Does the Defense of Catholic Truth Matter to You?

by Thomas A. Droleskey

So many in the delusional world of the "resist but recognize" movement, noting three or so notable exceptions who have the intellectual honesty to recognize that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI defects from the Catholic Faith in numerous ways without, most unfortunately, coming to realize that the acceptance of the fact that the man is not a true "pope" is not a mater of "temptation" or "psychological readiness" (the acceptance of truth is an obligation no matter the reaction of others), continue to close their eyes and shut their ears to relentless war that the conciliar revolutionaries continue to make upon the Holy Faith.

They have become the equivalent of the "high Anglicans" who complained for decades about what they viewed as "progressivism" in the heretical and schismatic Anglican sect while continuing to be retain their "membership" in that false church because it is simply part of their "tradition." It is indeed very ironic that those "high Anglicans" who have been received into the conciliar structures in the past two years now live under men who are almost identical in their beliefs to "progressives" in the Anglican sect from which they have fled. Those in the Motu world must convince themselves that it is a virtue to pretend that all they need is "the Mass" (never mind, of course, that it is a modernized, truncated version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition that was only in effect universally in the conciliar church for three years) and that they are "better" than those in the Novus Ordo and those crazy, infighting freaks or "bleeps" who accept that the canonical doctrinal of sedevacantism applies in these times. They must convince themselves that it is not necessary to defend the honor and glory and majesty of the Most Blessed Trinity when it is under attack by the very men from whom they seek recognition and "approval."

Mind you, there are a lot of those who adhere to sedevacantism who can be just as haughty and filled with a sense of moral superiority. There are "older sedes" who resent "converts" as having to place at the "table" with them, who are "superior" for having seen things more clearly far sooner. This has always prompted me to chuckle, "Saint Paul the Apostle would have had a tough time with this crowd."

Sure, fallen human nature is what it is. Granted.

However, it is nevertheless true that the blandishments of the conciliar authorities have "pacified the spirits" of both priests/presbyters and members of the laity who used to talk the big talk about how terrible conciliarism and how stupid it was for anyone to seek to defend Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II. The talk was all that, talk. Nothing else. And even that "talk" has gone away as Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has carefully and methodically sought to neutralize his "right" flank so as to further institutionalize his conciliar revolution according to his philosophically absurd and dogmatically condemned "hermeneutic of continuity" that he uses to "discover" the "true" meaning of the "Second" Vatican Council as "understood" "in light of Tradition." As has been pointed out numerous times on this site, Ratzinger/Benedict's "hermeneutic of continuity" makes a mockery of all truth and subjects his own "interpretation" to further "adjustments" by successor of his if it is God's Holy Will to chastise us further by having men such as Joseph Ratzinger masquerade as true successors of Saint Peter.

Why is anyone "shocked," therefore, by Joseph Augustine Di Noia's belief that the members of the Society of Saint Pius X have to be "converted" to accept conciliar teachings, especially concerning Talmudism, when Joseph Ratzinger himself has told us this for thirty years now?

 

 

Among the more obvious phenomena of the last years must be counted the increasing number of integralist groups in which the desire for piety, for the sense of mystery, is finding satisfaction. We must be on our guard against minimizing these movements. Without a doubt, they represent a sectarian zealotry that is the antithesis of Catholicity. We cannot resist them too firmly. (Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, pp. 389-390)

It is true that there have been exaggerations and at times social aspects unduly linked to the attitude of the faithful attached to the ancient Latin liturgical tradition. Your charity and pastoral prudence will be an incentive and guide for improving these. For that matter, the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching: new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal.  The “Ecclesia Dei” Commission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the usus antiquior, will study the practical possibilities in this regard. The celebration of the Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI will be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than has been the case hitherto, the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage.  The most sure guarantee that the Missal of Paul VI can unite parish communities and be loved by them consists in its being celebrated with great reverence in harmony with the liturgical directives. This will bring out the spiritual richness and the theological depth of this Missal. (Letter to the "Bishops" that accompanies the Motu Proprio Summorum)

Father Federico Lombardi, S.J., Director of the Holy See Press Office: What do you say to those who, in France, fear that the "Motu proprio' Summorum Pontificum signals a step backwards from the great insights of the Second Vatican Council? How can you reassure them?

Benedict XVI: Their fear is unfounded, for this "Motu Proprio' is merely an act of tolerance, with a pastoral aim, for those people who were brought up with this liturgy, who love it, are familiar with it and want to live with this liturgy. They form a small group, because this presupposes a schooling in Latin, a training in a certain culture. Yet for these people, to have the love and tolerance to let them live with this liturgy seems to me a normal requirement of the faith and pastoral concern of any Bishop of our Church. There is no opposition between the liturgy renewed by the Second Vatican Council and this liturgy.

