are to be established only after consultation with at least the local competent authority of the other interested Church or ecclesial Community. Catholic ministers will judge individual cases and administer these sacraments only in accord with these established norms, where they exist. Otherwise they will judge according to the norms of this Directory.

131. The conditions under which a Catholic minister may administer the sacraments of the Eucharist, of penance and of the anointing of the sick to a baptized person who may be found in the circumstances given above (n. 130) are that the person be unable to have recourse for the sacrament desired to a minister of his or her own Church or ecclesial Community, ask for the sacrament of his or her own initiative, manifest Catholic faith in this sacrament and be properly disposed.137


Anyone who thinks that "progress" is being made by an insistence of a "strict adherence" to these novelties is doing in the ecclesiastical realm what so many conservatives do in the political realm civilly, that is, preferring to believe that "progress" is at hand when the truth of the matter is otherwise. "Progress" cannot be made in a political system based on the false premises of Modernity. "Progress" will never be made in a synthetic liturgy based on the false premises of Protestantism and Judeo-Masonry. One must recognize that the civil state that is indifferent or hostile to the true Faith will produce nothing but social chaos over the course of time. And one must recognize that the ethos of conciliarism is from the devil and leads souls into states of disorder, chaos and confusion in their own lives as they believe that they have an "obligation" to "see the good" in something, in this case the Novus Ordo Missae, that is evil of its very nature.

As His Excellency Bishop Mark A. Pivarunas noted in 1997 in The Betrayal of Christ’s Mystical Body:

Compare this new law of 1983 to the 1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 731:

“It is forbidden to administer the Sacraments of the Church to heretics and schismatics, even though they may be in good faith and ask for them. It is necessary that they first renounce their errors and become reconciled to the Church.”

Furthermore, the Council of Trent taught:

“If anyone saith that faith alone is a sufficient preparation for receiving the Sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist; let him be anathema. But if anyone shall presume to teach, preach, or obstinately to assert, or even in public disputation to defend the contrary, he shall be thereupon excommunicated.”

Others see in Sacramentum Caritatis that "progress" is being made by the forbidding of Catholics who have been divorced and have subsequently remarried with a decree of nullity from a conciliar diocesan marriage tribunal are barred from the reception of what purports to be Holy Communion until they receive such a decree or until they agree to live as brother and sister. This is nothing new. It is the pastoral practice that is followed in many traditional venues in the catacombs at present where couples who have received decrees of nullity from the conciliar officials have learned that the counterfeit church of conciliarism has no authority to issue such decrees And this is nothing new in conciliarism itself, admitting that the likes of the late Joseph Cardinal Bernardin, the longtime conciliar archbishop of Cincinnati and then Chicago, freely distributed Holy Communion in the Novus Ordo Missae to persons they knew to be divorced and civilly remarried. John Paul II made the same headlines in the secular news media wit Familiaris Consortio, November 22, 1981, a post-synodal exhortation on the family, in 1981, that Sacramentum Caritatis has made recently. To Familiaris Consortio:

Together with the Synod, I earnestly call upon pastors and the whole community of the faithful to help the divorced, and with solicitous care to make sure that they do not consider themselves as separated from the Church, for as baptized persons they can, and indeed must, share in her life. They should be encouraged to listen to the word of God, to attend the Sacrifice of the Mass, to persevere in prayer, to contribute to works of charity and to community efforts in favor of justice, to bring up their children in the Christian faith, to cultivate the spirit and practice of penance and thus implore, day by day, God's grace. Let the Church pray for them, encourage them and show herself a merciful mother, and thus sustain them in faith and hope.

However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church's teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.

Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children's upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they "take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples."(180)


Once again, there is nothing new in Sacramentum Caritatis. The fact that certain Catholic truths are defended does not make it a Catholic document, especially in light of the fact that the whole theological foundation of Sacramentum Caritatis is Joseph Ratzinger's concept of "Church as Communion," a concept that has been critiqued so well by His Excellency Bishop Donald Sanborn in Communion: Ratzingers's Ecumenical One-World Church and The New Ecclesiology: An Overview. Catholic statements contained in a document that is premised upon a heretical view of the Catholic Church do not redeem said document as being one is consonance with the Catholic Faith.

