Just Sign On The Dotted Line
(P.S. Don't Sweat The Details)
by Thomas A. Droleskey
William "Cardinal" Levada, the prefect of the counterfeit church of conciliarism's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, met with Bishop Bernard Fellay, the Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X, yesterday, September 14, 2011, the Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, in his office on Via Ufficio just outside the Bernini columns that encircle Saint Peter's Square. The long awaited "response" from conciliar officials concerning the "doctrinal discussions" that they have conducted with representatives of the Society of Saint Pius X since October of 2009 was given to Bishop Fellay. The "response" can be summarized as follows: "Just sign on the dotted line. P.S. Don't sweat the details or the fine print. This is your last chance to join the One World Ecumenical Church."
Here is the official communique that was issued by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's spokesflack, "Father" Federico Lombardi, S.J., yesterday:
September 14, 2011, at the office of the Congregation for the Doctrine
of the Faith, a meeting was held between His Eminence, Cardinal William
Levada, Prefect of this Congregation and President of the Pontifical
Commission Ecclesia Dei, His Excellency, Archbishop Luis Ladaria, S.J.,
Secretary of this Congregation, and Monsignor Guido Pozzo, Secretary of
the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, and His Excellency, Bishop
Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint
Pius X, and Fathers Niklaus Pfluger et Alain-Marc Nély, General
Assistants of the Fraternity
the petition addressed on December 15, 2008, by the Superior General of
the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X to His Holiness, Pope Benedict
XVI, the Holy Father had taken the decision of lifting the
excommunication of the four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Marcel
Lefebvre and to open at the same time doctrinal conversations with the
Fraternity, aiming to overcome the difficulties and the problems of a
doctrinal nature, and to achieve a healing of the existing fracture.
to the will of the Holy Father, a mixed study commission, composed of
experts of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X and of experts of the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, assembled eight times for
meetings that took place in Rome between the month of October 2009 and
the month of April 2011. These conversations, whose objective was that
of presenting and examining the major doctrinal difficulties on
controversial themes, achieved their goal, which was that of clarifying
the respective positions and their motivations.
the concerns and requests presented by the Priestly Fraternity of Saint
Pius X regarding the integrity of the Catholic faith considering the
hermeneutic of rupture of the Second Vatican Council in respect of
Tradition - hermeneutic mentioned by Pope Benedict XVI in his Address to
the Roman Curia of December 22, 2005 -, the Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith takes as a fundamental basis for a full
reconciliation with the Apostolic See the acceptance of the Doctrinal
Preamble which was delivered in the course of the meeting of September
14, 2011. This preamble enunciates some of the doctrinal principles and
criteria of interpretation of Catholic doctrine necessary for ensuring
fidelity to the Magisterium of the Church and to the sentire cum Ecclesia, while leaving open to legitimate discussion the study and theological explanation
of particular expressions and formulations present in the texts of the
Second Vatican Council and of the Magisterium that followed it.
Bishop Fellay is putting his own spin on this "take or leave it," last chance offer to take his place alongside the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter and the "Apostolic Administration of Saint John Mary Vianney" in Campos, Brazil, in the One World Ecumenical Church of conciliarism (Official translation of Interview with Bishop Fellay). Here is a telling point made by the bishop in that interview:
for the sake of objectivity, I must acknowledge that in the
doctrinal preamble there is no clear-cut distinction between
the inviolable dogmatic sphere and the pastoral sphere that
is subject to discussion. The only thing that I can say,
because it is part of the press release, is that this
preamble contains “certain
doctrinal principles and criteria for the interpretation of
Catholic doctrine, which are necessary to ensure
faithfulness to the Church’s Magisterium and to "sentire
cum Ecclesia" [thinking with the Church]. At
the same time, it leaves open to legitimate discussion the examination and theological explanation of individual
expressions and formulations contained in the documents of
Vatican Council II and of the later Magisterium.” There
you have it; no more and no less. (Official translation of Interview with Bishop Fellay)
Yes, Bishop Fellay, there you have it, and it's actually a lot more than what you are saying. You are willing to continue with your Rosary crusade for a few months and to give talks around the world in the chapels and institutions administered by the Society of Saint Pius X to rally the troops as you talk out of both sides of your mouth, saying what a difficult decision you have to make for the good of Holy Mother Church and for souls. You will ask for prayers. The prayers will be "answered" when you announce that you are going to Rome to sign on the dotted line and then continue the Society's March to Oblivion. The Society of Saint Pius X can then take its place (drum roll, please) alongside the "Catholic" Charismatic Renewal, Opus Dei,
Focolare, Cursillo, the Sant'Egidio Community, the Shalom Catholic
Community, the Chemin Neuf Community, the International Community of
Faith and Light, Regnum Christi, Communion and Liberation, the Emmanuel
Community, the Seguimi Lay Group of Human-Christian Promotion, and.
among many, many others, the Neocatechumenal Way, the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter, the Institute of the Good Shepherd, the Apostolic Administration of Saint John Mary Vianney, the Transalpine Redemptorists of Papa Stronsay, etc. Everyone is welcomed to have their own particular "takes" on what the documents of the "Second" Vatican Council means and on the teaching of conciliar "popes." Ratzinger/Benedict himself has put it best when he called the work of false ecumenism with Protestants and the Orthodox as "multiplicity in unity."
