Just About To Complete A Long March Into Oblivion
by Thomas A. Droleskey
Believe it. Believe it.
Yes, believe it. Believe it.
Although some of the limited (perhaps we can say "select" or "elite"--hey, this is a joke, New York humor, relax, all right?) readership of this site, including a reader who lives west of Dublin, Ireland, and east of the Allegheny Mountains, have insisted that Bishop Bernard Fellay, the Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X, would never "reconcile" with the counterfeit church of concilairism, such a "reconciliation" is almost complete.
Oh, sure. There are some more "t's" to be crossed and "i's" to be dotted and all, you know. The "cardinals" who make up the conciliar curia who occupy the grounds of the Vatican at this time may have to meet to give their consent and discuss the "modifications" made by Bishop Fellay in the response that has now been received by "Pontifical" Commission Ecclesia Dei. Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI must give his own approval, obviously. Arrangements will have to be made with the various "episcopal" conferences around the world about how conciliar "ordinaries" should handle the Society of Saint Pius X once it is erected as a "personal prelature" or "ordinariate" within the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism. This will take time, maybe a month or two. Perhaps a bit more.
This much is clear, however. Bishop Fellay has indeed signed the so-called "doctrinal preamble" on the dotted line, albeit with a few "modification," without sweating the details. The surrender of the single largest group in the "resist but recognize" segment of what is called, for want of a better phrase, the "traditional" Catholic world is nearly its completion. The time for cheering amongst those in the Motu communities, whose clergy and laity long ago under the process of "pacification of spirits." and within the ranks of longtime papaloters within the ranks of "conservative" Catholics in the conciliar structures is neigh at hand:
The response of the Society of Saint Pius X has arrived in the Vatican and it is positive: according to the informal information gathered by Vatican Insider, Bishop Bernard Fellay would have signed the doctrinal preamble that the Holy See had proposed last September as a condition to reach full communion and canonical regularization.
An official confirmation of the received response should take place in the next few hours. From what has been learned, the text of the preamble sent by Fellay proposed some non-substantial modifications regarding the version delivered by the Vatican authorities: as it may be recalled, the same Ecclesia Dei Commission had not willed to make the document (of [only] two, yet complex, pages) public, precisely because the possibility remained of introducing eventual small modifications which would not, nonetheless, distort its meaning.
The preamble contains, substantially, the "professio fidei", the profession of faith [Rorate note 1] required of those who are put in charge of an ecclesiastical position. And it thus establishes a "religious submission of will and intellect" be given to the teachings that the Pope and the College of Bishops "enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium", even if not proclaimed and defined in a dogmatic sense, as in the case of the greater part of the magisterial documents. The Holy See has mentioned repeatedly to her partners in the Society of Saint Pius X that signing the doctrinal preamble would not mean putting and end "to the legitimate discussion, study, and theological explanations of specific expressions or formulations present in the documents of the Second Vatican Council."
The text of the preamble, with the modifications proposed by Fellay, and signed by him as Superior of the Society of Saint Pius X, will be presented to Benedict XVI, who, on the day following his 85th birthday and on the even of the seventh anniversary of his election, receives a positive response from the Lefebvrists. A response long expected and desired by him, who, in the next few weeks, will put an end to the wound opened in 1988 with the illegitimate episcopal ordinations celebrated by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
It is not ruled out that Fellay's response be examined by the Cardinals of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in the next "Feria Quarta" [Wednesday] meeting, which should take place in the first half of May. Meanwhile, some further weeks will be needed so that a canonical arrangement can be established: the most probable proposal is that of establishing a "personal prelature", a legal figure introduced in the Code of Canon Law in 1983 [Rorate note 2] and up to now used only by Opus Dei. The prelate depends directly of the Holy See. The Society of Saint Pius X will continue to celebrate Mass according to the ancient Missal, and to form its priests in its seminaries. [Source, in Italian] (This a translation of a news story written in Italian by Vaticanologist Andrea Torinelli. See RORATE CÆLI. This blogspot, which is very favorably disposed to the Society of Saint Pius X, also contains a communique from the Society of Saint Pius X that adds a note of "caution" to the press reports. There is also a statement from "Father" Federico Lombardi, S.J., Ratzinger/Benedict's spokesflack, who gives the impression that an ultimate agreement will occur in a short period of time despite the "modifications" made to the "doctrinal preamble" by Bishop Fellay.)