Indeed, the conciliarist mind of Joseph Ratzinger is on full display in Sacramentum Caritatis in his exhortation to Catholics in public life to defend the inviolability of innocent human life and to oppose such evils as the promotion of "marriages" among those steeped in perversity. Ever true to the bent of his "healthy secularity," which sees Modernity's separation of Church and State as a social good that serves the interests of the civil state and of the Catholic Church, Ratzinger is content to have Catholics in public life speak in a generic, naturalistic way without ever referencing the fact that moral laws are not rooted in "human nature" but have their origin in God Himself Who has implanted a knowledge of them on human hearts. And God has entrusted these laws to the safekeeping and infallible explication of the Catholic Church which has the absolute right to be recognized by the civil state and to interpose herself as an absolute last resort following the discharge of her Indirect Power of teaching, preaching and exhortation if situations arise where the good of souls demands such an intervention. Benedict, though, rejects this consistent teaching of the Catholic Church and is content to let Catholics in public life speak and act as though the Incarnation and the Deposit of Faith are matters of complete indifference to the direction of nations and the making of laws:

83. Here it is important to consider what the Synod Fathers described as eucharistic consistency, a quality which our lives are objectively called to embody. Worship pleasing to God can never be a purely private matter, without consequences for our relationships with others: it demands a public witness to our faith. Evidently, this is true for all the baptized, yet it is especially incumbent upon those who, by virtue of their social or political position, must make decisions regarding fundamental values, such as respect for human life, its defence from conception to natural death, the family built upon marriage between a man and a woman, the freedom to educate one's children and the promotion of the common good in all its forms (230). These values are not negotiable. Consequently, Catholic politicians and legislators, conscious of their grave responsibility before society, must feel particularly bound, on the basis of a properly formed conscience, to introduce and support laws inspired by values grounded in human nature (231). There is an objective connection here with the Eucharist (cf. 1 Cor 11:27-29). Bishops are bound to reaffirm constantly these values as part of their responsibility to the flock entrusted to them (232).


The responsibility of Catholics in public life is first to God as He has revealed Himself exclusively through His true Church. They have the responsibility to defend Catholic truth and to label it as such, as Pope Leo XIII noted in Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890:

Wherefore, to love both countries, that of earth below and that of heaven above, yet in such mode that the love of our heavenly surpass the love of our earthly home, and that human laws be never set above the divine law, is the essential duty of Christians, and the fountainhead, so to say, from which all other duties spring. The Redeemer of mankind of Himself has said: "For this was I born, and for this came I into the world, that I should give testimony to the truth." In like manner: "I am come to cast fire upon earth, and what will I but that it be kindled?'' In the knowledge of this truth, which constitutes the highest perfection of the mind; in divine charity which, in like manner, completes the will, all Christian life and liberty abide. This noble patrimony of truth and charity entrusted by Jesus Christ to the Church she defends and maintains ever with untiring endeavor and watchfulness.

But with what bitterness and in how many guises war has been waged against the Church it would be ill-timed now to urge. From the fact that it has been vouchsafed to human reason to snatch from nature, through the investigations of science, many of her treasured secrets and to apply them befittingly to the divers requirements of life, men have become possessed with so arrogant a sense of their own powers as already to consider themselves able to banish from social life the authority and empire of God. Led away by this delusion, they make over to human nature the dominion of which they think God has been despoiled; from nature, they maintain, we must seek the principle and rule of all truth; from nature, they aver, alone spring, and to it should be referred, all the duties that religious feeling prompts. Hence, they deny all revelation from on high, and all fealty due to the Christian teaching of morals as well as all obedience to the Church, and they go so far as to deny her power of making laws and exercising every other kind of right, even disallowing the Church any place among the civil institutions of the commonweal. These men aspire unjustly, and with their might strive, to gain control over public affairs and lay hands on the rudder of the State, in order that the legislation may the more easily be adapted to these principles, and the morals of the people influenced in accordance with them. Whence it comes to pass that in many countries Catholicism is either openly assailed or else secretly interfered with, full impunity being granted to the most pernicious doctrines, while the public profession of Christian truth is shackled oftentimes with manifold constraints.

