by
Thomas A. Droleskey
Apart from the many ways by which he has blasphemed the honor and majesty and glory of the Most Blessed Trinity, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has used his false "pontificate" to blaspheme many of the Fathers and the Doctors of Holy Mother Church by attempting to make them witnesses in behalf of conciliarism and its multiple defections from the Holy Faith (see
Attempting to Coerce Perjury.)
Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has blasphemed the thirteen millions martyrs of the first centuries of the Church, she who was brought to birth this very day, Pentecost Sunday as the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity descended in tongues of flame upon Our Lady and the Apostles and the others who were gathered in the same Upper Room in Jerusalem where Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ had instituted at the Last Supper fifty-three days before the Holy Priesthood and the Holy Eucharist for our sanctification and salvation, saying that they died as "martyrs for religious liberty." The first martyrs died as martyrs for the Catholic Faith precisely because they refused to acknowledge false religions or to place them on a level of equality with the one and only true religion, Catholicism, revealed by the true God of Divine Revelation.
Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has blasphemed the memory of the English Martyrs, each and every single one of whom refused to give any credence to the liturgical books of the false Anglican that he, Ratzinger/Benedict, is accepting as legitimate even though they were declared heretical by Pope Saint Pius V in Regnans in Excelsis, March 5, 1570 (see
Defaming The English Martyrs and
Still Defaming The English Martyrs).
Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has dared to spit in the face of God by claiming in a Talmudic synagogue that Christians and Jews "pray to the same Lord," showing himself to be bereft of the Catholic Faith (see Saint Peter and Anti-Peter), thereby mocking a mockery of the work begun by the first pope, Saint Peter, on this very day as he preached to the Jews to seek with urgency their unconditional conversion to the Catholic Faith.
Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has been faithless to the consistent teaching of the Catholic Church, undertaken in complete fidelity to her missionary work that commenced this very day, Pentecost Sunday, to seek the unconditional return of all non-Catholics to the Catholic Church, including Protestants and members of the various warring factions that make up Orthodoxy (see the section on false ecumenism in
Ratzinger's War Against Catholicism) Ratzinger/Benedict has even praised the so-called "World Missionary Conference" that met in Edinburgh, Scotland, from June 14 to June 23, 1910, marking the beginning of false ecumenism in Protestant circles. It was to condemn this false movement that Pope Pius XI wrote Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.
Ratzinger/Benedict's apostate heart and soul was displayed fully once again for all the world to see at Assisi III on October 27, 2011 (see Outcome Based Conciliar Math: Assisi I + Assisi II + Assisi III = A-P-O-S-T-A-S-Y).
Ratzinger/Benedict also has been willing to distort history in order to effect a "communion" with the Orthodox that is premised upon a belief that the doctrine of Papal Primacy was understood "differently" in the First Millennium that it was by the the time of the [First] Vatican Council.
Ratzinger/Benedict has given his own very personal expression of support for this long held view of his in a general audience address two years ago, thereby placing his own "papal" stamp on that which is nothing other than a complete and total distortion of the history of the papacy in the First Millennium of the Church. Readers will see in a moment that "Pope" Benedict XVI's views are identical to those of Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger, views that have migrated from his own Principles of Catholic Theology (published in 1982) to the "unofficial" The Ravenna Document, October 13, 2007:
Turning then to refer specifically to "the study of a crucial theme in dialogue between Catholic and Orthodox: 'the role of the Bishop of Rome in the communion of the Church in the first millennium'", a study which will subsequently "also extend to the second millennium", the Holy Father recalled how he had asked Catholics to pray "for this delicate dialogue which is so essential for the entire ecumenical movement". (CONTINUE TO PRAY FOR THE UNITY OF ALL CHRISTIANS; this link may no longer work. it was a Vatican Information Service report on a general audience address of Ratzinger/Benedict.)
After all, Cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida, in the same bull in which he excommunicated the Patriarch Michael Cerularius and thus inaugurated the schism between East and West, designated the Emperor and the people of Constantinople as "very Christian and orthodox", although their concept of the Roman primary was certainly far less different from that of Cerularius than from that, let us say, of the First Vatican Council. In other words, Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium. (Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, pp. 198-199)
It remains for the question of the role of the bishop of Rome in the communion of all the Churches to be studied in greater depth. What is the specific function of the bishop of the “first see” in an ecclesiology of koinonia and in view of what we have said on conciliarity and authority in the present text? How should the teaching of the first and second Vatican councils on the universal primacy be understood and lived in the light of the ecclesial practice of the first millennium? These are crucial questions for our dialogue and for our hopes of restoring full communion between us.
We, the members of the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, are convinced that the above statement on ecclesial communion, conciliarity and authority represents positive and significant progress in our dialogue, and that it provides a firm basis for future discussion of the question of primacy at the universal level in the Church. We are conscious that many difficult questions remain to be clarified, but we hope that, sustained by the prayer of Jesus “That they may all be one … so that the world may believe” (Jn 17, 21), and in obedience to the Holy Spirit, we can build upon the agreement already reached. Reaffirming and confessing “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph 4, 5), we give glory to God the Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, who has gathered us together. (The Ravenna Document)
Future discussion of "primacy at the universal level in the Church? Difficult questions remain to be clarified? God the Holy Ghost needs to help reach "an agreement" on Papal Primacy? Apostasy.