The "select" or "elite" readership of this site might recall that I have been completely consistent in the conviction that this day would come soon or later, that Bishop Fellay was going to be given his own little corner of what he once called the "zoo" of the conciliar church. Ah, yes, it was Bishop Fellay himself who said the following in Kansas City, Missouri, on November 10, 2004, about the inevitable surrender of Bishop Fernando Rifan and the Society of Saint John Mary Vianney in Campos, Brazil, to the One World Ecumenical Church:
I just would like to give you some steps on one
person who is the head of Campos. Before he was consecrated a bishop,
Fr. Rifan, just a few months before, said in Rome to the Vicar General
—who repeated it to Fr. Schmidberger, so we have it from a direct source
—said, "I have no problem with celebrating the New Mass, but I don’t do it because it would cause trouble to the faithful." So
when Rome is consecrating Rifan a bishop, they know already that he has
no objection to celebrating the New Mass. I think it is important to
see that. That is the first step.
I may say that there is even a step before. Before
that, he goes with the diocesan Corpus Christi procession, and he says
to those who oppose it, "If we would not have done that, we would have jeopardized the agreement with Rome." It shows you the direction.
The next step will be the jubilee of the diocese of
Campos. For that occasion, of course, the local bishop is having a
great ceremony, and Rome invites Bishop Rifan to go to
that New Mass, to be there. And Bishop Rifan goes there. He does not
participate in the sense of concelebrating the Mass, but he is there
present with all his ecclesiastical ornaments, with a surplice and so
on. He is really there at this New Mass.
The next step will be the Requiem [i.e., the Novus Ordo "Resurrection"] Mass for the bishop who had kicked them out, Bishop
Navarro. At that Requiem Mass, you have Bishop Rifan there, and also the
nuncio. The nuncio invites Bishop Rifan to go to Communion, and Bishop
Rifan receives Communion at this New Mass.
The next step will be the Mass of Thanksgiving of
the new cardinal of Sao Paolo. This time, Bishop Rifan is there again
present at that New Mass; he is in the choir. He is not in his surplice;
nevertheless, at the time of consecration, with the other priests and
bishops celebrating, he raises his hands and says the words of
consecration. A seminarian saw him.
And now, the 8th of September this year, we have
photos and even a video of the Mass concelebrated by Bishop Rifan on the
occasion of the centennial of the coronation of Our Lady of the
Aparecida, who is the patroness of Brazil. He is concelebrating the New
Mass, a New Mass where you have really scandalous happenings: ladies
giving Communion in the hand, a ceremony of coronation where, among all
the cardinals and bishops, there is a lady who is crowning our Lady, and
so on. Trying to defend himself, he said "But I did not say the words of consecration." I may say, that makes it even worse, because that means he is cheating.
That’s the evolution: now he is two years a
bishop, and he is already concelebrating the New Mass. You see, and
that is the natural development which was announced from the start by
the officials in Rome, Cottier, now Cardinal Cottier and Msgr. Perl. At
the time of the agreement between Campos and Rome, Cottier said: "Now they have recognized the Council. The next step will be the new Mass." He even said, "There is a natural, psychological dynamic." And you see in Bishop Rifan a real, natural, clear demonstration of this phrase. (EXTRACT from Bishop Fellay's November 10, 2004 conference in Kansas City, MO regarding Bishop Rifan's actions.)
Observers who are truly objective and dispassionate recognize that Bishop Fellay himself has demonstrated this same "natural, psychological dynamic" ever since he met personally with Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI on August 29, 2005, the Feast of the Beheading of Saint John the Baptist, at the traditional summer headquarters of popes at Castel Gandolfo outside of Rome, Italy.
Although there was muted criticism of the Assisi III event last year, there has been, for example, no criticism of Ratzinger/Benedict's "joint blessings" with the "clergy" of Protestant sects and Orthodox churches.
There have been no criticisms of the false "pontiff's" various visits to Talmudic synagogues or Mohammedan mosques as he has treated these places of false worship as though they are sacred in the eyes of the true God of Divine Revelation.
