Ever Faithful To False Gods

by Thomas A. Droleskey

 

“And the Lord spoke all these words: I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me.

"Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the sea.

"Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them: I am the Lord thy God, mighty, jealous, visiting iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me: and shewing mercy unto thousands to them that love me, and keep my commandments." (Exodus 20: 1-6)

 

The First Commandment is very clear: Catholics are forbidden to invoke the names of non-existent (and thus false) gods in any circumstance of life, whether privately or publicly. We are to love the true one and only true God, He who is a Trinity of Divine Persons--God the Father, God the Son, and God Holy Ghost--as He has revealed Himself solely through the Church He founded upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope. No other religion has any claim to being the authoritative repository of the Deposit of Faith. No other contemporary religion has been founded by God.

No, not Judaism. Why not?

Well, it's kind of like this. The Old Covenant that God had made with Moses was ended when the curtain in the Temple was torn from top to bottom at the moment of of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ's death on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday. God gave the Jews a period of thirty-seven years thereafter to hear the preaching of the Gospel before making known publicly His repudiation of them and the worthlessness of their false, superseded religion as the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in 70 A.D. and dispersed most of the Jews there. Contemporary Judaism, which is founded on the Talmud, has the power to save no one. It is a false religion. Catholics must work to make known the Gospel of the Divine Redeemer, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, as He has entrusted it to the Catholic Church, trying to do their very best to invite everyone they meet into the One Sheepfold of Christ, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order.

No, not Protestantism. Why not?

Well, it's sort of goes this way. Protestantism is a diabolical revolution against the Divine Plan that Our Lord Himself specifically instituted to effect man's return to Him through the Catholic Church. Protestantism is of the devil.

So is Mohammedanism, as has been pointed out on this site any number of times. Mohammedanism is of its evil nature intended to supplant all religions, including the true religion, Catholicism, with the false worship of the false god, Allah, according to the false revelations provided to the false prophet, Mohammed. Mohammedanism spread by force from its very inception, wiping out the Faith in most parts of North Africa at the beginning of the Seventh Century before proceeding to strike in Spain and southern France a century later.

Yet it is that various and sundry conciliar officials, including Theodore "Cardinal" McCarrick, the retired "archbishop" of the Archdiocese of Washington, District of Columbia, continue to contend that the violence that has been visited upon the West by Mohammedans represents an "extremist" version of this false religion that should not deprive its adherents of their "right" to "religious liberty" to make their views known to the public and to seek to "contribute" to the "betterment" of nations and the world.

This is part of the testimony given by McCarrick, speaking in behalf of the so-called United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, on Tuesday, March 29, 2011, at a meeting of the of the United States Senate Subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary on The Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights"

From the perspective of Catholic teaching, religious freedom is one of our most fundamental freedoms, which flows from the right to life itself. The late Pope John Paul II taught that “The most fundamental human freedom is that of practicing one’s faith openly, which for human beings is their reason for living.” The Second Vatican Council in its Declaration on Religious Freedom (Dignitatis Humanae) declared that “the right of religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person, as this dignity is known through the revealed Word of God and reason itself.”

It is essential to point out that religious liberty begins with the right to worship according to one’s conscience, but it does not end there. Religious freedom includes other vital activities which express our faith, among them are the freedom of conscience in providing healthcare and other human services, the right to establish and maintain schools that authentically reflect our own values, and the right to participate in and contribute to public and community affairs.

Religious freedom is inextricably linked to other fundamental human rights including freedom of association, freedom of speech, and legal recognition of voluntary associations. It is essential to understand that religious freedom is a right of both individuals and religious institutions. . . .

The legitimate concern for the public order, however, must be pursued with effective skill and respect for religious liberty and with particular concern to avoid generalizing about Islam based solely on the extreme views and conduct of a small group of radical extremists. These unfounded generalizations and efforts to fan the flames of fear are wrong and unjustified, but are especially inappropriate and hurtful when expressed by leaders in public life. These attacks are a grave injustice against the vast majority of Muslims in the United States who are loyal and productive members of our American society.
Conclusion

As a religious community, our Catholic faith and our respect for the religious beliefs and freedoms of others commit us to defend and promote the right to religious freedom for all as a moral priority and human responsibility. We do not do this alone but walk along side our neighbors of diverse creeds and religious traditions. Today, that commitment calls upon us to speak a note of caution on how our society approaches the Muslim community. The quality of that approach will declare to the world what kind of society we hope to be, and will shape relationships among our own citizens, for better or worse, for generations to come.