Pope Leo XIII dealt with these false assertions in Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae, June 20, 1894:
First of all, then, We cast an affectionate look upon the East, from whence in the beginning came forth the salvation of the world. Yes, and the yearning desire of Our heart bids us conceive and hope that the day is not far distant when the Eastern Churches, so illustrious in their ancient faith and glorious past, will return to the fold they have abandoned. We hope it all the more, that the distance separating them from Us is not so great: nay, with some few exceptions, we agree so entirely on other heads that, in defense of the Catholic Faith, we often have recourse to reasons and testimony borrowed from the teaching, the Rites, and Customs of the East.
The Principal subject of contention is the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff. But let them look back to the early years of their existence, let them consider the sentiments entertained by their forefathers, and examine what the oldest Traditions testify, and it will, indeed, become evident to them that Christ's Divine Utterance, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, has undoubtedly been realized in the Roman Pontiffs. Many of these latter in the first gates of the Church were chosen from the East, and foremost among them Anacletus, Evaristus, Anicetus, Eleutherius, Zosimus, and Agatho; and of these a great number, after Governing the Church in Wisdom and Sanctity, Consecrated their Ministry with the shedding of their blood. The time, the reasons, the promoters of the unfortunate division, are well known. Before the day when man separated what God had joined together, the name of the Apostolic See was held in Reverence by all the nations of the Christian world: and the East, like the West, agreed without hesitation in its obedience to the Pontiff of Rome, as the Legitimate Successor of St. Peter, and, therefore, the Vicar of Christ here on earth.
And, accordingly, if we refer to the beginning of the dissension, we shall see that Photius himself was careful to send his advocates to Rome on the matters that concerned him; and Pope Nicholas I sent his Legates to Constantinople from the Eternal City, without the slightest opposition, "in order to examine the case of Ignatius the Patriarch with all diligence, and to bring back to the Apostolic See a full and accurate report"; so that the history of the whole negotiation is a manifest Confirmation of the Primacy of the Roman See with which the dissension then began. Finally, in two great Councils, the second of Lyons and that of Florence, Latins and Greeks, as is notorious, easily agreed, and all unanimously proclaimed as Dogma the Supreme Power of the Roman Pontiffs.
We have recalled those things intentionally, for they constitute an invitation to peace and reconciliation; and with all the more reason that in Our own days it would seem as if there were a more conciliatory spirit towards Catholics on the part of the Eastern Churches, and even some degree of kindly feeling. To mention an instance, those sentiments were lately made manifest when some of Our faithful travelled to the East on a Holy Enterprise, and received so many proofs of courtesy and good-will.
Therefore, Our mouth is open to you, to you all of Greek or other Oriental Rites who are separated from the Catholic Church, We earnestly desire that each and every one of you should meditate upon the words, so full of gravity and love, addressed by Bessarion to your forefathers: "What answer shall we give to God when He comes to ask why we have separated from our Brethren: to Him Who, to unite us and bring us into One Fold, came down from Heaven, was Incarnate, and was Crucified? What will our defense be in the eyes of posterity? Oh, my Venerable Fathers, we must not suffer this to be, we must not entertain this thought, we must not thus so ill provide for ourselves and for our Brethren."
Weigh carefully in your minds and before God the nature of Our request. It is not for any human motive, but impelled by Divine Charity and a desire for the salvation of all, that We advise the reconciliation and union with the Church of Rome; and We mean a perfect and complete union, such as could not subsist in any way if nothing else was brought about but a certain kind of agreement in the Tenets of Belief and an intercourse of Fraternal love. The True Union between Christians is that which Jesus Christ, the Author of the Church, instituted and desired, and which consists in a Unity of Faith and Unity of Government.
Nor is there any reason for you to fear on that account that We or any of Our Successors will ever diminish your rights, the privileges of your Patriarchs, or the established Ritual of any one of your Churches. It has been and always will be the intent and Tradition of the Apostolic See, to make a large allowance, in all that is right and good, for the primitive Traditions and special customs of every nation. On the contrary, if you re-establish Union with Us, you will see how, by God's bounty, the glory and dignity of your Churches will be remarkably increased.
May God, then, in His goodness, hear the Prayer that you yourselves address to Him: "Make the schisms of the Churches cease," and "Assemble those who are dispersed, bring back those who err, and unite them to Thy Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church." May you thus return to that one Holy Faith which has been handed down both to Us and to you from time immemorial; which your forefathers preserved untainted, and which was enhanced by the rival splendor of the Virtues, the great genius, and the sublime learning of St. Athanasius and St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nazianzum and St. John Chrysostom, the two Saints who bore the name of Cyril, and so many other great men whose glory belongs as a common inheritance to the East and to the West. (See also the excellent discussion of the the history of what led up to the Greek Schism that is contained in Fathers Francisco and Dominic Radecki's Tumultuous Times.)