Bishop Fellay did not criticize Ratzinger/Benedict for praising "separation of Church and State" in Portugal on May 11, 2010 despite the fact that Pope Saint Pius X had condemned, specifically and directly, that very arrangement in Portugal when he issued Iamdudum on May 24, 2011. (See Trying To Understand Apostasy and Witness Against Benedict XVI: The Oath Against Modernism.)
Bishop Fellay has already taken the path of Bishop Rifan that he had criticized so severely in 2004 (we heard one variation of his conference at Saint Ignatius Retreat House in Ridgefield, Connecticut, on Sunday, November 7, 2004, just three days before the conference that he gave at Saint Vincent de Paul Church in Kansas City, Missouri).
More than that, however, the official websites of the Society of Saint Pis X have taken to praising conciliar "bishops" such as Timothy "Cardinal" Dolan, the conciliar "archbishop" of New York, as they have invoked the mantra of "religious liberty" to criticize the mandate imposed by the administration of President Barack Hussein Obama to require all employers, including religious institutions such as schools, colleges, universities and hospitals, to provide health insurance coverage for contraception and related "family planning" services. It used to be the case that priests and at least a few of the laity within the Society of Saint Pius understood that errors of Modernity such as "religious liberty" and "separation of Church and State" have resulted in the proliferation and institutionalization of social evils under cover of the civil law (see, for example, the late Dr. Justin Walsh's Heresy Blossoms Like a Rose, which appeared in The Angelus magazine of the Society of Saint Pius. Dr. Walsh himself, who died last year, taught for a time at Saint Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Winona, Minnesota, which, of course, is run by the Society.)
This is indeed the "natural path" taken by others. Even though it was bad enough that the Society of Saint Pius X helped to propagate the falsehood that one has a right to "resist" the teachings of a true Successor of Saint Peter that is as harmful to a true understanding of the nature of the Church Militant on earth as is the "new ecclesiology" of conciliarism, the path on which Bishop Fellay has trodden for the past nearly five years is one that leads to complete and total silence and thus of passive acceptance of the apostasies, blasphemies and sacrileges of conciliarism in the mistaken, indeed quite delusional, belief that it is "enough" to have a modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition and that they are now going to "work from within the structures" to "restore" the Church in a "quiet, restrained and prudent" manner. This is why I could have entitled this article something along the lines of "seeking entrance into Mindanao" (see Still Hunkered Down In Mindanao (And In The Wrong Church).)
Some would protest by saying that that Bishop Fellay would never stage the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service. Yet it is that conciliar officials have made clear that no
priest of its version of the Roman Rite can refuse to do so. More to the
point, however, is the fact that the modernized version of the
Immemorial Mass of Tradition that is used by the Society of Saint Pius X
and the Novus Ordo itself, some of whose liturgical language and practices have made their way into chapels of the Society of Saint Pius X on an incremental basis in some cases over the course of the past few years, are meant to give way to a "unified" liturgy.
Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger told us this in the past. "Father" Federico
Lombardi has told us this. And Kurt "Cardinal" Koch, the President of
the "Pontifical" Council for Promoting Christian Unity, told us just
four months ago now this will be the case:
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
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.)
It's only a matter of time and
of "pacification of spirits," which the false "pontiff" has been
single-minded in doing with respect to the remaining traditionalist
"resistance" to his schemes to institutionalize the "correct"
interpretation of the doctrinal and liturgical revolutions that he
helped to unleash for many generations to come. He has told us that
it is goal to "pacify" the "spirits" of those who have a "one-sided"
view of the "Second" Vatican Council:
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
to the Bishops of the Catholic Church concerning the remission of the
excommunication of the four Bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre, March 10, 2009.)
Fr 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
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.)
To have one's spirits completely pacified, however,
one needs to play the "let's pretend game" whose basic components I will
reprise here for the sake of anyone who did not read that article,
which is about 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of those who
access the internet:
Yes, let's pretend that the Protestant and Novus Ordo worship service is not offensive to God, that it was not designed to be
a vessel of ecumenism and a means by which unsuspecting Catholics could
have their sensus Catholicus broken down by a steady barrage
of liturgical changes that were designed to accustom them to changes in
matters of doctrine and discipline that are alien to Catholicism.