Under such evil circumstances therefore, each one is bound in conscience to watch over himself, taking all means possible to preserve the faith inviolate in the depths of his soul, avoiding all risks, and arming himself on all occasions, especially against the various specious sophisms rife among non-believers. In order to safeguard this virtue of faith in its integrity, We declare it to be very profitable and consistent with the requirements of the time, that each one, according to the measure of his capacity and intelligence, should make a deep study of Christian doctrine, and imbue his mind with as perfect a knowledge as may be of those matters that are interwoven with religion and lie within the range of reason. And as it is necessary that faith should not only abide untarnished in the soul, but should grow with ever painstaking increase, the suppliant and humble entreaty of the apostles ought constantly to be addressed to God: "Increase our faith.''

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

The chief elements of this duty consist in professing openly and unflinchingly the Catholic doctrine, and in propagating it to the utmost of our power. For, as is often said, with the greatest truth, there is nothing so hurtful to Christian wisdom as that it should not be known, since it possesses, when loyally received, inherent power to drive away error. So soon as Catholic truth is apprehended by a simple and unprejudiced soul, reason yields assent


It is never in the service of authentic Charity, which seeks the good of souls, the ultimate expression of which is their salvation as members of the Catholic Church, to speak in inter-denominational, non-denominational or naturalistic terms. We are not living in Athens or Rome before the Incarnation. The Incarnation has occurred. It matters. We must speak and act as Catholics, referring all people at all times to the truths of the Catholic Faith, which alone are the foundation of personal and social order. Once again, it is important to point out that Pope Saint Pius X condemned the separation of Church and State in Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906, and condemned it again in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907.

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. Our illustrious predecessor, Leo XIII, especially, has frequently and magnificently expounded Catholic teaching on the relations which should subsist between the two societies. "Between them," he says, "there must necessarily be a suitable union, which may not improperly be compared with that existing between body and soul.-"Quaedam intercedat necesse est ordinata colligatio (inter illas) quae quidem conjunctioni non immerito comparatur, per quam anima et corpus in homine copulantur." He proceeds: "Human societies cannot, without becoming criminal, act as if God did not exist or refuse to concern themselves with religion, as though it were something foreign to them, or of no purpose to them.... As for the Church, which has God Himself for its author, to exclude her from the active life of the nation, from the laws, the education of the young, the family, is to commit a great and pernicious error. -- "Civitates non possunt, citra scellus, gerere se tamquam si Deus omnino non esset, aut curam religionis velut alienam nihilque profuturam abjicere.... Ecclesiam vero, quam Deus ipse constituit, ab actione vitae excludere, a legibus, ab institutione adolescentium, a societate domestica, magnus et perniciousus est error."


Benedict XVI believes in not one blessed word of this. Indeed, his very conciliarist mindset is identical that with that of the Sillon, a movement whose apostasy was condemned by Pope Saint Pius X in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910, as proselytizing a form of "social action" that depended upon inter-denominational and/or non-denominational premises rather than upon the authentic Social Teaching of the Catholic Church:


We know well that they flatter themselves with the idea of raising human dignity and the discredited condition of the working class. We know that they wish to render just and perfect the labor laws and the relations between employers and employees, thus causing a more complete justice and a greater measure of charity to prevail upon earth, and causing also a profound and fruitful transformation in society by which mankind would make an undreamed-of progress. Certainly, We do not blame these efforts; they would be excellent in every respect if the Sillonist did not forget that a person’s progress consists in developing his natural abilities by fresh motivations; that it consists also in permitting these motivations to operate within the frame of, and in conformity with, the laws of human nature. But, on the contrary, by ignoring the laws governing human nature and by breaking the bounds within which they operate, the human person is lead, not toward progress, but towards death. This, nevertheless, is what they want to do with human society; they dream of changing its natural and traditional foundations; they dream of a Future City built on different principles, and they dare to proclaim these more fruitful and more beneficial than the principles upon which the present Christian City rests.