This common commitment to religious freedom is at the heart of American life. It is also an example to a world where too many doubt that people of different religions can live together in peace and mutual respect. As predominantly Muslim societies wrestle with how to treat religious minorities, let them look to our nation where we work to ensure that their Muslim sisters and brothers are treated with dignity and their religious identity and beliefs are treated with respect. Let them see a people blessed with hard won religious freedom living out our commitment to the rights of all by demonstrating full respect for the identity, integrity and freedom of all religions and their institutions.

As a person of faith and a citizen, I thank you for your focus on this timely and imperative topic. I urge you to recommit yourselves to protect and promote religious liberty both at home and abroad as a sign of our respect for the inherent dignity and value of every human person. Lastly, I would like to assure you and your families of my continued prayers as you carry out your service to our nation and the good of its people and the defense of the rights of all. (Phony Cardinal to Senate: Respect Religious Freedom of All.)

 

Lest anyone out there in the vast readership of this "powerful" website believe for a moment that Theodore "Cardinal" McCarrick was speaking two days ago as a "maverick" who does not reflect the apostate beliefs of that alleged "restorer" of Tradition, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, please do take the time to review the first three articles that were posted on this site in calendar year 2011 (Another Year of the Same Conciliar Apostasy, part one, Another Year of the Same Conciliar Apostasy, part two and Another Year of the Same Conciliar Apostasy, part three.) McCarrick's testimony to "protect" the "civil rights: of Mohammedans is simply boilerplate conciliarism about which not much time needs to be spent in this article to remind readers that the lavender-friendly "cardinal" who refused to discipline pro-abort Catholics in public life when serving as the conciliar "bishop" of Metuchen, New Jersey, and as the conciliar "archbishop" of Newark, New Jersey, and Washington, D.C., is being ever faithful to false gods as he demonstrates himself to be faithless to the true God of Divine Revelation.

"Cardinal" McCarrick has said that what he believes to be the Holy Eucharist in the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service should not be used as a "weapon" against pro-abortion Catholic politicians.

McCarrick permitted a non-Catholic, William Rehnquist, to have a Lutheran burial service at Saint Matthew's Cathedral in Washington, D.C., in 2005.

McCarrick personally hosted a prayer vigil in honor of the re-inauguration of pro-abortion New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman at Sacred Heart Cathedral in Newark, New Jersey, in January of 1998, when he was the Archbishop of Newark. [See No Big Deal.]

McCarrick said in 2002 that men oriented towards perversity should not be excluded from the conciliar presbyterate.

McCarrick's immediate predecessor as Archbishop of Washington, the late James "Cardinal" Hickey, accorded a Novus Ordo funeral service for William Brennan, a Catholic who voted to endorse contraception and abortion, among other evils, in a thirty-four year tenure of utter destruction and death as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (see As New Dog and Pony Shows Come To Town, part 3).

No, "Cardinal" McCarrick's testimony before a subcommittee of the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary (more commonly referred to as the "Senate Judiciary Committee) is nothing new. It is nothing new at all.

It was just over five and one-half years ago now that the then "ordinary" of the Archdiocese of Washington in conciliar captivity gave the following "closing remarks" in the presence of King Abdullah of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan while the latter was visiting the Catholic University of America on September 13, 2005:

Your Majesty,

A few months ago, when I was privileged to pray for you on another occasion in this capital city, I asked Allah, the compassionate and merciful Lord of all the world, to bless you and to help you make your country a bridge across which all nations might walk in unity, fellowship and love.  As I listened to your words today, I believe my prayer is being answered. 

Indeed, the Amman Message of November of last year is a blueprint and a challenge not only to the great world of Islam, but to the whole human race.  Your thoughtful leadership is a stirring invitation to all of us, especially to the people of the Book, the family of Abraham, who share so much and who are called to be brothers and sisters in God’s one human family.