On each day [of the Council], the Council Fathers celebrated Mass in accordance with the ancient rite and, at the same time, they conceived of a natural development for the liturgy within the whole of this century, for the liturgy is a living reality that develops but, in its development, retains its identity. Thus, there are certainly different accents, but nevertheless [there remains] a fundamental identity that excludes a contradiction, an opposition between the renewed liturgy and the previous liturgy. In any case, I believe that there is an opportunity for the enrichment of both parties. On the one hand the friends of the old liturgy can and must know the new saints, the new prefaces of the liturgy, etc.... On the other, the new liturgy places greater emphasis on common participation, but it is not merely an assembly of a certain community, but rather always an act of the universal Church in communion with all believers of all times, and an act of worship. In this sense, it seems to me that there is a mutual enrichment, and it is clear that the renewed liturgy is the ordinary liturgy of our time. (Interview of the Holy Father during the flight to France, September 12, 2008.)

Liturgical worship is the supreme expression of priestly and episcopal life, just as it is of catechetical teaching. Your duty to sanctify the faithful people, dear Brothers, is indispensable for the growth of the Church. In the Motu Proprio “Summorum Pontificum”, I was led to set out the conditions in which this duty is to be exercised, with regard to the possibility of using the missal of Blessed John XXIII (1962) in addition to that of Pope Paul VI (1970). Some fruits of these new arrangements have already been seen, and I hope that, thanks be to God, the necessary pacification of spirits is already taking place. I am aware of your difficulties, but I do not doubt that, within a reasonable time, you can find solutions satisfactory for all, lest the seamless tunic of Christ be further torn. Everyone has a place in the Church. Every person, without exception, should be able to feel at home, and never rejected. God, who loves all men and women and wishes none to be lost, entrusts us with this mission by appointing us shepherds of his sheep. We can only thank him for the honour and the trust that he has placed in us. Let us therefore strive always to be servants of unity! (Meeting with the French Bishops in the Hemicycle Sainte-Bernadette, Lourdes, 14 September 2008.)

Leading men and women to God, to the God Who speaks in the Bible: this is the supreme and fundamental priority of the Church and of the Successor of Peter at the present time. A logical consequence of this is that we must have at heart the unity of all believers. Their disunity, their disagreement among themselves, calls into question the credibility of their talk of God. Hence the effort to promote a common witness by Christians to their faith - ecumenism - is part of the supreme priority. Added to this is the need for all those who believe in God to join in seeking peace, to attempt to draw closer to one another, and to journey together, even with their differing images of God, towards the source of Light - this is inter-religious dialogue. Whoever proclaims that God is Love 'to the end' has to bear witness to love: in loving devotion to the suffering, in the rejection of hatred and enmity - this is the social dimension of the Christian faith, of which I spoke in the Encyclical 'Deus caritas est'.

"So if the arduous task of working for faith, hope and love in the world is presently (and, in various ways, always) the Church's real priority, then part of this is also made up of acts of reconciliation, small and not so small. That the quiet gesture of extending a hand gave rise to a huge uproar, and thus became exactly the opposite of a gesture of reconciliation, is a fact which we must accept. But I ask now: Was it, and is it, truly wrong in this case to meet half-way the brother who 'has something against you' and to seek reconciliation? Should not civil society also try to forestall forms of extremism and to incorporate their eventual adherents - to the extent possible - in the great currents shaping social life, and thus avoid their being segregated, with all its consequences? Can it be completely mistaken to work to break down obstinacy and narrowness, and to make space for what is positive and retrievable for the whole? I myself saw, in the years after 1988, how the return of communities which had been separated from Rome changed their interior attitudes; I saw how returning to the bigger and broader Church enabled them to move beyond one-sided positions and broke down rigidity so that positive energies could emerge for the whole. Can we be totally indifferent about a community which has 491 priests, 215 seminarians, 6 seminaries, 88 schools, 2 university-level institutes, 117 religious brothers, 164 religious sisters and thousands of lay faithful? Should we casually let them drift farther from the Church? I think for example of the 491 priests. We cannot know how mixed their motives may be. All the same, I do not think that they would have chosen the priesthood if, alongside various distorted and unhealthy elements, they did not have a love for Christ and a desire to proclaim Him and, with Him, the living God. Can we simply exclude them, as representatives of a radical fringe, from our pursuit of reconciliation and unity? What would then become of them?

"Certainly, for some time now, and once again on this specific occasion, we have heard from some representatives of that community many unpleasant things - arrogance and presumptuousness, an obsession with one-sided positions, etc. Yet to tell the truth, I must add that I have also received a number of touching testimonials of gratitude which clearly showed an openness of heart. But should not the great Church also allow herself to be generous in the knowledge of her great breadth, in the knowledge of the promise made to her? Should not we, as good educators, also be capable of overlooking various faults and making every effort to open up broader vistas? And should we not admit that some unpleasant things have also emerged in Church circles? At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach them - in this case the Pope - he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint. (Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church concerning the remission of the excommunication of the four Bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre, March 10, 2009.)