Let's pretend that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has
not denied the nature of dogmatic truth by insisting over and over and
over again, whether it has been as Father Joseph Ratzinger or
"Archbishop" Joseph Ratzinger or Joseph "Cardinal Ratzinger or as "Pope"
Benedict XVI, that it is not possible for dogmatic truth to expressed
precisely in human language at any one time, which is why some
expressions of the Faith become "obsolete" and must be replaced with
newer ones that can appeal to the "mind," such as it is, of the mythical
entity known as "modern man."
Let's just pretend that the [First] Vatican Council did not anathematize these repeated assertions.
Let's pretend that Pope Saint Pius X's Pascendi Dominici Gregis (September 8, 1907) did not condemn such denials of the nature of dogmatic truth.
Let's pretend that Pope Pius XII's Humani Generis (August 12, 1950) did not condemn these falsehoods.
It's time for the "Let's Pretend" game, right?
Let's pretend that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's
endorsement of religious liberty and constant praise for the "ability"
of false religions to contribute to the "betterment" of the world do
not offend the true God of Divine Revelation.
Let's pretend that religious liberty has not been condemned forcefully by, among others, Pope Pius VII in Post Tam Diuturnas (April 29, 1814) and Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos (August 15, 1832) and Pope Pius IX in Quanta Cura (December 8, 1964.)
Let's pretend that Pope Pius VII did not call
religious liberty a heresy and that Pope Gregory XVI called it insanity
and that Pope Pius IX referred to it as "injurious babbling."
It's time to play the "Let's Pretend" game.
Let's pretend that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has not endorsed the thesis of the separation of Church and State.
Let's pretend that Pope Gregory XVI's Mirari Vos and Pope Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors (December 7, 1864) and Pope Leo XIII's Immortale Dei (November 1, 1885) and Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus (November 1, 1900) and Pope Saint Pius X's Vehementer Nos (February 11, 1906) did not condemn the separation of Church and State.
Let's pretend that Pope Saint Pius X did not call
separation of church and state a thesis "absolutely false" and that he
reminded us that our popes had never stopped condemning it as the
circumstances required them to do.
Let's pretend that Pope Saint Pius X's Iamdudum (May 24, 1911) did not condemn the separation of Church and State in
Portugal that was praised by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI upon his
arrival there on May 11, 2010.
It's time for the "Let's Pretend" game. Let's pretend
all is well so that we can live in comity and unity with our fellows in
what we think is the Catholic Church. Ah, what a fun game this is.
Let's pretend that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI does
believe in the "ecumenism of the return," that he does not believe
that it is not necessary to seek with urgency the unconditional
conversion of all non-Catholics to the the maternal bosom of the
Let's pretend that Pope Pius IX's Iam Vos Omnes (September 13, 1868) and Pope Leo XIII's Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae (June 20, 1894) and Pope Pius XI's Mortalium Animos (January 6, 1928) did not exhort non-Catholic Christians to return unconditionally to the Catholic Church.
Let's pretend that Pope Pius XI's Mortalium Animos did not condemn the sort of false ecumenism that Joseph
Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has praised throughout the course of his
priesthood, the sort of ecumenism that originated at the so-called
"World Missionary Conference" in Edinburgh, Scotland, in 1910 and was
specifically praised by the current "pope" on its one hundredth
The "Let's Pretend" game is better that the "Let's
Make a Deal" game being played between Bishop Bernard Fellay of the
Society of Saint Pius X and William "Cardinal" Levada of the misnamed
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Gee, this game is fun. Let's play some more, OK?
Sure, let's play some more, although we can't play
for too much longer as there is so very much about which we must pretend
these days (including that our "pope" has not rejected Scholasticism
and is not a disciple of the "new theology" condemned by Pope Pius XII
in Humani Generis and has not put into question the traditional
Catholic teaching on Limbo and the immutable Catholic doctrine on
Purgatory and has not endorsed a motion picture, The Nativity Story, that
was produced by Protestants and denied the doctrinal effects of Our
Lady's Immaculate Conception by portraying her to be a sulky, moody and
even rebellious teenager). So little time. So much about which to
All right. All right. To make the game a little shorter, let's pretend a few more things.