You have taken to heart the words of Pope Benedict XVI when he addressed the Muslim leaders gathered with him in Germany last month and invited them all to join him in eliminating from all hearts any trace of rancor, in resisting every form of intolerance and in opposing every manifestation of violence.  As you quoted in your splendid talk to us today, Pope Benedict called his listeners, in this way, to turn back the way of cruel fanaticism that endangers the lives of so many people and hinders progress for world peace.

Your Majesty’s call and that of the Holy Father are in so many ways the same.  May Allah, the merciful and compassionate, continue to guide your steps along this noble path.  May He guide and protect you, your family and your beloved country and may peace and justice come to all lands and all peoples through your efforts, your vision and your courage.

In the name of Allah, the merciful and compassionate God, we pray.  Amen. (Don't bother looking for the hyperlink for this apostasy as McCarrick's remarks disappeared from the website of the Catholic University of America and of the Archdiocese of Washington shortly within a day or two of their having been delivered. Here is a link to a news story in the Washington Post that reported, if ever so briefly, on McCarrick's praying in the "name of Allah" in the presence of King Abdullah: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/13/AR2005091301810.html.)

 

A few people pointed out to me five years ago the possibility that "Cardinal" McCarrick may have intended to use the name "Allah," which is used by Arab Catholics in some parts of the Middle East to refer to God (Alla il Missier, Alla l-Iben, Alla ir Ruh Imqaddes - God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost), to convey a double-meaning, one to those familiar with Semitic languages and one to appeal to his guest.

Even if this had been McCarrick's intention, which is doubtful given the rapidity with which the Public Affairs office of The Catholic University of America "took down" his September 13, 2005, remarks from its website and the fact that the Archdiocese of Washington's website still omits any mention of the now retired conciliar "archbishop's" appearance at Catholic University on that day, very, very few people in the audience (or among the entire body of Catholics worldwide) would have been familiar with the "double-meaning" of the word "Allah."

It was clear from the context in which the whole appearance by King Abdullah took place that Theodore McCarrick meant to make it appear that the "god" of King Abdullah is more or less synonymous with the true God of Divine Revelation. It is clear that Theodore McCarrick, at the very least, did not believe it opportune to proclaim clearly and unmistakably the Holy Name of the Divine Redeemer, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, before a man who makes a liar of Our Lord by subscribing to a religion that denies His Sacred Divinity. That McCarrick could have given even the faintest impression that he was praying to the false god of the Mohammedans is a scandal beyond all telling. More to the point, however, is that McCarrick used phrases to describe "Allah" ("the compassionate and merciful Lord of all the world," "the merciful and compassionate God") that are distinct to Mohammedism. The "Lord of all the world," you see, is not the true God of Divine Revelation. The "Lord of all the world" is the demon who inspired Mohammed to found his false religion, which began as a Christian heresy.

Indeed, the very fact that King Abdullah, whose country's website is devoted to promoting his alleged statesmanship, claims that he is a forty-third generation direct descendant of the "Prophet Mohammed," was invited to speak at The Catholic University of America about "traditional Islam" as a path to peace demonstrates in and of itself an abject indifference to the truth that Our Lord alone as He has revealed Himself through the Catholic Church is the path to peace in the soul and hence peace in the world. Mohammedism has been from its very satanic inception a force of violence against anyone who would dare to resist the demands of its fierce evangelizers to convert. Mohammedism has nothing to offer to world peace except its violent disturbance. To suggest that the monarch of a confessionally Mohammedan country has any ideas that are superior to the immutable doctrine of the Social Reign of Christ the King is indeed to imply, if not to admit outright, that there is no one path to peace in the soul and thus peace in the world. This is yet again another example of how the novelties of the Second Vatican Council have produced an ecclesiastical situation wherein it is considered normal, natural, prudent and just to defer to the "views" of an infidel rather than to speak openly of the fact that there is salvation alone in the Catholic Church and that it is a grave sin to deny, by omission or by commission, the Sacred Divinity of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. (See Appendix A below for an excerpt from the late Hilaire Belloc's chapter on "The Great Enduring Heresy of Mohammed.")