We have been told by various members of the false "pope's" curia that even the "new and improved" Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service is not meant to last. Neither is the modernized version of Immemorial Mass of Tradition whose stagings Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI himself admitted in 2008 represent "an act of tolerance" on his part. Get with it, you delusional people in the Motu world and elsewhere in the "resist but recognize" movement: your "pope" is merely "tolerating" you and your modernized version of the Traditional Mass for the sake of aesthetics and liturgical archaism, not as a matter of Faith or of personal conviction.

Look at the reality that is ahead of you. Look at it:

 

 

From this point of view, then, the new prayer for the Jews in the liturgy in the ancient rite does not weaken, but postulates an enrichment of the meaning of the prayer in use in the modern rite. Exactly like in other cases, it is the modern rite that postulates an enriching evolution of the ancient rite. In a liturgy that is perennially alive, as the Catholic liturgy is, this is the meaning of the coexistence between the two rites, ancient and modern, as intended by Benedict XVI with the motu proprio "Summorum Pontificum."

This is a coexistence that is not destined to endure, but to fuse in the future "in a single Roman rite once again," taking the best from both of these. This is what then-cardinal Ratzinger wrote in 2003 – revealing a deeply held conviction – in a letter to an erudite representative of Lefebvrist traditionalism, the German philologist Heinz-Lothar Barth. (Sandro Magister, A Bishop and a Rabbi Defend the Prayer for the Salvation of the Jews.)

"Neither the Missal of Pius V and John XXIII -- used by a small minority -- nor that of Paul VI -- used today with much spiritual fruit by the greatest majority -- will be the final 'law of prayer' of the Catholic Church." ("Father" Federico Lombardi, Zenit, July 15, 2007.)

 

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Pope Benedict XVI's easing of restrictions on use of the 1962 Roman Missal, known as the Tridentine rite, is just the first step in a "reform of the reform" in liturgy, the Vatican's top ecumenist said.

The pope's long-term aim is not simply to allow the old and new rites to coexist, but to move toward a "common rite" that is shaped by the mutual enrichment of the two Mass forms, Cardinal Kurt Koch, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, said May 14.

In effect, the pope is launching a new liturgical reform movement, the cardinal said. Those who resist it, including "rigid" progressives, mistakenly view the Second Vatican Council as a rupture with the church's liturgical tradition, he said.

Cardinal Koch made the remarks at a Rome conference on "Summorum Pontificum," Pope Benedict's 2007 apostolic letter that offered wider latitude for use of the Tridentine rite. The cardinal's text was published the same day by L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper.

Cardinal Koch said Pope Benedict thinks the post-Vatican II liturgical changes have brought "many positive fruits" but also problems, including a focus on purely practical matters and a neglect of the paschal mystery in the Eucharistic celebration. The cardinal said it was legitimate to ask whether liturgical innovators had intentionally gone beyond the council's stated intentions.

He said this explains why Pope Benedict has introduced a new reform movement, beginning with "Summorum Pontificum." The aim, he said, is to revisit Vatican II's teachings in liturgy and strengthen certain elements, including the Christological and sacrificial dimensions of the Mass.

Cardinal Koch said "Summorum Pontificum" is "only the beginning of this new liturgical movement."

"In fact, Pope Benedict knows well that, in the long term, we cannot stop at a coexistence between the ordinary form and the extraordinary form of the Roman rite, but that in the future the church naturally will once again need a common rite," he said.

"However, because a new liturgical reform cannot be decided theoretically, but requires a process of growth and purification, the pope for the moment is underlining above all that the two forms of the Roman rite can and should enrich each other," he said.

Cardinal Koch said those who oppose this new reform movement and see it as a step back from Vatican II lack a proper understanding of the post-Vatican II liturgical changes. As the pope has emphasized, Vatican II was not a break or rupture with tradition but part of an organic process of growth, he said.

On the final day of the conference, participants attended a Mass celebrated according to the Tridentine rite at the Altar of the Chair in St. Peter's Basilica. Cardinal Walter Brandmuller presided over the liturgy. It was the first time in several decades that the old rite was celebrated at the altar. (Benedict's 'reform of the reform' in liturgy to continue, cardinal says.)

So few people want to believe the evidence that is front of them. So very, very few.

Indeed, I was told in late-2005 by a well-meaning traditional Catholic that he was promoting the work of the newly "elected" Joseph Ratzinger because he had a "strategy" to "win over" Ratzinger to the tradition: show him that tradtionally-minded Catholics supported him, believing that doing so would "liberate" the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition. Even though I was six months away from concluding what I should have concluded years before concerning the true state of the Church, I recognized that this "strategy" was just flat out wrong as one can never morally promote heresies and errors in order to defend truth.