Ratzinger/Benedict has given Catholics and non-Catholics a distorted view of history and he has made it appear as though the new ecclesiology's concept of the "church as communion" has replaced the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church that there is no "Christian Church" outside of her. She is the one and sole embodiment of Christianity. The schismatic and heretical sects of Orthodoxy may have true sacraments because they possess true apostolic succession and have liturgical rites that that were used, at least for the most part, long before the Greek Schism of 1054. They do not have the Catholic Faith. Only those who adhere to the totality of the Deposit of Faith and are in full communion with a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter possess the Catholic Faith:
Agreement and union of minds is the necessary foundation of this perfect concord amongst men, from which concurrence of wills and similarity of action are the natural results. Wherefore, in His divine wisdom, He ordained in His Church Unity of Faith; a virtue which is the first of those bonds which unite man to God, and whence we receive the name of the faithful - "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Eph. iv., 5). That is, as there is one Lord and one baptism, so should all Christians, without exception, have but one faith. And so the Apostle St. Paul not merely begs, but entreats and implores Christians to be all of the same mind, and to avoid difference of opinions: "I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms amongst you, and that you be perfect in the same mind and in the same judgment" (I Cor. i., 10). Such passages certainly need no interpreter; they speak clearly enough for themselves. Besides, all who profess Christianity allow that there can be but one faith. It is of the greatest importance and indeed of absolute necessity, as to which many are deceived, that the nature and character of this unity should be recognized. And, as We have already stated, this is not to be ascertained by conjecture, but by the certain knowledge of what was done; that is by seeking for and ascertaining what kind of unity in faith has been commanded by Jesus Christ. (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896.)
The saint whose martyrdom we celebrated yesterday, Monday, November 14, 2011, Saint Josaphat Kucenewicz, laid down his very life in defense of the truths of the Holy Faith as he sought to convert the Orthodox back to the true Faith from which their ancestors had separated themselves nearly five hundred seventy years before. He did not care about threats. He was not going to be intimidated. He did not complain about the obstacles. He accepted calumnies with perfect equanimity, seeing in his detractors the loving hand of God to purify him for the sake of His greater honor and glory and the sanctification and salvation of souls. Saint Josaphat's martyrdom, however, came, the conciliarists would have us believe, with an "expiration" date, that of October 28, 1958, which was the dawning of the age of conciliarism, an age wherein purported "popes" have told the world that it is no longer necessary to seek to convert the Orthodox, something that they have formalized in the Balamand Statement that was made leaders of various branches of Orthodoxy:
23. Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Eastern, no longer aims at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other; that is to say, it no longer aims at proselytizing among the Orthodox. It aims at answering the spiritual needs of its own faithful and it has no desire for expansion at the expense of the Orthodox Church. Within these perspectives, so that there will no longer be room for mistrust and suspicion, it is necessary that there be reciprocal exchanges of information about various pastoral projects and that thus cooperation between bishops and all those with responsibilities in our Churches can be set in motion and develop.
23. The history of the relations between the
Orthodox Church and the Oriental Catholic Churches has been marked by
persecutions and sufferings. Whatever may have been these sufferings and
their causes, they do not justify any triumphalism; no one can glorify
in them or draw an argument from them to accuse or disparage the other
Church, God alone knows his own witnesses. Whatever may have been the
past, it must be left to the mercy of God, and all the energies of the
Churches should be directed towards obtaining that the present and the
future conform better to the will of Christ for his own.
24. It will also be necessary--and this on the
part of both Churches--that the bishops and all those with pastoral
responsibilities in them scrupulously respect the religious liberty of
the faithful. These, in turn, must be able to express freely their
opinion by being consulted and by organizing themselves to this end.
In fact, religious liberty requires that, particularly
in situations of conflict, the faithful are able to express their
opinion and to decide without pressure from outside if they wish to be
in communion either with the Orthodox Church or with the Catholic
Church. Religious freedom would be violated when, under the cover of
financial assistance, the faithful of one Church would be attracted to
the other, by promises, for example, of education and material benefits
that may be lacking in their own Church. In this context, it will be
necessary that social assistance, as well as every form of philanthropic
activity, be organized with common agreement so as to avoid creating new
suspicions. (The Balamand Statement.)
Yes, the martyrdom of Saint Josaphat is considered to be "out-of-date" for the conciliarists, part of the "past" about which there needs to be a "purification of memory." Those in the Orthodox churches have no need to fear of their eternal salvation. Indeed, a way must be exercise the "Petrine Ministry" in a manner that recalls Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's mythical beliefs about the papacy in the First Millennium.
Saint Josaphat's life stands in stark contrast to the heresies of conciliarism that leave so many souls into error and others in peril of losing their souls. Dom Prosper Gueranger explained the courage and zeal of this great martyr's life and his heroic death:
Josaphat Kuncewicz, contemporary with St. Francis de Sales and St. Vincent de Paul, might have been taken for a Greek monk of the eleventh century or an ascetic of the Thebaid. A stranger to the intellectual culture of the West, he knew only the liturgical books and sacred texts use din his own church; as a priest, an archimandrite, a reformer of his own Order of St. Basil, and lastly as archbishop, he combated his life the consequences of the schism of Photius, and closed the struggle by culling the palm of martyrdom. Yet all this took place in the heart of Europe, in the countries then subject to Catholic Poland, during the reign of most of its kings. How is this mystery to be explained?