Let's pretend that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has not given joint "blessings" with the "clergy" of non-Catholic religions.
Let's pretend that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has
not entered into synagogues while praising the false religion of
Talmudic Judaism, content to be treated as a person of lesser
significance even though he believes himself to be the Vicar of Our Lord
Jesus Christ on earth.
Let's pretend that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has
not entered into mosques and has called them "sacred" places while
treating them as "sacred" places by removing his shoes.
Let's pretend that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has not esteemed the symbols of false religions with his own hands.
Let's pretend that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has
not engaged in the forbidden practice of "inter-religious prayer" or
that he has not omitted the Holy Name of the Divine Redeemer, Our
Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, when engaged in such prayer with
those who deny His Sacred Divinity?
Let's pretend that Pope Saint Leo the Great never wrote the following:
But it is vain for them to adopt the name
of catholic, as they do not oppose these blasphemies: they must believe
them, if they can listen so patiently to such words. (Pope Saint Leo the Great, Epistle XIV, To Anastasius, Bishop of Thessalonica, St. Leo the Great | Letters 1-59 )
The "Let's Pretend" game is so much fun that we should all have a big celebration together. (Let's Play The Let's Pretend.)
Ratzinger/Benedict is perfectly content to have the Society of Saint Pius X inside the walls of his conciliar church, a place one can find one's spiritual jollies, if you will, in the so-called "Catholic" Charismatic Renewal or in Opus Dei or in the Legionaries of Christ or in Focolare or in Cursillo or in Communion and Liberation or in the Neocatechumenal Way or in the Sant'Egidio Community or in the Shalom Catholic Community or in the
Chemin Neuf Community, the International Community of Faith and Light or in the Emmanuel Community or in the
Seguimi Lay Group of Human-Christian Promotion.
Yes, the One World Ecumenical Church is a place where one can "convert" from Lutheranism without giving up Lutheranism. Consider the case of the late "Father" Richard John Neuhaus:
But in a recent interview, he emphasized that his decision to leave
the church was theological, not political. Mr. Neuhaus has long been
identified with a strand in Lutheranism that calls itself ''evangelical
catholic,'' with a small c. This group stresses that Luther's
Reformation was aimed not at establishing a separate church but at
bringing a united Christian church into line with the Reformers' view of
That 16th-century split may have been tragically
unavoidable, Mr. Neuhaus said, but it must not become a purpose in
itself; it was justified only until Roman Catholicism accepted the
lessons of the Reformation.
That moment arrived, Mr. Neuhaus said, with the Second Vatican
Council 25 years ago and the growth of agreement between Catholics and
Lutherans since then.
But though he
had hoped that Lutheranism might restore its ties with Catholicism, he
had concluded that the Lutherans were like ''a people driven into exile
who did so well and found themselves so comfortable that they forgot
about returning to their home country.''
He became particularly
discouraged when several Lutheran churches merged in 1988 to form the
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, a merger he said was not guided
by any ''ecumenical vision'' or theological theory. ''It was like
merging Macy's and K Mart,'' he said, ''a wiring together of interest
Mr. Neuhaus said his shift reflected the strengths as
well as the weaknesses of the ecumenical movement. Calling it ''a
decision I've been wrestling with and in some ways really resisting,''
''I have long believed that the Roman Catholic Church is
the fullest expression of the church of Christ through time. But I took
very seriously a sense of vocation that you should generally stay where
God put you and do your duty there. For me that was as a Lutheran and a
Lutheran pastor.'' (Saying Luther's Goal Was One Church, Noted Lutheran Turns to Catholicism).
The counterfeit church of conciliarism is also a place where "Anglo-Catholics" can "convert" without giving up their Anglican beliefs and "traditions," including liturgical books that were declared to be heretical by Pope Saint Pius V in Regnans in Excelsis, February 25, 1570.
"Papa" Ratzinger's conciliar church is a place where one can "convert" from Nestorianism and retain use of the Nestorian canon in the Divine Liturgy that contains no "institution narrative," to use the phrase preferred by the conciliar revolutionaries, by which a priest pronounces the words of consecration over a host and the wine in a chalice to be transubstantiated into the Body, Body, Soul and Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ (see Not Such a Triumph After All.)