"Allah, the compassionate and merciful Lord of all the world"? This is apostasy. This is, objectively speaking, a Mortal Sin against the First Commandment. To offend the true and only God as He has revealed Himself solely through His true Church by invoking the name of a false, nonexistent god demands immediate acts of reparation. This is not merely a matter of a theological debate about the nature of Mohammedism as a "monotheistic" religion. "Cardinal" McCarrick invoked the name of a false god and said publicly that he has prayed to "Allah" privately.

"Pope" Benedict XVI did not correct Teddy McCarrick in order to remind Catholics that we cannot pray to false gods? How could he have done so? He has "prayed" in false temples, even assuming the Mohammedan prayer position in Constantinople and having esteemed the Koran on at least two separate occasions. He is the chief cheerleader for the heresy of religious liberty that was condemned repeatedly by our true popes, who have put the lie to the beliefs of conciliarism as summarized by Theodore "Cardinal" McCarrick two days ago. Here are just two of the oft-cited examples of the true teaching of the Catholic Church concerning "religious liberty:"

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here We must include that harmful and never sufficiently denounced freedom to publish any writings whatever and disseminate them to the people, which some dare to demand and promote with so great a clamor. We are horrified to see what monstrous doctrines and prodigious errors are disseminated far and wide in countless books, pamphlets, and other writings which, though small in weight, are very great in malice. We are in tears at the abuse which proceeds from them over the face of the earth. Some are so carried away that they contentiously assert that the flock of errors arising from them is sufficiently compensated by the publication of some book which defends religion and truth. Every law condemns deliberately doing evil simply because there is some hope that good may result. Is there any sane man who would say poison ought to be distributed, sold publicly, stored, and even drunk because some antidote is available and those who use it may be snatched from death again and again?(Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832.)

 

The death of the soul is indeed worth than freedom of error. While Holy Mother Church recognizes that there are difficulties extant in the pluralist state of Modernity, she nevertheless maintains pure in her teaching concerning the fact that error has no rights, that those who belong to false religion do have a right from God to propagate their falsehoods publicly. Such religions and their false rites may have to be tolerated so as to promote the common good and prevent violence. This is far, far different than asserting that false religions have a "fundamental human right" to participate actively in civil society. They have no such right at all. To assert otherwise is to defect from the Catholic/ Faith.

All right. Have you had enough? I have. It is indeed quite wearying to have write about these matters time and time again. I will, however, take a few days off from this work to finish up my travelogue, which I will try to have available for you by Wednesday of next week. That will bring the curious among you up to date on the events of the past nearly two months.

For now, however, I am going to say my night prayers and make an examen of conscience before getting a few hours of sleep.

Make sure to pray for the conversion of the conciliar revolutionaries as it is indeed a fearful thing To Fall Into The Hands of the Living God. (By the way, the late Geraldine Ferraro-Zaccaro's Novus Ordo funeral service will be held at the principal Dominican church in the City of New York, Saint Vincent Ferrer Church, which is located on Lexington Avenue and East 66th Street in the Borough of Manhattan. The service will not be held in longtime home parish in Forest Hills, Queens. This is an insult not only to God but to Saint Dominic, who, of course, is insulted by the apostasies and blasphemies and sacrileges that take place in the church named after one of his Dominican sons who sought to convert infidels and apostates, not accord them accolades.)

We must be faithful to the true God of Divine Revelation, Who has spoken to us exclusively through His Catholic Church, not to the false gods of any false religion, including that of conciliarism itself.

Pray your Rosaries. Spend time before the Blessed Sacrament in prayer if this is at all possible where you live. Know that Our Lady's Immaculate Heart will indeed triumph in the end.

 

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.

 

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

 

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior and Balthasar, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints

 

Appendix A

The Great and Enduring Heresy of Mohammed

But the central point where this new heresy struck home with a mortal blow against Catholic tradition was a full denial of the Incarnation.

Mohammed did not merely take the first steps toward that denial, as the Arians and their followers had done; he advanced a clear affirmation, full and complete, against the whole doctrine of an incarnate God. He taught that Our Lord was the greatest of all the prophets, but still only a prophet: a man like other men. He eliminated the Trinity altogether.

With that denial of the Incarnation went the whole sacramental structure. He refused to know anything of the Eucharist, with its Real Presence; he stopped the sacrifice of the Mass, and therefore the institution of a special priesthood.  In other words, he, like so many other lesser heresiarchs, founded his heresy on simplification.