Immediately after the Mongolian invasions Poland received into her arms, rather than conquered, the Ruthenian nation--that is to say, the Slavs of the Greek rite from the Dnieper and the Dwina, who had formed around their capital and religious metropolis, Kiev, the nucleus of the power now known as Russia. Had she granted a participation in her own national life to these brethren separated from, but not enemies to, the Roman unity, who came to her full confidence in her strength and her justice, Poland would have secured the triumph of the Catholic cause, and her own dominion throughout Slavonia. The union of the newcomers with the Roman pontiff, which a little more political insight and religious zeal might have brought about in the fourteenth century, was not concluded until 1595.
This was the union of Brzsec. By the compact signed in this little town of Lithuania, the metropolitan of Kiev and the other Greek bishops declared that they returned to the communion of the holy Apostolic See. Being the spiritual superiors of the half the nation, they thus completed the union of the three peoples, Ruthenian, Lithuanian, and Polish, then subject to Sigismund III. Now, a religious reform, even if decreed by a council, does not become a reality until men of God, true apostles and if need be martyrs, came forward to consummate it. This was the vocation of St. Josaphat, the apostle and martyr of the Union of Brzsec. What he did not himself carry out was completed by his disciples. A century of glory was secured to the nation, and its political ruin was delayed for two hundred years.
But Poland left in a state of humiliating inferiority the clergy and people of the Graeco-Slavonic rite, who had taken shelter in her bosom; her politicians never admitted practically that Christians of the Greek rite could be true Catholics on a equality with their Latin brethren. Soon, however, the Latin Poles were engaged in deadly combat with the Muscovites, and we know how the former were vanquished. Historians lay down the causes of Poland's defeat:; but they usually forget the principal one, which rendered it irremediable--viz., the forced return to schism of the immense majority of the Ruthenians whom St. Josaphat had brought into the Catholic Church. The consummation of this execrable work contributed, far more than political circumstances or military triumphs, to establish Russia's victory. Poland, reduced to nine or ten million Latins, could no longer struggle against her former rival now become her stern ruler.
The power of the Slavs separated from Catholic unity is on the increase. Young nations, emancipated from the Musselman [Mohammedan] yoke, have formed in the Balkan Peninsula. Fidelity to the Graeco-Slavonian rite, identified in their eyes with their nationality and with Christianity, was alone to save these peoples from being stamped out by the Turkish forces. Victorious over the universal enemy, they cannot forget whence came their safety: the moral and religious direction of these resuscitated nations belongs accordingly to Russia. Profiting by these advantages with consummate skill and energy, she continues to develop her influence in the East. In Asia her progress is still more prodigious. The Tsar, who at the end of the eighteenth century ruled over thirty million men, now governs one hundred and twenty-five millions; and and by the normal increase of an exceptionally prolific population, the empire, within another half-century, will reckon more than hundred millions of subjects.
Unhappily for Russia and for the Church, this power is guided at present by blind prejudice. Not only is Russia separated from Catholic unity, but political interest and the recollection of ancient strifes convince her that her greatness depends upon the triumph of what she calls Orthodoxy, which is simply the Photian schism. yet the Roman Church, ever devoted and generous, opens wide her arms to welcome back her wandering daughter; forgetting the injuries she has received, she asks but to be greeted with the name of mother. Let this word be uttered, and a whole sad past will be effaced.
Russia becoming Catholic would mean an end to Islamism, and the definitive triumph of the Cross upon the Bosphorus, without any danger to Europe, the Christian empire in the East restored with a glory and a power hitherto unknown; Asia evangelized, not by a few poor isolated priests, but with the help of an authority greater than that of Charlemagne; and lastly, the Slavonic race brought into unity of faith and aspirations, for its own greater glory. This transformation will be the greatest event of the century that shall see its accomplishment; it will change the face of the world.
Is there any foundation for such hopes? Come what may, St. Josaphat will always be the patron and model of the future apostles of the Union in Russia and in the whole Graeco-Slavonic world. By his birth, education, and studies, by the bent of his piety and all his habits of life, he resembled far more the Russian monks of the present day than the Latin prelates of his own time. He always desired the ancient liturgy of his Church to be preserved entire; and even to his last breath he carried it out lovingly, without the least alteration or diminution, just as the first apostles of the Christian faith had brought it from Constantinople to Kiev. May prejudices born of ignorance be obliterated; and then, despised though his name now is in Russia, St. Josaphat will no sooner be known than he will be loved and invoked by the Russians themselves.
On Graeco-Slavonian brethren cannot much longer turn a deaf ear to the invitations of the Sovereign Pontiff. Let us hope, then, that the day will come, and that before very long, when the wall of separation will crumble away for ever, and the same hymn of thanksgiving will echo at once under the dome of St. Peter's and the cupolas of Kiev and of St. Petersburg. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, The Liturgical Year: Time After Pentecost: Book VI, pp. 266-269.)