The sad truth is, of course, that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has had a strategy all of his very own. His strategy has been convince well-meaning traditionally-minded Catholics that is indeed in their interests to trust him to give them a "place" in his conciliar church while he purchases silence from them in exchange for his "generosity" to them which has been, you see, just an act of "toleration" to get rid to shut up their mouths once and for all.

Many traditionally-minded Catholics have learned to keep their mouths shut about things that they know all too very well are offensive to God and harmful to souls. They are content to live in their little chapels. Some, including a presbyter in the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter with whom we spoke some years ago now, believe that they have "no obligation to oppose error." If readers do not understand how this is just manifestly opposed to the obligations imposed upon us by the Sacrament of Confirmation to be soldiers in the Army of Christ, then they can just continue to look the other way as Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI continues to offend God by his own words and actions and as they continue men who agree him and who are shameless in their attacks on Catholic doctrine about the Mother of God herself, the Blessed Virgin Mother.

Yes, so very few people in the traditional world who are attached to the conciliar structures want to defend the very honor of the Mother of God that has been attacked by the conciliar revolutionaries so entirely.

Remember, after having watched a private screening of the Protestant-produced, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict personally authorized it world premiere to be held at the Paul VI Audience Hall on Sunday, November 26, 2006, the first Sunday in Advent, just four days before he took off his shoes upon entering a mosque in Istanbul, Turkey, and turned in the direction of Mecca at the best of his Mohammedan host and assumed the Mohammedan prayer position as his host prayed to his false god that is a servant of the devil himself. Need a reminder about how The Nativity Story blasphemed the Mother of God? Here is a description distributed by the directors of the Apostolate of Our Lady of Good Success after having witnessed this travesty for themselves in December of 2006:

 

 

On December 2, 2006,  on the First Saturday of December, we went to the local movie theater to watch the movie “The Nativity Story." Based on previous reviews of this movie that we had heard, and the fact that the Vatican2 held a premier showing of this movie, we were expecting a movie that at the very least held to Catholic beliefs.  However, from the very beginning of the movie we soon realized our high expectations had to be thrown into the trash, for as the movie progressed, we became more and more disappointed.

The overall conclusion of this movie is that it is not a catholic movie at all, but at best a Protestant movie directed by men who did not even follow the Biblical account of the birth of Christ. At worst, it is a vile anti-Christian movie created by people who hate Christ and His Church and whose main motive was to defame the name of the Blessed Mother and warp the story of the Birth of Jesus.

As mentioned before this movie discredits our Catholic beliefs, beliefs that are so essential to our Faith that if we do not believe in them, the Church no longer considers us Catholic. What beliefs are these that have been maligned? It is those beliefs which we hold sacred: the Immaculate Conception and the Virgin Birth.

In one of the very first scenes of the movie, Mary is shown with her friends, sowing a field of what looks to be corn.  These friends of Mary give sideways glances and smiles to each other after looking at a group of boys that are nearby.  Then one of these girls runs to tackle one of the boys and what ensues appears to be a pile up of youths in the cornfield with Mary sort of participating in on the outer edges of this entanglement.  Then from the house emerges Mary’s mother looking stern and upset.  She calls to Mary and shakes her head “No.”   The fact that Mary looks to have been participating in some kind of impropriety and had to be corrected by her mother is beyond belief but this is only one occurrence of “sinning” on the part of Mary.  For throughout the first part of the movie, Mary is depicted as any normal 14 year old given to sullen, sulky moods.  This movie shows her to be unhappy with the future marriage that is being arranged for her by her parents (which we know to be historically incorrect).  She walks out of her house in defiance when her father tells her that she is now betrothed to Joseph. These scenes call into question the dogma of the Immaculate Conception issued by Pope Pius IX in 1854. 

It also was implied in the betrothal scene that Mary and Joseph planned on a large family as Mary’s parents indicated that they were to live as husband and wife in every way for one year except for that one act that would produce a family.  Joseph began building the home for Mary and their future children indicating Joseph was planning on having many children.    This is in line with the Protestant viewpoint that Mary and Joseph had many children after Jesus and counters the Catholic Church as it has always taught that both Mary and Joseph took vows of virginity and mutually consented to live as virgins in the married state.

The scene of Annunciation was not anything that a catholic would contemplate while saying the rosary.  They depicted Mary reclining under a tree in the middle of the day while others were around her working.  What is supposed to be the “Archangel Gabriel” is first shown as a hawk and then as a man with an Afro-like hairstyle and white robe looking as if he could be a son of Cheech or Chong. The “angel” had no mystical or holy appearance and he is shown at quite a distance from Mary.  The portrayal makes you wonder if he’s truly Heaven sent.

The Visitation was portrayed as an excuse to run away from her “intended”, Joseph. A way out all of it- as if the whole idea of the coming of Our Lord and the idea of marriage was too much for her. The Magnificat was left out of this scene; however it was partially narrated at the end of the movie omitting the first half of this beautiful prayer:

“ My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my savior; Because he has regarded the lowliness of his handmaid; for, behold, henceforth all generations shall call me blessed; because he who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name; And his mercy is from generation to generation on those who fear him...”