Catholic doctrine was true (he seemed to say), but it had become encumbered with false accretions; it had become complicated by needless man-made additions, including the idea that its founder was Divine, and the growth of a parasitical caste of priests who battened on a late, imagined, system of Sacraments which they alone could administer. All those corrupt accretions must be swept away.

There is thus a very great deal in common between the enthusiasm with which Mohammed's teaching attacked the priesthood, the Mass and the sacraments, and the enthusiasm with which Calvinism, the central motive force of the Reformation, did the same. As we all know, the new teaching relaxed the marriage laws--but in practice this did not affect the mass of his followers who still remained monogamous. It made divorce as easy as possible, for the sacramental idea of marriage disappeared. It insisted upon the equality of men, and it necessarily had that further factor in which it resembled Calvinism--the sense of predestination, the sense of fate; of what the followers of John Knox were always calling "the immutable decrees of God."

Mohammed's teaching never developed among the mass of his followers, or in his own mind, a detailed theology. He was content to accept all that appealed to him in the Catholic scheme and to reject all that seemed to him, and to so many others of his time, too complicated or mysterious to be true. Simplicity was the note of the whole affair; and since all heresies draw their strength from some true doctrine, Mohammedanism drew its strength from the true Catholic doctrines which it retained: the equality of all men before God--"All true believers are brothers." It zealously preached and throve on the paramount claims of justice, social and economic. (The Great and Enduring Heresy of Mohammed.)

Appendix B

From the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia: Religious Indifferentism (which includes the public praise of false religions)

II. RESTRICTED INDIFFERENTISM

In distinction from this absolute Indifferentism, a restricted form of the error admits the necessity of religion on account, chiefly, of its salutary influence on human life. But it holds that all religions are equally worthy and profitable to man, and equally pleasing to God. The classic advocate of this theory is Rousseau, who maintains, in his "Emile", that God looks only to the sincerity of intention, and that everybody can serve Him by remaining in the religion in which he has been brought up, or by changing it at will for any other that pleases him more (Emile, III). This doctrine is widely advocated today on the grounds that, beyond the truth of God's existence, we can attain to no certain religious knowledge; and that, since God has left us thus in uncertainty, He will be pleased with whatever form of worship we sincerely offer Him. The full reply to this error consists in the proof that God has vouchsafed to man a supernatural revelation, embodying a definite religion, which He desires that all should embrace and practice. Without appealing to this fact, however, a little consideration suffices to lay bare the inherent absurdity of this doctrine. All religions, indeed, may be said to contain some measure of truth; and God may accept the imperfect worship of ignorant sincerity. But it is injurious to God, Who is truth itself, to assert that truth and falsehood are indifferent in His sight. Since various religions are in disagreement, it follows that, wherever they conflict, if one possesses the truth the others are in error. The constituent elements of a religion are beliefs to be held by the intellect, precepts to be observed, and a form of worship to be practiced. Now -- to confine ourselves to the great religions of the world -- Judaism, Mohammedanism, Christianity, and the religions of India and the Orient are in direct antagonism by their respective creeds, moral codes, and cults. To say that all these irreconcilable beliefs and cults are equally pleasing to God is to say that the Divine Being has no predilection for truth over error; that the true and the false are alike congenial to His nature. Again, to hold that truth and falsehood equally satisfy and perfect the human intellect is to deny that reason has a native bent towards, and affinity for, truth. If we deny this we deny that any trust is to be placed in our reason. Turn to the ethical side of the question. Here again there is conflict over almost all the great moral issues. Let an illustration or two suffice. Mohammedanism approves polygamy, Christianity uncompromisingly condemns it as immoral. If these two teachers are equally trustworthy guides of life, then there is no such thing as fixed moral values at all. If the [unmentionable acts of obscene worship] are as pure in the sight of God as the austere worship that was conducted in the temple of Jerusalem, then we must hold the Deity to be destitute of all moral attributes, in which case there would be no grounds for religion at all. The fact is that this type of Indifferentism, though verbally acknowledging the excellence and utility of religion, nevertheless, when pressed by logic, recoils into absolute Indifferentism. "All religions are equally good" comes to mean, at bottom, that religion is good for nothing.