Can you understand now why Our Lady called for the conversion of Russia in the Cova da Iria near Fatima, Portugal, in 1917, as the fruit its consecration to her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart? Our Lady was not simply speaking about Communism, which had yet to take over Russia in its entirety, although its spirit was strong following the abdication of Czar Nicholas II and Empress Consort Alexander on March 15, 1917. Our Lady was referring also to the errors of Modernity wrought by Orthodoxy. Saint Josaphat understood the importance of Russia to the entirety of Catholic world order. He laid down his life to convert souls to bring about the conversion of this country that is so near and dear to the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Concerned about ObamaCare? There would be no ObamaCare and there would be no Obama as president of the United States of America if the errors of Russia had not been spreading since 1054 A.D., errors that would influence the mind of Martin Luther and result in his own diabolical revolution against the Divine Plan that God instituted to effect man's return to Him through the Catholic Church. Russia is critical to the re-establishment of Christendom.
To effect the conversion of Russia, of course, Saint Josaphat laid down his very life in a manner described in the Divine Office yesterday for his feast:
In this dignity he relaxed
nothing of his former manner of life; and had nothing so much at heart
as the divine service and the salvation of the sheep entrusted to him.
He energetically defended Catholic faith and unity, and laboured to the
utmost of his power to bring back schismatics and heretics to communion
with the See of Peter. The Sovereign Pontiff and the plenitude of his
power he never ceased to defend, both by preaching and by writings full
of piety and learning, against the most shameless calumnies and errors
of the wicked. He vindicated episcopal rights, and restored
ecclesiastical possessions which had been seized by laymen. Incredible
was the number of heretics he won back to the bosom of mother Church;
and the words of the pope bear witness how greatly he promoted the union
of the Greek and Latin churches. His revenues were entirely expended in
restoring the beauty of God's house, in building of dwellings for
consecrated virgins, and in other pious works. So bountiful was he to
the poor, that on one occasion, having nothing wherewith to supply the
needs of a certain widow, he ordered his Omnophorion, or episcopal
pallium, to be pawned.
The great progress made by the Catholic faith so
stirred up the hatred of wicked men against the soldier of Christ, that
they determined to put him to death. He knew what was threatening him;
and foretold it when preaching to the people. As he was making his
visitation at Vitebsk, the murderers broke into his house, striking and
wounding all whom they found. Josaphat meekly went to meet them, and
accosted them kindly, saying : "My little children, why do you strike my
servants? If you have any complaint against me, here I am." Hereupon
they rushed on him, overwhelmed him with blows, pierced him with their
spears, and at length dispatched him with an axe and threw his body into
the river. This took place on the twelfth of November, 1623, in the
forty-third year of his age. His body, surrounded with a miraculous
light, was rescued from the waters. The martyr's blood won a blessing
first of all for his murderers; for, being condemned to death, they
nearly all abjured their schism and repented of their crime. (As found in The Liturgical Year.)
The authentically incorrupt body of this great martyr, Saint Josaphat,
was on display under an altar on the right transept of the Basilica of
Saint Peter in Rome until a few years ago. The incorrupt body of this
great saint who spent himself tirelessly for the conversion of the
schismatic and heretical Orthodox was moved to a different, less
prominent location in order to make way for the artificially preserved
body of the thoroughly corrupt Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII, who promised
silence about Communism in order to purchase the presence of "observers"
from the schismatic and heretical Russian Orthodox Church at his
"Second" Vatican Council. The aggiornamento of Angelo Roncalli has
nothing to do with the conversion of men and nations to the Social Reign
of Christ the King and Mary our Immaculate Queen, thus helping to make
more possible the madness of a world made mad by the overthrow of this
sweet, gentle reign of our King and our Queen. We can never be party to silence on any point of doctrinal or moral truth in "exchange" for some concession given by those steeped in error and/or immorality. Not one compromise. Ever. For any reason.
The Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church complement those of the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church. This is beyond question. Those in the Eastern Rites must, however, believe in everything taught by the Catholic Church or suffer from doctrinal emphysema in their lungs. The Eastern Rites and the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church (as well as the little used Ambrosian Rite and the Mozarabic Rite proper to parts of Spain) each must breathe the clear, unpolluted air of the totality of the Deposit of Faith exactly as Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ entrusted It to Holy Mother Church without any shadow of alteration, change, ambiguity or contradiction whatsoever:
These and many other serious things, which at present too long to list, but which you know well, cause Our intense grief. It is not enough for Us to deplore these innumerable evils unless We strive to uproot them. We take refuge in your faith and call upon your concern for the salvation of the Catholic flock. Your singular prudence and diligent spirit give Us courage and console Us, afflicted as We are with so many trials. We must raise Our voice and attempt all things lest a wild boar from the woods should destroy the vineyard or wolves kill the flock. It is Our duty to lead the flock only to the food which is healthful. In these evil and dangerous times, the shepherds must never neglect their duty; they must never be so overcome by fear that they abandon the sheep. Let them never neglect the flock and become sluggish from idleness and apathy. Therefore, united in spirit, let us promote our common cause, or more truly the cause of God; let our vigilance be one and our effort united against the common enemies.