No, Venerable Brethren, We must repeat with the utmost energy in these times of social and intellectual anarchy when everyone takes it upon himself to teach as a teacher and lawmaker - the City cannot be built otherwise than as God has built it; society cannot be setup unless the Church lays the foundations and supervises the work; no, civilization is not something yet to be found, nor is the New City to be built on hazy notions; it has been in existence and still is: it is Christian civilization, it is the Catholic City. It has only to be set up and restored continually against the unremitting attacks of insane dreamers, rebels and miscreants. omnia instaurare in Christo. . . .

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". . . .

Indeed, we have the human experience of pagan and secular societies of ages past to show that concern for common interests or affinities of nature weigh very little against the passions and wild desires of the heart. No, Venerable Brethren, there is no genuine fraternity outside Christian charity. Through the love of God and His Son Jesus Christ Our Saviour, Christian charity embraces all men, comforts all, and leads all to the same faith and same heavenly happiness.

By separating fraternity from Christian charity thus understood, Democracy, far from being a progress, would mean a disastrous step backwards for civilization. If, as We desire with all Our heart, the highest possible peak of well being for society and its members is to be attained through fraternity or, as it is also called, universal solidarity, all minds must be united in the knowledge of Truth, all wills united in morality, and all hearts in the love of God and His Son Jesus Christ. But this union is attainable only by Catholic charity, and that is why Catholic charity alone can lead the people in the march of progress towards the ideal civilization. . . .

We fear that worse is to come: the end result of this developing promiscuousness, the beneficiary of this cosmopolitan social action, can only be a Democracy which will be neither Catholic, nor Protestant, nor Jewish. It will be a religion (for Sillonism, so the leaders have said, is a religion) more universal than the Catholic Church, uniting all men become brothers and comrades at last in the "Kingdom of God". - "We do not work for the Church, we work for mankind."

And now, overwhelmed with the deepest sadness, We ask Ourselves, Venerable Brethren, what has become of the Catholicism of the Sillon? Alas! this organization which formerly afforded such promising expectations, this limpid and impetuous stream, has been harnessed in its course by the modern enemies of the Church, and is now no more than a miserable affluent of the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would bring back to the world (if such a Church could overcome) the reign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak, and of all those who toil and suffer.


Such words mean nothing to Benedict and his fellow conciliarists. Puffed up with the arrogant pride of Modernism, they show themselves to be, even in the context of Sacramentum Caritatis, the very personification of Modernism critiqued by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907:

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


There are, of course, implications in Sacramentum Caritatis for those traditionally-minded Catholics who are wedded to the conciliar church's "indult" for the offering of the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition. Some of these implications have been critiqued very well by Atila Simka Guimaraes at Sacramentum Caritatis - New Mass in Latin and More Compromises Demanded and others will be explored in a forthcoming article on this site. Suffice it to say for the present moment that it has always been the case--and it will always be the case--that the Novus Ordo Missae offered in Latin is no "solution" to an artificial crisis that was created by apostates whose apostasies have caused them to defect from the Catholic Church. The Novus Ordo Missae's Latin editio typica is but a more "dignified" way of presenting prayers and rubrics that offend the majesty of God and dilute, if not entirely delete, the meaning of the Catholic Faith from the context of what purports be the offering of Holy Mass. See, for example, Father Anthony Cekada's Problems With The Prayers of The Modern Mass and Michael Davies's Pope Paul's New Mass and my own G.I.R.M. Warfare.

As noted above, there are instances when the conciliarists say and so Catholic things. There are even times when proponents of certain theological views might get a reprimand or a censure from the conciliar Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, as happened recently in the case of a Jesuit liberation theologian named Father Jon Sabrino. (I am reminded here of the late Father Vincent Miceli's dismissive view of the American invasion of Grenada on October 25, 1983. "Hey, they swatted a tsetse fly, a mosquito, a gnat. Big deal. Wake me up when we invade Cuba, will you? Thanks a lot for the big news.") These occasional condemnations of various aspects of the work of this or that priest, men who for the most part retain their full canonical standing in the conciliar structures (see: Kung, Hans, 1979), happen while men such as Father Richard Rohr can be invited to the annual Los Angeles Religious Education Congress and make a mockery of the Catholic Faith and while conciliar bishops such as Patrick McGrath in San Jose can deny the historicity of the the Gospel accounts of Our Lord's Passion and Death (as he did when Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ premiered three years ago).Inconsistency and contradiction are the banes of conciliarism's lifeblood. The standard of what is Catholic is not how minimally one holds to the Faith but how completely one holds to the Faith. No one who holds to the views of William Levada and Joseph Ratzinger concerning the adaptation of doctrine to the "needs" of "modern" man adheres to the fullness of the Catholic Faith. Pope Leo XIII noted this in Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896:

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).


This is important to bear in mind when reviewing the work of conciliarists, including that of Joseph Ratzinger. Those intent on finding Catholicism in his work will be able to do so principally by refusing to place his work in its proper context, that is, of refusing to see that his fundamental belief is that Catholic doctrine is subject to change and adaptation. The Modernist has not rejected the entirety of the Catholic Faith. He sees it has his responsibility to make the Faith compatible with the "needs" of modern man. Such a view is not Catholic. It is of the essence of Modernism, which is the synthesis of all heresies, combining bits of Catholic truth with bits of Modernist errors.

To believe, therefore, that "progress" is being made in the direction of the authentic Tradition of the Catholic Church by the conciliarists is tantamount to answering the dinner bell on the Titanic as it is sinking, an image provided by Father Francis Miller, O.F.M., following my lecture at Christ the King Church in Lafayette, Louisiana, on Friday evening, March 16,2007. The root cause of the the liturgical abuses in the conciliar church is conciliarsm, of which the Novus Ordo Missae is a chief vessel through which to propagate novelties that are odds with the authentic patrimony of the Catholic Church. One cannot salvage that which is not of God and promotes errors that have been condemned repeatedly by the Catholic Church from time immemorial.

While we pray for the conversion of the conciliarists to the fullness of the Catholic Faith and hope that they will publicly abjure their errors so as to help undo the damage they have done by deceiving so many for so long, it is long past time for us to stop praising the emperor's new clothes. Believe me, I was guilty of doing this for a long, long time. There comes a time when we have to recognize that "clothing the emperor" with Catholicism does the cause of the Catholic Faith no good whatsoever.

Entrusting ourselves as always as the consecrated slaves of Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, through which Heart we offer our acts of reparation to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, we remain steadfast in our adherence to the Catholic Faith as it is protected in the catacombs by bishops and priests who make no concessions whatsoever to the legitimacy of conciliarism and of conciliarism's false shepherds. Conscious of making reparation for our own sins, which wounded Our Lord during His Passion and Death and which wound His Mystical Body today, may we use the remaining three weeks of Lent to plant a few seeds for the restoration of the Catholic Church in all of her glory, a restoration of which the Social Reign of Christ the King and of Mary our Immaculate Queen will be paramount.

Vivat Christus Rex!

Viva Cristo Rey!

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.


Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Jude, pray for us.

Saint John the Beloved, pray for us.

Saint Frances of Rome, pray for us.

Saint John Bosco, pray for us.

Saint Dominic Savio, pray for us.

Saint John of God, pray for us.

Saint  Scholastica, pray for us.

Saint Benedict, pray for us.

Saint Anthony of Padua, pray for us.

Saint Francis of Assisi, pray for us.

Saint Thomas Aquinas, pray for us.

Saint Bonaventure, pray for us.

Saint Augustine, pray for us.

Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, pray for us.

Saint Francis Xavier, pray for us.

Saint Peter Damian, pray for us.

Saint Frances Xavier Cabrini, pray for us.

Saint Lucy, pray for us.

Saint Monica, pray for us.

Saint Agatha, pray for us.

Saint Philomena, pray for us.

Saint Cecilia, pray for us.

Saint John Mary Vianney, pray for us.

Saint Vincent de Paul, pray for us.

Saint Vincent Ferrer, pray for us.

Saint Athanasius, pray for us.

Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque, pray for us.

Saint Isaac Jogues, pray for us.

Saint Rene Goupil, pray for us.