You can be certain, upon looking at these omitted words, just why they were omitted and the intentions of the creators of this vile cinematography!

The birth of Saint John was very degrading.   This scene is about two minutes long, depicting Elizabeth holding her upper body up off a chair by holding onto ropes, screaming from pain while two women are ready to receive the child. She delivers, while Mary, with a horrified look on her face, stands by watching.   This scene is not suitable for children to watch.

During Mary’s absence at Elizabeth’s, Saint Joseph was portrayed as being upset that Mary left.  Also were included, implications that Joseph did not expect Mary to come back, as in one scene where he was deep in thought pondering his future with Mary holding his carpenter tools – then suddenly with a look of frustration and anger, he throws his tools to the ground.  Saintly behavior for sure!

When Mary had returned to Nazareth, Joseph was excited to see her. However, on lifting her from the wagon he discovered that she was heavy with child and walked away upset.  Mary tried to convince her parents and Joseph that she was not pregnant due to another man but that “an angel” appeared to her and told her she was going to have a baby.  There was no evidence of any of the three believing Mary.  It was implied that Joseph was ready to stone Mary until he had a vision through a dream (with that “angel” again) that Mary was telling the truth.

The traveling of Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem was the best of all scenes in the movie.  But even during this trip there was an occurrence that was disturbing.  While Mary and Joseph were walking through a market of a town, a palm reading woman offered Mary a small piece of cheese or bread which Mary accepted but then this sorceress read Mary’s palm and claimed she was going to have a son. Mary accepted this prophecy with a smile and Joseph shook the woman’s hand, thanked her and then they continued their journey.  The implication was that Joseph and Mary had no objection to fortune tellers.

The scene of the Nativity was extremely heretical. Besides this grave evil, again we find it necessary to say that this movie should not be viewed by children.  Mary was shown to be in labor while she was in the town of Bethlehem.  Joseph rushed around carrying Mary in a frantic state trying to find a room for her as she groaned and breathed heavily as if she had taken Lamaze lessons.  The worst of the worst occurs once they arrive at the stable with Joseph kneeling ready to deliver the baby.  He partially lifts Mary’s dress putting his hands between her legs ready to receive the child.   Mary is laboring, her face sweating and in extreme pain with all of the normal actions of a woman in a delivery room and then she gives birth.  Joseph raises Jesus in the air showing the baby covered with blood and Joseph laughs for joy totally discrediting belief in the Virgin Birth. There is no sign of worship or adoration by either Mary or Joseph. 

Therefore this was not only a Protestant view of the Nativity but also indirectly an act of disbelief in the Divinity of Jesus. There was no indication that Mary and Joseph believed Jesus to be God. 

Meanwhile, the Archangel Gabriel (yes, that same “angel”) appears to one shepherd to inform him of the birth.  There are no other angels that appear as stated in St. Luke’s Gospel “And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying glory to god and the highest on earth peace among men of good will.”

 

One by one, the shepherds seem to be leaving their sheep in a “zombie-like trance” and seen walking NOT RUNNING toward the star as it would seem natural to do considering they received this great news from a heavenly vision of great beauty!  There was no joy exhibited in this scene by these shepherds.  It only looked as if these guys were told to walk to this cave and stare at something…  When the shepherds arrive at the stable Mary is seen reclining and holding the child; he is not lying in the manger.  None of the shepherds worship or adore the child and they arrived simultaneously with the three Kings. Who neither appear to be worshipping him.  Then there is this GREAT pause in the movie as we look on at this living Nativity Scene. Some kind of cold, blue lighting is glaring on Baby Jesus that causes him to keep his eyes closed.  Surely they could have done better than this!

This was to be the culmination of the greatest act of love – God becoming Man to die for us!  And yet this movie could not convey even a hint of this profound act of God. 

 And so it is, with all of these facts exposed for your examination, we refute and condemn this movie, “The Nativity.”

Since these cinematographers (who incidentally were the same ones that produced “The Lord of the Rings Trilogy” and had well within their grasp the ability and capability to make a work that would honor Our Lady and Our Lord instead of dishonor them) offended and blasphemed in a seemingly intentional way the Immaculate Heart of Mary in not just one way but ALL FIVE ways that Our Lady had mentioned in her apparitions to Sr Lucia of Fatima, we sincerely hope and pray that our small effort to undo this travesty will help those of you who read this to know the truth and join us in making reparation for this movie by  following the directives of the Queen of Heaven:

‘Look, my daughter, at my Heart, surrounded with thorns with which ungrateful men pierce at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You at least try to console me and say that I promise to assist, at the hour of death, with the graces necessary for salvation, all those who, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months, shall confess, receive Holy Communion, recite five decades of the Rosary, and keep me company for fifteen minutes while meditating on the fifteen mysteries of the Rosary, with the intention of making reparation to me.’”