The conciliar church is a place that features dioceses and parishes that are very "open" to the homosexualist collective, featuring all manner of events to celebrate "diversity" and "tolerance" as human beings, whose immortal souls have been redeemed by the shedding of the Most Precious Blood of the Divine Redeemer, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, identify themselves by the inclinations to the commission of perverse sins against nature that cry out to Heaven for vengeance.
The conciliar church is so very "tolerant" and "patient," "rich in mercy," you understand, with pro-abortion Catholics in public life, almost each of whom maintains his "good standing" in this false church that is considered to be the Catholic Church by almost everyone in the world save for the handful of mostly warring Catholics.
The Society of Saint Pius X will be welcomed to come aboard the S. S. One World Ecumenical Church as its bishops and priests and laity learn to keep their mouths shut about things that they know are offensive to God and thus harmful to souls in order not to be "ungrateful" to their octogenarian benefactor who is celebrating his seventh anniversary of being the principal director and chief ideologist of the revolution he helped to initiate in the 1950s.
The Society of Saint Pius X is a victim of the heresy of the Gallicanism that convinced its leadership that Catholics can "sift" the words of a Sovereign Pontiff and that there is somehow a "distinction" between a supposed "authentic magisterium" and a "governing magisterium" that is without any precedent in authentic Catholic ecclesiology.
To be honest, despite his courage in opposing the conciliar revolution, the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who denounced false ecumenism and inter-religious "prayer" services and was a firm opponent of "religious liberty" and a sterling defender of the Social Reign of Christ the King, did sign the protocol in 1988 that would have granted the Society of Saint Pius X a "place" in the conciliar church before he changed his mind. See Bishop Donald Sanborn's The Mountains of Gelboe for an excellent recitation of the Archbishop's inconsistencies and contradictions.
Yes, for all of his undeniable courage, you see, Archbishop Lefebvre was not personally infallible and he never represented in his person the embodiment of the Catholic Church. It is time for those who mistake "loyalty" to the Archbishop as loyalty to the Church to understand that they must be first loyal to the truth, and the truth is that his false ecclesiology had been condemned by Pope Pius VI in Auctorem Fidei, August 28, 1794, and that was satirized so clearly by a French bishop, Bishop Emil Bougaud, in the Nineteenth Century, being solemnly condemned once again by Pope Pius IX in The Syllabus of Errors, December 8, 1864:
6. The doctrine of the synod by which it professes that "it
is convinced that a bishop has received from Christ all necessary
rights for the good government of his diocese," just as if for the good
government of each diocese higher ordinances dealing either with faith
and morals, or with general discipline, are not necessary, the right of
which belongs to the supreme Pontiffs and the General Councils for the
universal Church,—schismatic, at least erroneous.
7. Likewise, in this, that it encourages a bishop "to pursue zealously
a more perfect constitution of ecclesiastical discipline," and this
"against all contrary customs, exemptions, reservations which are
opposed to the good order of the diocese, for the greater glory of God
and for the greater edification of the faithful"; in that it supposes that
a bishop has the right by his own judgment and will to decree and
decide contrary to customs, exemptions, reservations, whether they
prevail in the universal Church or even in each province, without the
consent or the intervention of a higher hierarchic power, by which these
customs, etc., have been introduced or approved and have the force of
law,—leading to schism and subversion of hierarchic rule, erroneous.
8. Likewise, in that it says it is convinced that "the rights of a
bishop received from Jesus Christ for the government of the Church
cannot be altered nor hindered, and, when it has happened that the
exercise of these rights has been interrupted for any reason whatsoever,
a bishop can always and should return to his original rights, as often
as the greater good of his church demands it"; in the fact that
it intimates that the exercise of episcopal rights can be hindered and
coerced by no higher power, whenever a bishop shall judge that it does
not further the greater good of his church,—leading to schism, and to
subversion of hierarchic government, erroneous. (Pope Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei, August 28, 1794.)