Saint John Lalonde, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel Lalemont, pray for us.

Saint Noel Chabanel, pray for us.

Saint Charles Garnier, pray for us.

Saint Anthony Daniel, pray for us.

Saint John DeBrebeuf, pray for us.

Saint Alphonsus de Liguori, pray for us.

Saint Dominic, pray for us.

Saint Hyacinth, pray for us.

Saint Basil, pray for us.

Saint Vincent Ferrer, pray for us.

Saint Sebastian, pray for us.

Saint Tarcisius, pray for us.

Saint Bridget of Sweden, pray for us.

Saint Gerard Majella, pray for us.

Saint John of the Cross, pray for us.

Saint Teresa of Avila, pray for us.

Saint Bernadette Soubirous, pray for us.

Saint Genevieve, pray for us.

Saint Vincent de Paul, pray for us.

Pope Saint Pius X, pray for us

Pope Saint Pius V, pray for us.

Saint Rita of Cascia, pray for us.

Venerable Anne Catherine Emmerich, pray for us.

Venerable Pauline Jaricot, pray for us.

Father Miguel Augustin Pro, pray for us.

Francisco Marto, pray for us.

Jacinta Marto, pray for us.

Juan Diego, pray for us.


The Longer Version of the Saint Michael the Archangel Prayer, composed by Pope Leo XIII, 1888

O glorious Archangel Saint Michael, Prince of the heavenly host, be our defense in the terrible warfare which we carry on against principalities and powers, against the rulers of this world of darkness, spirits of evil.  Come to the aid of man, whom God created immortal, made in His own image and likeness, and redeemed at a great price from the tyranny of the devil.  Fight this day the battle of our Lord, together with  the holy angels, as already thou hast fought the leader of the proud angels, Lucifer, and his apostate host, who were powerless to resist thee, nor was there place for them any longer in heaven.  That cruel, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil or Satan who seduces the whole world, was cast into the abyss with his angels.  Behold this primeval enemy and slayer of men has taken courage.  Transformed into an angel of light, he wanders about with all the multitude of wicked spirits, invading the earth in order to blot out the Name of God and of His Christ, to seize upon, slay, and cast into eternal perdition, souls destined for the crown of eternal glory.  That wicked dragon pours out. as a most impure flood, the venom of his malice on men of depraved mind and corrupt heart, the spirit of lying, of impiety, of blasphemy, and the pestilent breath of impurity, and of every vice and iniquity.  These most crafty enemies have filled and inebriated with gall and bitterness the Church, the spouse of the Immaculate Lamb, and have laid impious hands on Her most sacred possessions. In the Holy Place itself, where has been set up the See of the most holy Peter and the Chair of Truth for the light of the world, they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety with the iniquitous design that when the Pastor has been struck the sheep may be scattered.  Arise then, O invincible Prince, bring help against the attacks of the lost spirits to the people of God, and give them the victory.  They venerate thee as their protector and patron; in thee holy Church glories as her defense against the malicious powers of hell; to thee has God entrusted the souls of men to be established in heavenly beatitude.  Oh, pray to the God of peace that He may put Satan under our feet, so far conquered that he may no longer be able to hold men in captivity and harm the Church.  Offer our prayers in the sight of the Most High, so that they may quickly conciliate the mercies of the Lord; and beating down the dragon, the ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, do thou again make him captive in the abyss, that he may no longer seduce the nations.  Amen.

Verse: Behold the Cross of the Lord; be scattered ye hostile powers.

Response: The Lion of the Tribe of Juda has conquered the root of David.

Verse: Let Thy mercies be upon us, O Lord.

Response: As we have hoped in Thee.

Verse: O Lord hear my prayer.

Response: And let my cry come unto Thee.

Verse: Let us pray.  O God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, we call upon Thy holy Name, and as suppliants, we implore Thy clemency, that by the intercession of Mary, ever Virgin, immaculate and our Mother, and of the glorious Archangel Saint Michael, Thou wouldst deign to help us against Satan and all other unclean spirits, who wander about the world for the injury of the human race and the ruin of our souls. 

Response:  Amen.  











© Copyright 2007, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.