1) No one has the right to blaspheme the Mother of God by portraying her as prone to disobedience or temper tantrums. The Blessed Virgin Mary was filled with grace from the first moment of her conception. There were no disorderly inclinations in her at all. She was filled with the love of God from the first moment of her conception, growing in grace throughout her life, as is explained below in an excerpt taken from Adolph Tanquerey's A Manual of Dogmatic Theology. Scenes portraying Our Lady as moody or sulky or disobedient to her parents or not desirous of marrying Saint Joseph are great blasphemies against the doctrine of the Divine Maternity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, defined dogmatically at the Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D., and of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, defined dogmatically by Pope Pius IX in 1854 but having been part of the Catholic Faith from time immemorial.

2) No one has the right to blaspheme the Mother of God by portraying the Nativity of her Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, as involving laborious effort and/or pain on her part. The Catholic Church teaches dogmatically that Our Lady, having been preserved from Original Sin as a result of her Immaculate Conception, delivered Our Lord painlessly, that He passed through her womb miraculously. Painful childbirth is a punishment for Original Sin. Anyone who says that the depiction of Our Lady undergoing a painful Childbirth is not an attack on the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception does not know his Catholic Faith.

3) No one has the right to blaspheme Good Saint Joseph by suggesting that he did not immediately accept the will of God after Saint Gabriel the Archangel had informed him in a dream that Our Lady was with child by the Holy Ghost. Saint Joseph, the just and silent man of the House of David, accepted the will of God with equanimity, providing the model for all Catholic fathers to imitate. It is a constant tradition of the Catholic Church that Saint Joseph knew full well that Mary had pledged herself to a life of perpetual virginity and that he consented to this without complaint. Any depiction of Saint Joseph as doubting Our Lady after Saint Gabriel appeared to him in a dream is attack on the justice, charity and chastity of the foster-father of the Son of God.

4) No one has the right to blaspheme Saints Joachim and Anne by depicting them as disbelieving their daughter, whom they knew to be wholly devoted to God after having given her over to His holy service at the age of three and without any rebellious or sinful tendencies whatsoever. Once again, this is attack, albeit implicit, on the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception in that such a depiction is meant to convey the belief that Saints Joachim and Anne believed that they daughter was capable of deceit, which they knew she had never practiced one day in her life.

5) No one has the right to show Saint Elizabeth, who carried the Precursor of the Messiah in her own womb, as yelling at Our Lady. Saint Elizabeth was grateful for Our Lady's Visitation, which began on April 2 and lasted until the Presentation of Saint John the Baptist in the Temple on July 2. This was a period of great joy and solemnity between the mother of the Precursor of Precursor of the Divine Redeemer and Blessed Mother of the Divine Redeemer Himself.

The Nativity Story was a Protestant attack on the Catholic Faith, one that has received the full endorsement of the false "pontiff" himself and whose showing was prefaced by remarks made by the recently deceased John "Cardinal" Foley, who was the president of the "Pontifical" Council for Social Communications from April 5, 1984, to the time of his death on December 11, 2011. Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI does not believe in the doctrinal effects of Our Lady's Immaculate Conception. Every element of the Catholic Faith for him is a matter of subjectivism that he, as a self-admitted rationalist, must be "understood" by the "believer" in a way that is "relevant" for him, which is what he has done so ably throughout his wretched career of priestly apostasy.

Ratzinger/Benedict's appointment of fellow apostate Gerhard Ludwig Muller, whose own career of apostasy was highlighted in brief two days ago in Deft? Daft Is More Like It, part two, to be William "Cardinal" Levada's successor at the conciliar church's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is thus no surprise at all. Ratzinger/Benedict and Muller are complete theological soulmates. It means nothing to the false "pope" that Muller denies the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Our Lady as he does not believe in the doctrine as it has been defined by Holy Mother Church. Does this matter to you?

The meaning of the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary is not subject to "reinterpretation" according to the ever-convoluted and complex ways of the illogical, subjectivist methodology of the "new theology." Its meaning was expressed perfectly by Adolph Tanquerey in A Manual of Dogmatic Theology:

 

3. Mary's Perpetual Virginity

836. Thesis: Mary was always a virgin: before the birth, during the birth, after the birth. This thesis is de fide according to the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Church and according to the Lateran Council (649): "If anyone refuses to confess, in accordance with the holy fathers, that Mary was properly speaking and of a truth the holy mother of God and always an immaculate virgin, that is, that she conceived God the Word Himself, specifically and truly, of the Holy Ghost without seed, and gave birth, without corruption while her virginity continued unimpaired after the brith, let him be condemned.."