The more, the merrier as long as one tries to find a "way" to "understand" the new ecclesiology, false ecumenism, episcopal collegiality, separation of Church and State, religious liberty, interreligious prayer services and a "new" teaching in the "light of tradition" by using the methodology of the philosophically absurd and dogmatically condemned "hermeneutic of continuity and discontinuity" (called the "hermeneutic of rupture" in the official communique issued yesterday) that Ratzinger/Benedict claims to have "found" even though it is just a relabeling of an old Modernist concept that was condemned by Pope Pius X in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1908, and in The Oath Against Modernism, September 1, 1910. Conciliar officials do not really care what Bishop Fellay believes as long as he signs on the dotted line and says all of the right things about "discussions" to "clarify" points that Ratzinger/Benedict has made with perfect clarity.
That is, Ratzinger/Benedict believes what he considers the "past" teaching of the Catholic Church is never expressed "perfectly" as human words cannot possibly comprehend the many facets of Divine truth. It is therefore necessary to "adjust" this teaching in light of the needs of "modern" man, a proposition, condemned by the [First] Vatican Council, that blasphemes the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, Who directed the fathers of the Church's true councils to express doctrine in clear, precise terms. Truth can never contradict itself. (See, for example, Witness Against Benedict XVI: The Oath Against Modernism). There's a way to "finesse" Ratzinger/Benedict's anathematized belief concerning the nature of dogmatic truth?
The path taken by Bishop Fellay in the past six years has been taken by others. Indeed, Bishop Fernando Areas Rifan's path to "reconciliation" and "recognition" was described as follows by a prelate in a conference given in 2004:
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.)
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 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.)
Bishop Bernard Fellay's spirits have been quite pacified in the past six. years since his initial meeting with Ratzinger/Benedict at his summer residence in Castel Gandolfo on August 29, 2005, the Feast of the Beheading of Saint John the Baptist. Novus Ordo liturgical language has crept into some of the Society's chapels. Criticism of Ratzinger/Benedict has been, at least in most although not in all instances, muted, especially when he offends the honor and majesty and glory of God by esteeming the symbols of false religions with his own priestly hands and giving joint "blessings" with non-Catholic clergymen who have no valid orders.
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 Game.)
This is a consummate public relations game designed to "rally" the troops and to get Bishop Richard Williamson of the Society of Saint Pius X to "expel" himself from its ranks the moment that Bishop Fellay, his tormenter, signs on the dotted line without sweating the details.
The doctrinal "discussions" have been absurd from their outset as True Popes Never Need to Convert to the Faith.
Although I have resumed work on my book on Americanism, which is one of the fundamental building blocks of conciliarism's world view, I thought it opportune to put together this brief commentary on the thoroughly unsurprising development that took place yesterday concerning the eventual "reconciliation" of the Society of Saint Pius X with the counterfeit church of conciliarism that will swallow it whole and consign it to as much relevance in the daily life of ordinary Catholics as has been every other "Motu" community.
Do not live in confusion. The Catholic Church cannot be responsible for any of these outrages, which come from her counterfeit ape, an entity headed by men who believe that they can dispense with Catholic doctrine with a wave of the hand and a nod in the direction of a philosophical absurdity called the "hermeneutic of continuity and discontinuity."
As I note very frequently, pray your Rosaries. Know that the Immaculate Heart of Mary will indeed triumph. May it be our privilege to plant a few seeds for that Triumph.
We can console the good God and make reparation for our sins and for those of the whole world, including those of the conciliarists, with each Rosary that we pray, especially today the Feast of the Seven Sorrows of the Blessed Virgin Mary, a day upon which we should also pray the chaplet of the Seven Dolors of Our Lady, a practice that should be a hallmark of every Catholic home on a regular basis.
What are we waiting for?
Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!
Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!
Our Lady of Sorrows, pray for us.
Saint Joseph, pray for us.
Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.
Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.
Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.
Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.
Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.
Saint Nicomedes, pray for us.