The violent attacks of Protestantism against the
Papacy, its calumnies and so manifest, the odious caricatures it
scattered abroad, had undoubtedly inspired France with horror;
nevertheless the sad impressions remained. In such accusations all,
perhaps, was not false. Mistrust was excited., and instead of drawing
closer to the insulted and outraged Papacy, France stood on her guard
against it. In vain did Fenelon, who felt the danger, write in his
treatise on the "Power of the Pope," and, to remind France of her
sublime mission and true role in the world, compose his "History of
Charlemagne." In vain did Bossuet majestically rise in the midst of that
agitated assembly of 1682, convened to dictate laws to the Holy See,
and there, in most touching accents, give vent to professions of
fidelity and devotedness toward the Chair of St. Peter. We already
notice in his discourse mention no longer made of the "Sovereign
Pontiff." The "Holy See," the "Chair of St. Peter," the "Roman Church,"
were alone alluded to. First and alas! too manifest signs of coldness in
the eyes of him who knew the nature and character of France! Others
might obey through duty, might allow themselves to be governed by
principle--France, never! She must be ruled by an individual, she must
love him that governs her, else she can never obey.
These weaknesses should at least have been hidden
in the shadow of the sanctuary, to await the time in which some sincere
and honest solution of the misunderstanding could be given. But no!
parliaments took hold of it, national vanity was identified with it. A
strange spectacle was now seen. A people the most Catholic in the world;
kings who called themselves the Eldest Sons of the Church and who were
really such at heart; grave and profoundly Christian magistrates,
bishops, and priests, though in the depths of their heart attached to
Catholic unity,--all barricading themselves against the head of the
Church; all digging trenches and building ramparts, that his
words might not reach the Faithful before being handled and examined,
and the laics convinced that they contained nothing false, hostile or
dangerous. (Right Reverend Emile Bougaud, The Life of Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque. Published in 1890 by Benziger Brothers. Re-printed by TAN Books and Publishers, 1990, pp. 24-29.)
22. The obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are
strictly bound is confined to those things only which are proposed to
universal belief as dogmas of faith by the infallible judgment of the
Church. -- Letter to the Archbishop of Munich, "Tuas libenter," Dec. 21, 1863. (Proposition condemned by Pope Pius IX, The Syllabus of Errors,
December 8, 1864; see also two appendices below, reprised from five
days ago to drive home the point that no one can sift through the words
of a true pope to "determine" their orthodoxy as popes cannot err on
matters of Faith and Morals.)
All that remains now is for the "legal" structure to fit the Society of Saint Pius X into the conciliar "zoo" to be determined as the various "bishops" around the world are consulted. The next great "struggle" in this farce will be on the part of well-meaning traditionally-minded Catholics to "make sure" that "Pope" Benedict XVI's "generous" act of "reconciliation" is accepted by those "bishops," many of whom will not be pleased with the "reconciliation" in the slightest, thus making it possible for defenders all things Benedict to play the The 'Poor Pope Benedict' Syndrome (this article appears on an anti-sedevacantist website; however, it accurately describes the false dialectic by which Ratzinger/Benedict plays off traditionally-minded Catholics against "ultra-progressives" in the conciliar church to his own benefit as "spirits" continue to be "pacified" among the "integrists."
Yes, Ratzinger/Benedict has finally realized his long held goal of "resisting" those in the "resist but recognize" movement by "resisting" them with "kindness" and "generosity:"
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)
Ratzinger/Benedict's forthcoming "victory" is only temporary, however. In the end, of course, Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart with triumph.
Oh, my friends, how we must pray and make sacrifices to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, spending time on our knees in earnest and humble prayer before His Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament and praying as many Rosaries each day as the duties of our states-in-life permit. The traps that are being laid to ensnare souls are truly preternatural in origin. We must take refuge in the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary as we beg to be the beneficiaries of the Mercy that flows forth from the Most Sacred heart of her Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, in order to make reparation for our own sins and those of the whole world.
The final victory does indeed belongs to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. We can help to bring about this victory by our daily fidelity to Our Lady's Fatima Message that Ratzinger/Benedict has deconstructed and misrepresented.
What are we waiting for?
Viva Cristo Rey!
Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!
Saint Joseph, pray for us.
Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.