Indeed you will accomplish this perfectly if, as the duty of your office demands, you attend to yourselves and to doctrine and meditate on these words: "the universal Church is affected by any and every novelty" and the admonition of Pope Agatho: Therefore may the unity which is built upon the See of Peter as on a sure foundation stand firm. May it be for all a wall and a security, a safe port, and a treasury of countless blessings. To check the audacity of those who attempt to infringe upon the rights of this Holy See or to sever the union of the churches with the See of Peter, instill in your people a zealous confidence in the papacy and sincere veneration for it. As St. Cyprian wrote: "He who abandons the See of Peter on which the Church was founded, falsely believes himself to be a part of the Church." (Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832.)
The Russian Orthodox not only falsely believe that they belong to the "church" despite defecting from the Faith in numerous ways (see Appendix A below) they have been reaffirmed in this false belief by Ratzinger/Benedict, whose words and actions and long held and frequently expressed beliefs are at odds with the papal pronouncement after papal pronouncement, dogmatic declaration after dogmatic declaration
These firings, therefore, with all diligence and care having been formulated by us, we define that it be permitted to no one to bring forward, or to write, or to compose, or to think, or to teach a different faith. Whosoever shall presume to compose a different faith, or to propose, or teach, or hand to those wishing to be converted to the knowledge of the truth, from the Gentiles or Jews, or from any heresy, any different Creed; or to introduce a new voice or invention of speech to subvert these things which now have been determined by us, all these, if they be Bishops or clerics let them be deposed, the Bishops from the Episcopate, the clerics from the clergy; but if they be monks or laymen: let them be anathematized. (Sixth Ecumenical: Constantinople III).
They [the Modernists] exercise all their ingenuity in an effort to weaken the force and falsify the character of tradition, so as to rob it of all its weight and authority. But for Catholics nothing will remove the authority of the second Council of Nicea, where it condemns those "who dare, after the impious fashion of heretics, to deride the ecclesiastical traditions, to invent novelties of some kind...or endeavor by malice or craft to overthrow any one of the legitimate traditions of the Catholic Church"; nor that of the declaration of the fourth Council of Constantinople: "We therefore profess to preserve and guard the rules bequeathed to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, by the Holy and most illustrious Apostles, by the orthodox Councils, both general and local, and by everyone of those divine interpreters, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church." Wherefore the Roman Pontiffs, Pius IV and Pius IX, ordered the insertion in the profession of faith of the following declaration: "I most firmly admit and embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and other observances and constitutions of the Church.'' (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)
Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical' misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. . . . The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way. (Pope Saint Pius X, The Oath Against Modernism, September 1, 1910.)
As I keep trying to tell you, anyone who contends that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's long held beliefs concerning the ability to understand Catholic teaching differently at different times because of the contingent historical circumstances in which they were first expressed has been absolutely and without question condemned by the authority of the Catholic Church is not thinking too clearly.
Saint Josaphat is proof that Catholicism can never be reconciled with conciliarism.
Most of us will not be asked to give our lives for the Holy Faith. Like Saint Josaphat, however, we must be willing to do so at all times.
We must be willing to suffer the white martyrdom of ridicule and criticism and rejection and ostracism for refusing to recognize or associate with any of the spiritual robber barons of the counterfeit church of conciliarism who are so blithe in the offenses they commit against God so regularly and who are so dismissive of the gravity of error (save for "defections" from conciliarism by fully traditional Catholics and save for any effort to review the nature and the extent of the crimes of the Third Reich as such defections are "unforgivable" errors that must be "corrected") that do so much harm to the souls for whom Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ on the wood of the Holy Cross in atonement for our sins.
Obviously, we must, as always, spend time in prayer before Our Lord's Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament and pray as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit, using the shield of Our Lady's Brown Scapular of Mount Carmel and the weapon of her Rosary to protect us from the contagion of apostasy and betrayal that is all around us. We must also, of course, make reparation for our own many sins by offering up all of our prayers and sufferings and sacrifices and humiliations and penances and mortifications and fastings to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.
The final victory belongs to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. We must pray to her so that we can be instruments, unworthy though we may be, of planting the seeds for the restoration of Holy Mother Church and of the Social Reign of Christ the King so that everyone in the whole will exclaim with hearts consecrated to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary:
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 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
Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?
Appendix A
Various Ways in Which the Orthodox Defect From the Deposit of Faith Entrusted to the Catholic Church
1. Papal Primacy.
2. Papal Infallibility.
3. The doctrine of Original Sin as defined dogmatically by the Catholic Church. The ambiguous doctrine of the Orthodox was noted by Pope Pius VI in Auctorem Fidei, August 28, 1794, when discussing the Greek rejection of Limbo that is, of course, shared by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI:
Very few Greek Fathers dealt with the destiny of infants who die without Baptism because there was no controversy about this issue in the East. Furthermore, they had a different view of the present condition of humanity. For the Greek Fathers, as the consequence of Adam's sin, human beings inherited corruption, possibility, and mortality, from which they could be restored by a process of deification made possible through the redemptive work of Christ. The idea of an inheritance of sin or guilt - common in Western tradition - was foreign to this perspective, since in their view sin could only be a free, personal act.