A. Scripture clearly teaches that Mary conceived Christ in a virginal manner. St. Luke narrates that the Blessed Virgin, at the time that the Angel told her that she would give birth to the Son of the Most High replied in these words: "How shall this be done because I know not man"?, that the angel replied: "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee". St. Matthew, however, relates that the Angel said to Joseph, who was minded to put away his pregnant spouse: "Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife; for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost". Nothing is stated explicitly about Mary's virginity at the time of the birth and after the birth; but from the words "I know not man" the Fathers correctly infer that Mary had made the resolution of preserving perpetual virginity.

837. B. Tradition.

1. All the Fathers, even the most ancient, in affirming, contrary to the Ebionists and the Corinthians, that Christ is God, teach at the same time that Christ was born of a virgin and thereby deny that God was born of a non-virgin. Thus Aristedes states that Mary conceived without seed; St. Justin often repeats that Christ was born of a virgin; St. Irenaeus not only says as much, but also insists that this is one of those truths which must be believed and which are contained in the rule of faith. St. Hippolytus testifies that this truth is the tradition of the Apostles. In all symbols it is contained.

2. In the fourth century St. Jerome, opposing Helvidius, showed that Mary in the birth remained a virgin. Similarly did St. Augustine: "If her (Mary's) integrity were destroyed by the birth of Christ, He would not be born of a virgin and the entire Church would be falsely acknowledging Him as born of a virgin, the Church which daily imitates His mother and bears His members and is a virgin".

This teaching the Fathers illustrate with comparisons: just as Christ rose from the sealed tomb and entered into the midst `of the disciples through closed doors, so in being born he broke forth, the seal of virginity remaining inviolate; just as the ray of sun penetrates the crystal without any injury to the crystal, so Jesus came forth from his mother's womb, her virginity unimpaired.

3. Mary remained a virgin even after birth.

 

 

a. The Fathers rejected the opinion of many Apollinarists, of Helvidius, of Jovinian, as madness and blasphemy, sacrilege, impiety, perfidy, heresy. Among the Latins St. Ambrose writes: "There have been those who denied that she (Mary) continued on as a virgin. We have preferred to ignore so great a sacrilege". Didymus, one of the Greek Fathers, calls Mary always a virgin.

b. The Fathers gave this doctrine not as a private opinion, but as the belief of the Church; they appeal to the understanding and affections of the Christian people: "Who ever existed that dared to invoke the name of holy Mary and, having called upon her, did not add: virgin? thus the name of virgin has been given to Mary and never will there be a change; for that holy one remained inviolate". In passing we mention the fact that many Protestants have no hesitancy in acknowledging that this was the belief of the early Church.

839 C. Reason shows that it is altogether fitting that:

1. Christ was conceived and born of a virgin:

 

 

a. In keeping with the dignity of the Father: for, because the first person of the Holy Trinity is Christ's father, it was not proper that this dignity be transferred to some man;

b. In keeping with Christ's impeccability: it was not appropriate that Christ be liable to original sin through a natural conception;

c. In keeping with Christ's dignity: it was altogether fitting that he who has begotten by the Father alone be born in time in a virginal manner.

2. Mary preserved her virginity perpetually:

a. Because of the perfection of Christ--it was fitting that He be the only begotten of His mother, just as He is the only begotten of the Father;

b. Because of the dignity and sanctity of God's mother, who would appear most ungrateful if she were not content with so great a Son and had of her own accord lost her virginity which had been miraculously preserved. (Adolph Tanquerey, A Manual of Dogmatic Theology, from text found between pp. 102-111.)

 

Neither Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI or Gerhard Ludwig Muller believe any of this. Not one word of this.

Does this matter to you?

Does the defense of truth matter to you?

Apostates do not hang signs on themselves or wear shirts emblazoned with the words: "I am an Apostate. I believe in Anathematized Propositions." We have to use our reason to recognize what is Catholic from that which is of the devil, and the teaching of conciliarism are from the devil, something that is the case with each and every other false religion.

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has purchased the silence of so many traditionally-minded Catholics who are attached to the conciliar structures even as he personally tears down the last bastions of the Catholic Faith to reinforce the "great facade" of conciliarism on a brick-by-brick basis. He wants to leave a lasting legacy of apostasy. He is succeeding admirably.

We must speak up an we must flee from all that is not Catholic.

Yes, even members of the laity have that obligation:

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. Now, faith, as a virtue, is a great boon of divine grace and goodness; nevertheless, the objects themselves to which faith is to be applied are scarcely known in any other way than through the hearing. "How shall they believe Him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? Faith then cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ." Since, then, faith is necessary for salvation, it follows that the word of Christ must be preached. The office, indeed, of preaching, that is, of teaching, lies by divine right in the province of the pastors, namely, of the bishops whom "the Holy Spirit has placed to rule the Church of God.'' It belongs, above all, to the Roman Pontiff, vicar of Jesus Christ, established as head of the universal Church, teacher of all that pertains to morals and faith.