See also: A Litany of Saints
Pope Saint Pius X's Condemnation of Promiscuous Contact With Non-Catholics in Secular Affairs
This being said, what must be thought of the promiscuity in which young Catholics will be caught up with heterodox and unbelieving folk in a work of this nature? Is it not a thousand-fold more dangerous for them than a neutral association? What are we to think of this appeal to all the heterodox, and to all the unbelievers, to prove the excellence of their convictions in the social sphere in a sort of apologetic contest? Has not this contest lasted for nineteen centuries in conditions less dangerous for the faith of Catholics? And was it not all to the credit of the Catholic Church? What are we to think of this respect for all errors, and of this strange invitation made by a Catholic to all the dissidents to strengthen their convictions through study so that they may have more and more abundant sources of fresh forces? What are we to think of an association in which all religions and even Free-Thought may express themselves openly and in complete freedom? For the Sillonists who, in public lectures and elsewhere, proudly proclaim their personal faith, certainly do not intend to silence others nor do they intend to prevent a Protestant from asserting his Protestantism, and the skeptic from affirming his skepticism. Finally, what are we to think of a Catholic who, on entering his study group, leaves his Catholicism outside the door so as not to alarm his comrades who, “dreaming of disinterested social action, are not inclined to make it serve the triumph of interests, coteries and even convictions whatever they may be”? (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)
Bishop George Hay on Relations With Non-Catholics
Lastly, the beloved disciple St. John renews the same command in the strongest terms, and adds another reason, which regards all without exception, and especially those who are best instructed in their duty: "Look to yourselves", says he, "that ye lose not the things that ye have wrought, but that you may receive a full reward. Whosoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine the same hath both the Father and the Son. If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, nor say to him, God speed you: for he that saith to him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works". (2 John, ver. 8)
Here, then, it is manifest, that all fellowship with those who have not the doctrine of Jesus Christ, which is "a communication in their evil works" — that is, in their false tenets, or worship, or in any act of religion — is strictly forbidden, under pain of losing the "things we have wrought, the reward of our labors, the salvation of our souls". And if this holy apostle declares that the very saying God speed to such people is a communication with their wicked works, what would he have said of going to their places of worship, of hearing their sermons, joining in their prayers, or the like?
From this passage the learned translators of the Rheims New Testament, in their note, justly observe, "That, in matters of religion, in praying, hearing their sermons, presence at their service, partaking of their sacraments, and all other communicating with them in spiritual things, it is a great and damnable sin to deal with them." And if this be the case with all in general, how much more with those who are well instructed and better versed in their religion than others? For their doing any of these things must be a much greater crime than in ignorant people, because they know their duty better. (Bishop George Hay, The Laws of God Forbidding All Communication in Religion With Those of a False Religion.)
The spirit of Christ, which dictated the Holy Scriptures, and the spirit which animates and guides the Church of Christ, and teaches her all truth, is the same; and therefore in all ages her conduct on this point has been uniformly the same as what the Holy Scripture teaches. She has constantly forbidden her children to hold any communication, in religious matters, with those who are separated from her communion; and this she has sometimes done under the most severe penalties. In the apostolical canons, which are of very ancient standing, and for the most part handed down from the apostolical age, it is thus decreed: "If any bishop, or priest, or deacon, shall join in prayers with heretics, let him be suspended from Communion". (Can. 44)
Also, "If any clergyman or laic shall go into the synagogue of the Jews, or the meetings of heretics, to join in prayer with them, let him be deposed, and deprived of communion". (Can. 63) (Bishop George Hay, (The Laws of God Forbidding All Communication in Religion With Those of a False Religion.)
Bishop Hay, who was the Vicar Apostolic for the Scottish Lowland District from 1778 to 1805 knew the Catholic Faith very well. There is no record that the Sovereign Pontiffs during his tenure, Popes Pius VI and Pius VII, ever once contradicted him for reiterating these truths of the Catholic Faith that he wanted the Catholics in Scotland to accept with humility and docility. That includes you, Father Michael Mary.
The Novus Ordo Service as a Rejection of Catholic Tradition and an Effort of "Conformism" to Protestantism
"We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren that is for the Protestants." (Annibale Bugnini, L'Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965.)
"[T]he intention of Pope Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the Mass, was to reform the Catholic liturgy in such a way that it should coincide with the Protestant liturgy.... [T]here was with Pope Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or at least to correct, or at least to relax, what was too Catholic in the traditional sense, in the Mass, and I, repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist mass" (Dec. 19, 1993, Apropos, #17, pp. 8f; quoted in Christian Order, October, 1994. The words were spoken by Jean Guitton, a close friend of Giovanni Montini/Paul VI. The quotation and citations are found in Christopher A. Ferrara and Thomas E. Woods, Jr., The Great Facade, The Remnant Publishing Company, 2002, p. 317.)
Let it be candidly said: the Roman Rite which we have known hitherto no longer exists. It is destroyed. (Father Joseph Gelineau, an associate of Annibale Bugnini on the Consilium, 1uoted and footnoted in the work of a John Mole, who believed that the Mass of the Roman Rite had been "truncated," not destroyed. Assault on the Roman Rite)