This is what the Orthodox still believe, which makes them fit "partners" for "ecumenical dialogue" with Ratzinger/Benedict, who has told us in his own murky way that he is of one mind with them on the matter of Original Sin, which he called in 1995 an "imprecise" term (!). Here is a statement on Original Sin from the Orthodox Church in America:
With regard to original sin, the difference between Orthodox Christianity and the West may be outlined as follows:
In the Orthodox Faith, the term "original sin" refers to the "first" sin of Adam and Eve. As a result of this sin, humanity bears the "consequences" of sin, the chief of which is death. Here the word "original" may be seen as synonymous with "first." Hence, the "original sin" refers to the "first sin" in much the same way as "original chair" refers to the "first chair."
In the West, humanity likewise bears the "consequences" of the "original sin" of Adam and Eve. However, the West also understands that humanity is likewise "guilty" of the sin of Adam and Eve. The term "Original Sin" here refers to the condition into which humanity is born, a condition in which guilt as well as consequence is involved.
In the Orthodox Christian understanding, while humanity does bear the consequences of the original, or first, sin, humanity does not bear the personal guilt associated with this sin. Adam and Eve are guilty of their willful action; we bear the consequences, chief of which is death.
One might look at all of this in a completely different light. Imagine, if you will, that one of your close relatives was a mass murderer. He committed many serious crimes for which he was found guilty and perhaps even admitted his guilt publicly. You, as his or her son or brother or cousin, may very well bear the consequences of his action - people may shy away from you or say, "Watch out for him - he comes from a family of mass murderers." Your name may be tainted, or you may face some other forms of discrimination as a consequence of your relative’s sin. You, however, are not personally guilty of his or her sin.
There are some within Orthodoxy who approach a westernized view of sin, primarily after the 17th and 18th centuries due to a variety of westernizing influences particularly in Ukraine and Russia after the time of Peter Mohyla. These influences have from time to time colored explanations of the Orthodox Faith which are in many respects lacking. (Orthodox Church in America, Questions and Answers on Original Sin)
This is not Catholic doctrine. This matter cannot be "bridged" by concerts of music composed by Russians.
4. The Filioque, that God the Holy Ghost proceeds from both the Father and the Son.
5. The doctrine of Purgatory as defined by the authority of the Catholic Church.
6. The doctrine of Our Lady's Immaculate Conception as defined by the authority of the Catholic Church.
7. The doctrine of Our Lady's Assumption body and soul into Heaven as defined by the authority of the Catholic Church.
8. The doctrine of the indissolubility of a sacramentally valid, ratified and consummated marriage; the Orthodox hold that a person can marry up to three times following two divorces. Here is the Orthodox "consensus" (as there is no ultimate ecclesiastical authority within Orthodoxy to decide doctrinal matters) on the issue:
Marriage is one of the sacraments of the Orthodox Church. Orthodox Christians who marry must marry in the Church in order to be in sacramental communion with the Church. According to the Church canons, an Orthodox who marries outside the Church may not receive Holy Communion and may not serve as a sponsor, i.e. a Godparent at a Baptism, or as a sponsor at a Wedding. Certain marriages are prohibited by canon law, such as a marriage between first and second cousins, or between a Godparent and a Godchild. The first marriage of a man and a woman is honored by the Church with a richly symbolic service that eloquently speaks to everyone regarding the married state. The form of the service calls upon God to unite the couple through the prayer of the priest or bishop officiating.
The church will permit up to, but not more than, three marriages for any Orthodox Christian. If both partners are entering a second or third marriage, another form of the marriage ceremony is conducted, much more subdued and penitential in character. Marriages end either through the death of one of the partners or through ecclesiastical recognition of divorce. The Church grants "ecclesiastical divorces" on the basis of the exception given by Christ to his general prohibition of the practice. The Church has frequently deplored the rise of divorce and generally sees divorce as a tragic failure. Yet, the Orthodox Church also recognizes that sometimes the spiritual well-being of Christians caught in a broken and essentially nonexistent marriage justifies a divorce, with the right of one or both of the partners to remarry. Each parish priest is required to do all he can to help couples resolve their differences. If they cannot, and they obtain a civil divorce, they may apply for an ecclesiastical divorce in some jurisdictions of the Orthodox Church. In others, the judgment is left to the parish priest when and if a civilly divorced person seeks to remarry.
Those Orthodox jurisdictions which issue ecclesiastical divorces require a thorough evaluation of the situation, and the appearance of the civilly divorced couple before a local ecclesiastical court, where another investigation is made. Only after an ecclesiastical divorce is issued by the presiding bishop can they apply for an ecclesiastical license to remarry.
Though the Church would prefer that all Orthodox Christians would marry Orthodox Christians, it does not insist on it in practice. Out of its concern for the spiritual welfare of members who wish to marry a non-Orthodox Christian, the Church will conduct a "mixed marriage." For this purpose, a "non-Orthodox Christian" is a member of the Roman Catholic Church, or one of the many Protestant Churches which believe in and baptize in the name of the Holy Trinity. This means that such mixed marriages may be performed in the Orthodox Church. However, the Orthodox Church does not perform marriages between Orthodox Christians and persons belonging to other religions, such as Islam , Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, or any sectarian and cult group, such as Christian Science, Mormonism, or the followers of Rev. Moon. (The Stand of the Orthodox Church on Controversial Issues.)
9. The absolute prohibition against the use of any form of contraception whatsoever. This is from the website of the Greek Orthodox Church in America:
General agreement exists among Orthodox writers on the following two points:
- since at least one of the purposes of marriage is the birth of children, a couple acts immorally when it consistently uses contraceptive methods to avoid the birth of any children, if there are not extenuating circumstances;
- contraception is also immoral when used to encourage the practice of fornication and adultery.
Less agreement exists among Eastern Orthodox authors on the issue of contraception within marriage for the spacing of children or for the limitation of the number of children. Some authors take a negative view and count any use of contraceptive methods within or outside of marriage as immoral (Papacostas, pp. 13-18; Gabriel Dionysiatou). These authors tend to emphasize as the primary and almost exclusive purpose of marriage the birth of children and their upbringing. They tend to consider any other exercise of the sexual function as the submission of this holy act to unworthy purposes, i.e., pleasure-seeking, passion, and bodily gratification, which are held to be inappropriate for the Christian growing in spiritual perfection. These teachers hold that the only alternative is sexual abstinence in marriage, which, though difficult, is both desirable and possible through the aid of the grace of God. It must be noted also that, for these writers, abortion and contraception are closely tied together, and often little or no distinction is made between the two. Further, it is hard to discern in their writings any difference in judgment between those who use contraceptive methods so as to have no children and those who use them to space and limit the number of children.
Other Orthodox writers have challenged this view by seriously questioning the Orthodoxy of the exclusive and all-controlling role of the procreative purpose of marriage (Zaphiris; Constantelos, 1975). Some note the inconsistency of the advocacy of sexual continence in marriage with the scriptural teaching that one of the purposes of marriage is to permit the ethical fulfillment of sexual drives, so as to avoid fornication and adultery (1 Cor. 7:1-7). Most authors, however, emphasize the sacramental nature of marriage and its place within the framework of Christian anthropology, seeing the sexual relationship of husband and wife as one aspect of the mutual growth of the couple in love and unity. This approach readily adapts itself to an ethical position that would not only permit but also enjoin sexual relationships of husband and wife for their own sake as expressions of mutual love. Such a view clearly would support the use of contraceptive practices for the purpose of spacing and limiting children so as to permit greater freedom of the couple in the expression of their mutual love. (For the Health of Body and Soul: An Eastern Orthodox Introduction to Bioethics.)
These are not minor matters. And this all going to be "bridge" by means of appeals to the "heart"? Preposterous.
A mutual dislike of Scholasticism and a desire to "re-read" the Church Fathers without the "filter" provided by Saint Thomas Aquinas links Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's "New Theology" and the ambiguous doctrinal views of the Orthodox. I explored this in an article seventeen months ago now:
The following passages from Pope Pius XII's Humani Generis, August 12, 1950, describe--and condemn--the entirety of the intellectual work of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is using his "vague notions" and outright heresies to appeal for "unity" with the schismatic and heretical Orthodox churches without forcing them to accept the dogmatic pronouncements of the Second Millennium that were made without their "participation" and that were "distorted" by Scholasticism as a result:
Hence to neglect, or to reject, or to devalue so many and such great resources which have been conceived, expressed and perfected so often by the age-old work of men endowed with no common talent and holiness, working under the vigilant supervision of the holy magisterium and with the light and leadership of the Holy Ghost in order to state the truths of the faith ever more accurately, to do this so that these things may be replaced by conjectural notions and by some formless and unstable tenets of a new philosophy, tenets which, like the flowers of the field, are in existence today and die tomorrow; this is supreme imprudence and something that would make dogma itself a reed shaken by the wind. The contempt for terms and notions habitually used by scholastic theologians leads of itself to the weakening of what they call speculative theology, a discipline which these men consider devoid of true certitude because it is based on theological reasoning.
Unfortunately these advocates of novelty easily pass from despising scholastic theology to the neglect of and even contempt for the Teaching Authority of the Church itself, which gives such authoritative approval to scholastic theology. This Teaching Authority is represented by them as a hindrance to progress and an obstacle in the way of science. Some non Catholics consider it as an unjust restraint preventing some more qualified theologians from reforming their subject. And although this sacred Office of Teacher in matters of faith and morals must be the proximate and universal criterion of truth for all theologians, since to it has been entrusted by Christ Our Lord the whole deposit of faith -- Sacred Scripture and divine Tradition -- to be preserved, guarded and interpreted, still the duty that is incumbent on the faithful to flee also those errors which more or less approach heresy, and accordingly "to keep also the constitutions and decrees by which such evil opinions are proscribed and forbidden by the Holy See," is sometimes as little known as if it did not exist. What is expounded in the Encyclical Letters of the Roman Pontiffs concerning the nature and constitution of the Church, is deliberately and habitually neglected by some with the idea of giving force to a certain vague notion which they profess to have found in the ancient Fathers, especially the Greeks. The Popes, they assert, do not wish to pass judgment on what is a matter of dispute among theologians, so recourse must be had to the early sources, and the recent constitutions and decrees of the Teaching Church must be explained from the writings of the ancients.
Such is not the foundation of any kind of true reconciliation between the Orthodox and the Catholic Church, admitting that the counterfeit church of conciliarism can indeed "live" with these differences in the name of a false notion of "unity" and "love."