No one, however, must entertain the notion that private individuals are prevented from taking some active part in this duty of teaching, especially those on whom God has bestowed gifts of mind with the strong wish of rendering themselves useful. These, so often as circumstances demand, may take upon themselves, not, indeed, the office of the pastor, but the task of communicating to others what they have themselves received, becoming, as it were, living echoes of their masters in the faith. Such co-operation on the part of the laity has seemed to the Fathers of the Vatican Council so opportune and fruitful of good that they thought well to invite it. "All faithful Christians, but those chiefly who are in a prominent position, or engaged in teaching, we entreat, by the compassion of Jesus Christ, and enjoin by the authority of the same God and Savior, that they bring aid to ward off and eliminate these errors from holy Church, and contribute their zealous help in spreading abroad the light of undefiled faith.'' Let each one, therefore, bear in mind that he both can and should, so far as may be, preach the Catholic faith by the authority of his example, and by open and constant profession of the obligations it imposes. In respect, consequently, to the duties that bind us to God and the Church, it should be borne earnestly in mind that in propagating Christian truth and warding off errors the zeal of the laity should, as far as possible, be brought actively into play. (Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890.)

 

Yes, the false "pontiff," Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, is able to confuse so many baptized Catholics in large measure because the voices of those who say they believe in the Church's authentic Tradition have been muted as they have permitted their mouths to be muzzled and their hands and legs to be shackles by their false concessions to the conciliarism's novelties and errors as the price of their being in "good standing" with the counterfeit church of conciliarism. Anyone who believes himself to be a Catholic priest and refuses to denounce errors, no less to refuse (for fear of running afoul of the local conciliar "bishop") to seek out the lost sheep in the midst of Protestantism and the Talmud and Orthodoxy, and to act decisively by separating himself from the heretics who promote the conciliar errors is just as much a threat to the souls he seeks to serve as are those who errors he refuses to denounce.

Pope Leo XIII said on August 18, 1883, upon opening the Vatican Archives to scholars outside of the Catholic Church, that "The first law of history is not to dare to utter falsehood; the second, not to fear to speak the truth.” How many people are there today in the conciliar structures who know the truth but who fear to speak it? Thus Ratzinger/Benedict and his fellow gnostic revolutionaries of conciliarism have convinced believing Catholics that it is a virtue to remain silent in the face of error. Quite a feat of the devil.

Having recourse, as always, to Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart and by the supplications we give unto her each day through her Most Holy Rosary, we know that she stands ready to accept from us as the consecrated slaves of her Divine Son through that same Immaculate Heart all of our own prayers and sufferings and sacrifices and penances and humiliations during this time of betrayal and apostasy in ways that will only be made manifest to us in eternity, please God we persist by the graces that flow to us through her loving hands in states of Sanctifying Grace to the point of our dying breaths. There is no need for despair. She will have the Triumph of her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart. All we must do is to be faithful until the end as we pray as many Rosaries as our states-in-life permit, fleeing from everything to do with conciliarism and any acknowledgment of the "legitimacy" of its false shepherds.

These words of Pope Pius XI, written in Quas Primas, should once again inspire us to fight zealously for the Faith, never fearing to call error by its proper name as we seek to do penance for our own sins and those of the whole world as the sons and daughters of Mary our Immaculate Queen:

That these blessings may be abundant and lasting in Christian society, it is necessary that the kingship of our Savior should be as widely as possible recognized and understood, and to the end nothing would serve better than the institution of a special feast in honor of the Kingship of Christ. For people are instructed in the truths of faith, and brought to appreciate the inner joys of religion far more effectually by the annual celebration of our sacred mysteries than by any official pronouncement of the teaching of the Church. Such pronouncements usually reach only a few and the more learned among the faithful; feasts reach them all; the former speak but once, the latter speak every year -- in fact, forever. The church's teaching affects the mind primarily; her feasts affect both mind and heart, and have a salutary effect upon the whole of man's nature. Man is composed of body and soul, and he needs these external festivities so that the sacred rites, in all their beauty and variety, may stimulate him to drink more deeply of the fountain of God's teaching, that he may make it a part of himself, and use it with profit for his spiritual life.

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

It would be the duty of Catholics to do all they can to bring about this happy result [that is, the Triumph of Christ the King]. Many of these, however, have neither the station in society nor the authority which should belong to those who bear the torch of truth. This state of things may perhaps be attributed to a certain slowness and timidity in good people, who are reluctant to engage in conflict or oppose but a weak resistance; thus the enemies of the Church become bolder in their attacks. But if the faithful were generally to understand that it behooves them ever to fight courageously under the banner of Christ their King, then, fired with apostolic zeal, they would strive to win over to their Lord those hearts that are bitter and estranged from him, and would valiantly defend his rights. (Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas, December 11, 1925.)

 

Does the defense of Catholic truth matter to you?

It mattered to the martyrs. It should matter to us.

Viva Cristo Rey!

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

 

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us!

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

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 Anthony Mary Zaccaria, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints