Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us
February 18, 2009


by Thomas A. Droleskey

Although I have come to recognize that events in the counterfeit church of conciliarism are as relevant to the Catholic Faith as those that transpire in the schismatic and heretical Anglican "church," there are times when the internal operations of the counterfeit church, which is but an ape of the Catholic Church, present such a caricature of cowardice, confusion and disarray that some words of commentary are appropriate now and again.

Such is the case with the withdrawal of "Father" Gerhard Maria Wagner as an auxiliary "bishop" in the Diocese of Linz, Austria. Here is the timeline of "Father" Wagner's rise and fall as an auxiliary "bishop" within the confines of the counterfeit church of conciliarism (see Father Gerhard Maria Wagner at Catholic-Hierarchy: Its Bishops and Dioceses, Current and Past):

17 Jul 1954 54.58 54.6 Born Wartberg ob der Aist
10 Oct 1978 24.2 Ordained Priest Priest of Linz, Austria
31 Jan 2009 54.5 Appointed Auxiliary Bishop of Linz, Austria
31 Jan 2009 54.5 Appointed Titular Bishop of Zuri
Feb 2009 54.5 Resigned Auxiliary Bishop of Linz, Austria
Feb 2009 54.5 Resigned Titular Bishop of Zuri


"Father" Wagner's appointment as an auxiliary "bishop" in his native diocese aroused the anger of "progressives" in the counterfeit church of conciliarism in Austria who were upset with his, Wagner's, comments about Hurricane Katrina having been a fit punishment by God visited upon a city of sinfulness, New Orleans, Louisiana. "Father" Wagner's observations about Hurricane Katrina, which mirror those found in Fiat Voluntas Tua, are beyond the pale for many of his confreres in the counterfeit church of conciliarism. This is nothing new. Roger "Cardinal" Mahony, the conciliar "archbishop" of Los Angeles whose protection of priest-predators is under investigation by the United States Attorney's Office for the Central District of California, dismissed any efforts to link the January 17, 1994, Northridge Earthquake with the fact that the epicenter of that temblor was the pornographic film-making capital of the United States of America,. "Father" Wagner's very pertinent observations about the decadence extant in New Orleans does not fit neatly into the counterfeit church of conciliarism's"opening" to the spirit of the world that is enshrined, quite ironically, in the very Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service that he "offers" every day.

The uproar caused by "Father" Wagner's nomination by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI erupted within ten days of the interview that aired on Swedish television with Bishop Richard Williamson. Ratzinger/Benedict has done endless "mea culpas" as a result of the remarks made by Bishop Williamson about the nature and the extent of the crimes of the Third Reich of Adolf Hitler, even going so far as to meet a group of American adherents of the Talmud, the true Holocaust deniers who have dared to appropriate the word and to apply it to the atrocities committed against their own people by devil-worshipers who hated the Catholic Faith as much as they do, to explain that a denial of the details of the "Shoah" had no place in the "Catholic" Church. It is evidently the case that remarks such as those uttered by "Father" Gerhard Maria Wagner about Hurricane Katrina also have no place in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, whose theology is premised upon the false belief that sinners are never punished by God in this life for their sins so as to awaken their consciences and get them into the Confessional so that they will not be punished for all eternity in Hell after death.

Paragraph Fifteen of the General Instruction to the Roman Missal, the document that supposedly governs offerings of the Novus Ordo service, puts this falsehood out quite plainly for all to see:

The same awareness of the present state of the world also influenced the use of texts from very ancient tradition. It seemed that this cherished treasure would not be harmed if some phrases were changed so that the style of language would be more in accord with the language of modern theology and would faithfully reflect the actual state of the Church's discipline. Thus there have been changes of some expressions bearing on the evaluation and use of the good things of the earth and of allusions to a particular form of outward penance belonging to another age in the history of the Church.


Who says that "outward penance" belongs "to another age in the history of the Church"? Not God. Not His Blessed Mother. Not His other saints. No believing Catholic ever would contend that "outward penance is, in effect, "outdated." A believing Catholic knows that each and every sin demands punishment from God, whether in this life or the next, and that it is through our prayers and sufferings and sacrifices and the performance of indulgenced works that we can seek to have the just punishments for our sins remitted in whole or in part. "Father" Gerhard Maria Wagner should take time to consider the fact that no Catholic can place this teaching into question and remain a member of the true Faith in good standing, that the very fact that his brethren in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, which he believes is the Catholic Church rather than her counterfeit ape, can be aghast at him for making very reasonable and thoroughly Catholic statements is proof that the "agreement and union of minds" that Pope Leo XIII noted in Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896, is a necessary mark of the Catholic Church does not exist amongst his brethren in the Diocese of Linz, a sign that they are not members of the Catholic Church.

It is also very telling that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has melted down yet again in the face of pressure brought upon him, this time from the conciliar "bishops" of Austria, including the noted Modernist Christoph Schonborn, the conciliar "archbishop" of Vienna. (see Wild Card or Mirror Image?Unbent and Unaware and Unintelligent Evolutionary Forces), and accepted "Father" Wagner's withdrawal from his appointment as a conciliar "bishop" in his home diocese.

Ratzinger/Benedict is a true creature of the conciliar revolution he helped to launch and whose "true" interpretation he hopes to shape for future generations before he dies, although it should be noted that a man who believes that truth can never be expressed "adequately" at any one point time, the device he uses to dismiss decrees of the Catholic Church's dogmatic councils and the encyclical letters of the true popes that are in conflict with conciliarism, can never "guarantee" that his "true" interpretation of the "Second" Vatican Council will be accepted by a future conciliar "pontiff" who has no more regard for the permanence of Ratzinger/Benedict's words than he, Ratzinger/Benedict, has for, say, Pope Gregory XVI's Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832, or Pope Saint Pius X's Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906, or Pope Saint Pius X's Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907, or Pope Pius XI's Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928, or Pope Pius XII's Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943, or for the Scholasticism of Saint Thomas Aquinas. As a true progenitor and son of the "Second" Vatican Council, Ratzinger/Benedict is committed to the falsehood of "episcopal collegiality," and he is not about to risk angering the conciliar "bishops" of Austria over a nominee to an "episcopal" appointment against whom they are aligned as one man.

Some might object at this point that Ratzinger/Benedict has taken heat from "progressive" conciliar "bishops" for his issuance of Summorum Pontificum. As has been noted on this site endlessly by way of response to this objection, these "progressive" "bishops" do not realize that Ratzinger/Benedict is absolutely committed to the preservation of the ethos of the "Second" Vatican Council and to a maintenance of the Novus Ordo service as the "ordinary form of the Roman Rite." And Ratzinger/Benedict is willing to take a certain amount of heat from those "progressive" "bishops" in order to neutralize the opposition of traditionally-minded Catholics yet attached to the structures of his counterfeit church in order to finish completing the planks of the One World Church, a collection of people with disparate views on matters pertaining to the Deposit of Faith who are considered to be "in full communion" with the spirit of the "Second" Vatican Council:

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


Ratzinger/Benedict has demonstrated time and time again that he can be "rolled," to use a colloquialism, that he so utterly lacks a core as a result of his rejection of the "crystal-clear logic" of Scholasticism that complete "about-faces," if you will, are just part of the world of Hegelian contradiction and paradox into which he has plunged himself most voluntarily since his days as a seminarian sixty years ago now. There have been numerous examples of this throughout the course of the forty-six months of his false "pontificate."

Under pressure from members of various Mohammedan groups for a speech he gave at Regensburg University in Germany on September 12, 2006, Ratzinger/Benedict went so far as to walk into the "Blue Mosque" in Istanbul, Turkey, on November 30, 2006, to "prove" to Mohammedans worldwide, many of whom were upset with Ratzinger/Benedict's comments about their false religion, that he regarded Mohammedanism with esteem and respect. Ratzinger/Benedict walked into the Blue Mosque, taking off his shoes as he did so so as to signify entering into a "holy place" that is actually a den of the devil. He then assumed the Mohammedan "prayer" position and turned in the Mecca with his Mohammedan host, who prayed to his false god. This act of apostasy is documented. It is an act of apostasy committed out of cowardice and human respect to curry favor with the "world" in order to continue the madness of conciliarism's false ecumenism and "inter-religious" dialogue:

184_RatzMosque-02.jpg - 24856 Bytes     184_RatzMosque-03.jpg - 21922 Bytes


184_RatzMosque-01.jpg - 27020 Bytes

Benedict at the mosque


Ratzinger/Benedict, who is bereft of the sensus Catholicus as he views God and the world through the distorted lenses of his "New Theology," has, as noted earlier, bowed to the ancient enemies of the Catholic Faith at almost every turn, going so far as to revise the Good Friday Prayer for the Jews found in the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition that was promulgated by Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII in 1961 and 1962. His Excellency Bishop Donald A. Sanborn put this meltdown in its proper context in his masterful Genuflecting to the Jews.

Ratzinger, in changing the Good Friday prayer, did essentially what Pontius Pilate did on Good Friday: in order to appease a crowd of Jews  calling for the death of Christ, he had Him whipped and crowned with thorns, in the hope that the half-measure would have the full effect of satisfying the death-demanding rabble. But all he received in return for this cowardly and dastardly act was ever louder cries of “Crucify Him! Crucify Him!” He also merited a permanent place of shame in the Nicene Creed.


Ratzinger/Benedict's spokesman, Father Federico Lombardi, S.J., has had to "correct" various statements he had made on an "off-the-cuff" basis, statements that would put into jeopardy the false "pontiff's" commitment to "episcopal collegiality," especially in the realm of disciplining pro-abortion Catholics who serve in public office. A complete meltdown took place when Lombardi "corrected" Ratzinger/Benedict's comments about the discipline such pro-death Catholics were deserving during a question-and-answer period while flying to Brazil on May 9, 2007:

Vatican tones down papal remarks on pro-abortion Catholic politicians

By John Thavis
Catholic News Service

SAO PAULO, Brazil (CNS) -- Pope Benedict XVI's comments on excommunication for pro-abortion Catholic politicians touched on huge and sensitive issues -- so sensitive that the Vatican issued a toned-down version of his remarks the following day.

Speaking with journalists on the plane taking him to Brazil May 9, the pope left the impression that he agreed with those invoking excommunication for Catholic legislators in Mexico City who had voted in April to legalize abortion.

When reporters pressed the pope on whether he supported the excommunication of the Mexican deputies, he answered: "Yes, this excommunication was not something arbitrary, but is foreseen by the Code (of Canon Law). It is simply part of church law that the killing of an innocent baby is incompatible with being in communion with the body of Christ."

Referring to Mexican bishops, the pope continued: "Therefore, they did not do anything new, surprising or arbitrary. They only underlined publicly what is foreseen in (canon) law, a law based on the church's doctrine and faith, on our appreciation for life and for human individuality from the first moment."

On May 10, the Vatican press office released the official transcript of the pope's 25-minute session with reporters. The pope's opening "yes" to the direct question about excommunication had disappeared, and so had the references to Mexican bishops.

The tweaked version of the pope's remarks began: "Excommunication is not something arbitrary, but is foreseen by the Code (of Canon Law.) Therefore, it is simply part of church law that the killing of an innocent baby is incompatible with going to Communion, in which one receives the body of Christ."

In the rest of the edited version, some of the pope's verbs were changed to make his remarks more generic.

Asked about the changes, Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesman, told reporters May 10 that it was routine for the Vatican Secretariat of State to review the pope's extemporaneous remarks and clean them up a little for publication.

That the pope's comments had potential for controversy was apparent immediately after he made them. Father Lombardi quickly circulated among reporters on the plane and told them that the pope was not announcing a new policy on Catholic politicians.

Father Lombardi also noted confusion over what the Mexican bishops had and had not done. The Mexican bishops had not announced the excommunication of anyone, he pointed out.

"And if the bishops haven't excommunicated anyone, it's not that the pope wants to do so," Father Lombardi said.

Later May 9, after consulting with the pope, Father Lombardi said the pontiff was only reiterating the teaching that Catholic legislators who promote initiatives like the legalization of abortion exclude themselves from the conditions needed to participate fully in the Eucharist.

But for many media, those distinctions meant less than the pope's apparent "yes" to the penalty of excommunication for Catholic politicians. The next day's banner headline in one of Brazil's leading newspapers, Folha de Sao Paulo, read simply: "The pope supports the excommunication of pro-abortion politicians."

In Brazil and in several Latin America countries, there are increasing pressures to legalize abortion. Its adoption in Mexico City, which now allows abortion for the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, was seen by church leaders as a major defeat.

Some of the church's statements following the vote in Mexico City have appeared inconsistent, however.

Carlos Villa Roiz, a spokesman for Mexico City Cardinal Norberto Rivera Carrera, told Catholic News Service May 9 that the Mexican church did not yet have an official position on the matter.

Immediately before the law's approval April 24, local press quoted a Mexico City archdiocesan statement that said when the law took effect "any baptized assembly members will automatically be excommunicated and therefore be excluded from the Catholic Church."

However, Cardinal Rivera backed off this stance May 6, saying that excommunication was not necessary.

"The only official position of the archdiocese is the one the cardinal announced on Sunday," Villa said. "During Mass, he said that he hadn't considered excommunicating anyone."

Villa added that Mexican clergy were still debating whether the lawmakers had been excommunicated "latae sententiae," meaning excommunication may have been automatic following their vote, with no need for a formal church declaration.

He said Mexican church officials would be ready to follow any orders from the pope.

"When Rome speaks, the discussion is over," Villa said. "Even if Cardinal Rivera hasn't excommunicated them, the pope is making it understood that the legislators have committed a serious, mortal sin."

Politicians who supported the abortion bill have downplayed the excommunication discussions.

Mexico City Mayor Marcelo Ebrard, a member of the Democratic Revolution Party, told reporters May 9 that he "hadn't lost any sleep" over the possibility of being excommunicated.

"I am going to fulfill my duties," he said. "Above the law, there is nothing more important."

The issue of politicians and Communion has ramifications beyond Mexico.

During the 2004 U.S. presidential election campaign, about 10 to 12 of the approximately 190 diocesan bishops spoke out in favor of denying Communion to politicians who favored abortion. The bishops are scheduled to discuss the issue again this November when they vote on a new statement on "Faithful Citizenship." Contributing to this story was Jonathan Roeder in Mexico (http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0702642.htm)


As I noted at the time in Common Ground for Rudy and Benny:

One can always (as in always!) count on the conciliar revolutionaries to contradict themselves on matters pertaining to the discipline of pro-abortion Catholic public officials. Too many of the world's conciliar bishops, whose archdioceses and dioceses send oodles and oodles of money to the the Vatican in conciliar captivity, are too supportive of pro-abortion Catholics in public life for there to be any effective and consistent form of discipline imposed by the conciliar officials in the Vatican. Although there are some conciliar bishops in Latin America who are not as "tolerant" as their confreres in North America and Europe, the plain fact of the matter is that the dictates of the conciliarists novelty known as "episcopal collegiality" forbid a conciliar "pontiff" from acting arbitrarily in what conciliarism teaches is solely the realm of diocesan bishops, whose "jurisdiction" must be "protected" from perceived "Roman interference."

Obviously, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that the Hegelian Ratzinger meant to obfuscate the issue in his extemporaneous remarks onboard the airplane that was taking him from Rome to Brazil last week, knowing full well that his remarks would generate support among "conservative" Catholics. He thus realizes a public relations coup, having made "strong" comments concerning pro-abortion Catholic public officials while at the same time continuing the conciliar Vatican's "hands-off" policy concerning the imposition of any disciplinary measures upon those officials. This is the sorry ecclesiastical equivalent of President George Walker Bush making what appears to be "strong" "pro-life" statements while he appoints pro-aborts to the highest echelons of his administration and campaigns actively for completely pro-abortion Republican candidates for public life, to say nothing of his administration's funding for the chemical assassination of preborn children by means of domestic and international "family planning" programs.


Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger did a flip-flop on this matter in 2004, about two years before I came to accept the canonical-doctrinal teaching of the Catholic Church that those who defect from the Faith cannot hold offices in the Church legitimately, that Ratzinger's statements on the discipline, if any, that should be meted out to pro-abortion Catholics in public life caused a furor amidst a sea of contradiction and confusion. Here is a timeline of events that caused me to write no less than three articles before my original conclusion, that Ratzinger was neither a defender of the Faith or of the Eucharist, proved to be the correct one:

After over a month of confusion that caricatures the confusion of the entire conciliar and postconciliar eras in the history of the Catholic Church, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has once again thrown the matter of denying Holy Communion to pro-abortion Catholic politicians into an absurd farce of all that is wrong with the Church in her human elements today. Here is the timeline of an incredible, but sadly predictable, series of events that has made a lot of Catholic writers, including me, look like monkey's uncles.

June 4, 2004: The Most Reverend Donald Pellotte, the Bishop of Gallup, New Mexico, reported that Cardinal Ratzinger had told a group of American bishops during their ad limina apostolorum they should "proceed cautiously" in the matter of denying Holy Communion to pro-abortion Catholic politicians.

June 17, 2004: A Catholic World News report indicated that Cardinal Ratzinger had sent a private letter to Theodore Cardinal McCarrick, the Archbishop of Washington, D.C., and Bishop Wilton Gregory, the President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, that provided guidelines for the American bishops on the matter as they deliberated on it during their semi-annual meeting, held in Englewood, Colorado. The initial report was sketchy, but it indicated that Ratzinger had seemed to side with the stands that had been taken by St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Leo Burke and Colorado Springs, Colorado, Bishop Michael Sheridan. The details were shrouded in mystery. It appeared that Ratzinger's remarks could have served either side of the issue, typical of the conciliarist penchant for ambiguity and uncertainty.

June 17, 2004: The American bishops voted overwhelmingly to adopt a statement of "Catholics in Political Life" that was essentially an agreement for the bishops to disagree with each other, stating that each bishop had to approach the matter of denying Holy Communion to pro-abortion Catholics in public life on his own.

July 3, 2004: The text of what is purported to be Cardinal Ratzinger's letter to the American hierarchy is published by a well-respected Italian reporter of Vatican affairs, Sandro Magister. The statement, though raising a lot of questions, seems to indicate that Catholic pro-abortion politicians must be denied Holy Communion after an undefined period of "instruction" on the part of their pastors (although who specifically is defined as "pastor," whether a parish priest or a diocesan bishop). Apart from a very important and much needed clarification between the issues of abortion and the imposition of the death penalty, the statement contained a horrific Note Bene which basically undermined the likes of Archbishop Burke and Bishop Sheridan, who had said that Catholics could never for a pro-abortion candidate, stating that Catholics could vote for a pro-abortion candidate for public office if they did for "proportionate reasons" despite that candidate's "permissive" pro-abortion stance and not meaning to endorse such a stance. In other words, it was the status quo ante.

July 4, 2004: Thinking I had gotten the story wrong, I did a mea culpa and wiped the egg off of my face to apologize to His Eminence for suggesting in Catholic Family News that he had sided with the likes of Cardinal McCarrick and Roger Cardinal Mahony, the Archbishop of Los Angeles, both of whom had said that they would not deny Holy Communion to pro-abortion Catholic politicians. I did raise a number of questions about the ambiguities contained in the statement. However, I thought that the Ratzinger statement was released to make the American bishops look bad and to give a sort of back-handed endorsement to the approach taken by Archbishop Burke and Bishop Sheridan. Sandro Magister's article was entitled, "What Ratzinger Wanted, but Didn't Get."

July 6, 2004: Cardinal McCarrick says that the Ratzinger statement, which he said at the time that he had not seen, was not the whole story, that the Prefect of the Congregation for the Faith had sent a cover letter to the statement (never mind the apparent contradiction between McCarrick saying that he had not seen the Ratzinger statement and that a cover letter had been sent with it) that gave the American bishops great leeway to decide the matter for themselves. McCarrick implies that a series of phone conversations with Cardinal Ratzinger had given the American bishops the same impression.

After July 6, 2004: A series of articles were published by prominent Catholics to praise Cardinal Ratzinger's firmness and to criticize most of the American bishops for failing to follow the Ratzinger statement. Several of these Catholics strained at gnats, trying to convince themselves that the Ratzinger statement was more or less binding on the American bishops, that His Eminence's statement that Catholic pro-abort politicians "must" be denied Holy Communion was an absolute mandate. Others overlooked the problematic Note Bene, wherein Ratzinger basically gave Catholics carte blanche to vote for pro-abortion politicians, something that I pointed out in an article posted on the Daily Catholic website on July 9, 2004. The matter had become a typical postconciliar mess. Bishops arguing with each other. Well-meaning Catholics attempting to grasp at straws to prove that their "hero," Cardinal Ratzinger, was defending the integrity of the Eucharist.

July 13, 2004: After more days of confusion and contradictory statements, Cardinal McCarrick released a letter, dated July 9, 2004, by Cardinal Ratzinger which stated the following:

Your Eminence:

With your letter of June 21, 2004, transmitted via fax, you kindly sent a copy of the Statement "Catholics in Political Life," approved by the members of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops at their June meeting.

The Congregation is grateful for this courtesy. The statement is very much in harmony with the general principles "Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion," sent as a fraternal service-to clarify the doctrine of the Church on this specific issue-in order to assist the American Bishops in their related discussion and determinations.

It is hoped that this dialogue can continue as the Task Force carries on its important work.

With fraternal regards and prayerful best wishes, I am,

Sincerely yours in Christ, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

Thus, the June 17, 2004, statement of Cardinal Ratzinger, "Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion," was merely sent "as a fraternal service to clarify the doctrine of the Church on this specific issue--in order to assist the American bishops in their related discussion and determinations." It was not binding on the bishops. It does not have the force of law. It is simply another empty "white paper" from the Vatican that has been trumped by the machinations of those bishops in the United States of America who do not want to stand with Archbishop Burke and Bishop Sheridan. Once again, a threat to the novelty of "collegiality," which has done much to undermine the good of the Church and thus of souls, had to be resolved by the papering over of differences between the Holy See and many of the American bishops, including Cardinal McCarrick and his allies.

In other words, I was right in my July article in Catholic Family News. Cardinal Ratzinger is neither a defender of the Faith or of the Eucharist. He is a propagator of many doctrinal (Jews look "expectantly" for the Messiah) and pastoral errors that are symbolic of the entire state of confusion ushered in as a result of the Second Vatican Council and its aftermath. If apologies are owed to anybody, they are to be given to Cardinal McCarrick, of all people, who turns out to have been telling the truth, evidently, when he said last week that Cardinal Ratzinger had affirmed privately what the American bishops had decided in Englewood, Colorado. McCarrick is wrong on the stand he has taken with respect to this issue. Then again, so was Cardinal Ratzinger's June 17 statement. The only fitting way to deal with pro-abortion Catholic politicians is to excommunicate them all, not to engage them in more "dialog" as babies are killed both chemically and surgically. (Never Mind! I Was Right the First Time)


Ratzinger/Benedict did indeed tell the pro-abortion Catholic Speaker of the United States House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi at the Vatican today, Wednesday, February 18, 2009, that she had a duty to "to work in co-operation with all men and women of good will in creating a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of its development" (see Benedict strongly rebukes Pelosi over abortion; Benedict preaches to Pelosi on abortion). Then again, of course, Mrs. Pelosi will remain a Catholic in "good standing" in the conciliar structures despite this "papal" reprimand. What has happened to any of her pro-abortion Catholic conferees in either major political party in the United States of America or anywhere else in the rest of the world? Nothing. Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair was received as a member in "full communion" in the counterfeit church of conciliarism even though he supports baby-killing. Adherence to everything contained in the Deposit of Faith? Not a necessity for "membership" in a false church.

Father Miguel D'Escoto, an admirer of the mass-murderer and tyrant Fidel Castro and the current President of the General Assembly of the United Masonic Nations Organization, remains a priest of the Maryknoll order in "good standing" in the conciliar structures despite his support for "liberation theology."

Fathers Hans Kung and Charles Curran, although they have been disciplined mildly by the conciliar Vatican, still remain "priests" in good standing in the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

The former conciliar archbishop of Seattle, Washington, Raymond Hunthausen, a true bishop who was consecrated in 1962, remains in perfectly "good standing" in the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism despite having countenanced things (the "marriage" of divorced Catholics who had not received conciliar decrees of nullity, liturgical abuses that were beyond the pale for conciliar officials in Rome, contraceptive sterilizations being performed in "Catholic" hospitals,  "married" priests being permitted to officiate at certain functions, routine distribution of what purports to be Holy Communion to non-Catholics--as opposed to the "occasional" distribution permitted by the 1983 conciliar Code of Canon Law, support for "Dignity," an organization committed to the promotion of perverse acts contrary to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments) that were critiqued by none other than Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger in 1985 following an "apostolic visitation" made by the conciliar "archbishop" of Washington, D.C., at the time, James Hickey. A Vatican meltdown ensued following the appointment of Father Donald Wuerl as Hunthausen's unwanted auxiliary "bishop," and Ratzinger appointed three conciliar bishops--John "Cardinal" O'Connor, Joseph "Cardinal Bernardin and Archbishop John Quinn of San Francisco, each of whom was at odds with Catholic teaching on various points*--to "mediate" the situation, resulting in Wuerl's return to his home diocese, Pittsburgh, where he became "ordinary" in 1988 and from which he moved to Washington, D.C., to preside over a "hands-off" policy with respect to pro-abort Catholic politicians such as Pelosi. Hunthausen got a "friendlier" helper in the person of "Bishop" Thomas Murphy, who "succeeded" Hunthausen in 1991. The latter remains unrepentant, boasting that he never had to compromise his "liberal" beliefs. Indeed not, not in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, a place where a little bit of well-placed "yelling" can get you all of the results you want from the conciliar "pontiffs."

The former conciliar "bishop" of Evreux, France, Jacques Gaillot, remains a "bishop" in good standing in the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism despite his having been removed by Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II on January 13, 1995, following a popular uprising against him for his support of, among other things, the human pesticide, RU-486, the French abortion pill, divorce, contraception and the "blessing" of perverse "unions." Yes, Jacques Gaillot is a "bishop," albeit "retired," in perfectly "good standing" even as he addresses "Call to Action" meetings. The again, "Call to Action," a group that believes in one apostasy after another, was formed with the full support and approval of the notorious Modernist John Cardinal Dearden of the Archdiocese of Detroit.

And it was none other than the then Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger who engaged in a song-and-dance routine when leaders of various Talmudic organizations were upset with the issuance of Dominus Iesus, August 6, 2000, as was recounted in a now out-of-print book:

Cardinal Ratzinger himself began backpedaling almost immediately at the September 5 [2000] press conference itself. According to the Italian bishops' newspaper Avvenire, when asked whether DI [Dominus Iesus] taught that the Jews could not be saved without faith in Christ, Ratzinger offered the following non-answer: "Every Catholic theologian recognizes the salvific role of that people." Granted that "salvation is of the Jews," as our Lord taught us (John 4:22), but as He says immediately afterward: "But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true adorers shall adore the Father in spirit and in truth"--that is, the Messiah has arrived and shall be adored by those who worship truly. Having rejected the Messiah, however, what "salvific role" does modern Israel play today? When pressed on whether an individual Jew could be saved without recognizing Christ, the Cardinal replied that "it is not necessary that he recognize Christ the savior, and it is not given to us to explore how salvation, the gift of God, can come even for him." Ratzinger went on to say that "Christ is a reality that changes history, even for those who do not recognize him." Are we to take from this that Christ saves the Jews whether they recognize him or not, simply because His existence "changes history"?

However, it appears that at the same press conference Ratzinger gave a more nuanced answer, apparently in response to another questioner:

[We]e are in agreement that a Jew, and this is true for believers of other religions, does not need to know or acknowledge Christ as the Son of God in order to be saved, if there are insurmountable impediments, of which he is not blameworthy, to preclude it. However...Christian history affects us all, even those who are opposed or cannot encounter Christ. This is a reality that transforms history; it is something important for others, without violating their conscience.

Now, which is it--that a Jew need not recognize Christ in order to be saved, or that a Jew need not recognize Christ if there is an "insurmountable impediment"? Note also that Cardinal Ratzinger here repeats the suggestion that the mere presence of Christ in history "affects" Jews who reject him. What does this mean? One thing all these remarks mean is a diminution of the impact of DI's teaching that Christ is the sole mediator of the only way of salvation for all men--a teaching DI itself nuances nearly to the point of irrelevance.

Since the publication of DI was supposed to be the occasion for clarifying confusion about Christ and salvation, why not end a long period of postconciliar confusion by stating forthrightly what the Church always taught before the Council: "Yes, objectively speaking, a Jew must come to Christ and be baptized in order to be saved, just like everyone else in the human race; for Christ is God and He commissioned His Church to make disciples of all nations. This is what the Catholic Church has always taught and always will teach." Instead, Cardinal Ratzinger immediately focused on "insurmountable impediments." And what is an "insurmountable impediment" in the first place? Is this notion something even broader than the ever-expanding category of "invincible ignorance"? Cardinal Ratzinger gave no indications. However, if one of Rabbi Toaff's own predecessors as chief rabbi of Rome, Rabbi Israel Zolli, was able to follow God's grace into the Roman Catholic Church immediately after World War II, then why not Rabbi Toaff himself or any other Jew alive today--especially after thirty-five years of "Jewish-Christian" dialogue," which was supposed to engender greater understanding of the Church on the part of Jews?

Or is the mere fact of being a Jew, immersed in Jewish religion and culture, and facing ostracism if one converts, now to be considered an "insurmountable impediment" to conversion? If so, then no Jew from St. Paul to the present day has ever been subjectively obliged to join the Church; nor has anyone else in religious, emotional or cultural circumstances that would make conversion difficult. But this would mean that the only people obliged to become Catholics are those who would not find conversion unduly burdensome. Everyone else has an "insurmountable impediment." That is the very thesis being promoted by some of the more liberal exponents of "invincible ignorance," who speak of "unconscious psychological blocks" and other elaborate pseudo-scientific excuses for not becoming a Catholic that have proliferated since Vatican II. There is very little place for the power of God's grace in this kind of semi-Pelagian thinking. We are not here contending that Cardinal Ratzinger himself actually teaches anything like this, but in view of the veiled nature of his remarks it is difficult to know what he is teaching. A clarification of DI's "clarifications" is already urgently needed. (out of print book, , pp. 369-372.)

Catholics remain steadfast in defense of the Faith. They do not waffle because the ancient enemies of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ get upset because they get reminded now and again that He is the Saviour Whom they have rejected and despised.

"Father" Gerhard Maria Wagner's withdrawal from his appointment by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI as an auxiliary "bishop" in Linz, Austria, is just par for the course in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, a place where "agreement and union" of minds is utterly unnecessary in order for one to be in "good standing" or in "full communion" with others of unlike minds and hearts. One can only pray that "Father" Wagner will recognize that the church he belongs to is indeed a false one that has deceived him into thinking that he has valid priestly orders when he does not.

The Sixth Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church, the Third Council of Constantinople, explained that the Catholic Faith is unchanging, rejecting innovation in no uncertain terms, and it is innovation and novelty, such as Ratzinger/Benedict's "hermeneutic of continuity and discontinuity" to justify the apostasies of conciliarism as being in concert with the Catholic Faith, that has led to a meltdown of the Faith among a large preponderance of Catholics, both clergy and laity alike, who are as of yet attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism:

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).


Unlike the conciliarists, who meltdown whenever pressure is exerted from various sources, we must remain firm in the Faith. We cannot do this on our own power. Not at all. We must rely upon the graces won for us by the shedding of every single drop of the Most Precious Blood of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ on the wood of the Holy Cross and that flows into our hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces. We must offer up our prayers and sacrifices and fastings and humiliations and good works and almsgiving to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary. We must pray as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit.

We must remain steadfast in the Faith as we recognize that this is the time that God has known from all eternity that we would be alive, meaning that He has work for us to do as we seek to sanctify our souls and to make reparation for our sins and those of the whole world. The final victory belongs to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and this victory is not for the faint-of-heart. We must, despite our own sins and unworthiness, defend the Faith as Pope Leo XIII exhorted us to do in Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890:

But in this same matter, touching Christian faith, there are other duties whose exact and religious observance, necessary at all times in the interests of eternal salvation, become more especially so in these our days. Amid such reckless and widespread folly of opinion, it is, as We have said, the office of the Church to undertake the defense of truth and uproot errors from the mind, and this charge has to be at all times sacredly observed by her, seeing that the honor of God and the salvation of men are confided to her keeping. But, when necessity compels, not those only who are invested with power of rule are bound to safeguard the integrity of faith, but, as St. Thomas maintains: "Each one is under obligation to show forth his faith, either to instruct and encourage others of the faithful, or to repel the attacks of unbelievers.'' To recoil before an enemy, or to keep silence when from all sides such clamors are raised against truth, is the part of a man either devoid of character or who entertains doubt as to the truth of what he professes to believe. In both cases such mode of behaving is base and is insulting to God, and both are incompatible with the salvation of mankind. This kind of conduct is profitable only to the enemies of the faith, for nothing emboldens the wicked so greatly as the lack of courage on the part of the good. Moreover, want of vigor on the part of Christians is so much the more blameworthy, as not seldom little would be needed on their part to bring to naught false charges and refute erroneous opinions, and by always exerting themselves more strenuously they might reckon upon being successful. After all, no one can be prevented from putting forth that strength of soul which is the characteristic of true Christians, and very frequently by such display of courage our enemies lose heart and their designs are thwarted. Christians are, moreover, born for combat, whereof the greater the vehemence, the more assured, God aiding, the triumph: "Have confidence; I have overcome the world." Nor is there any ground for alleging that Jesus Christ, the Guardian and Champion of the Church, needs not in any manner the help of men. Power certainly is not wanting to Him, but in His loving kindness He would assign to us a share in obtaining and applying the fruits of salvation procured through His grace.


We must never meltdown in the midst of temptation in our own personal lives. We must never meltdown in the face of pressures to "conform" to the spirit of apostasy and betrayal advanced by the counterfeit church of conciliarism. We must remain obedient wholly and without any reservation at all to the Deposit of Faith as we cleave to true bishops and true priests in the Catholic catacombs who make no concessions to conciliarism or the nonexistent legitimacy of its false shepherds.

This obedience to the Deposit of Faith that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has entrusted to His Catholic Church for Its eternal safekeeping and infallible explication without any stain of even hint of corruption or confusion must be entire. As Saint Bernadette Soubirous, whose saintly life is commemorated today, said to one of the novices under her direction in the Convent of the Sisters of the Visitation in Nevers, France, "You will never be happy without obedience." And obedient souls never "melt down" in the face of threats from enemies of the Catholic Faith.

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!


Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!


Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Our Lady of the Rosary, 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.

Saint Bernadette Soubirous, pray for us.

Saint Simeon, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints

*--John "Cardinal" O'Connor said in 1998 that Judaism and Catholicism were meant to "coexist side by side" until the end of time. "This is what my boss (John Paul II) teaches, and I work for my boss." He said this before a meeting of the Masonic Anti-Defamation League of B'Nai Brith. The original citation for this came from a newspaper article that I cited in the printed pages of Christ or Chaos. Anyone who has copies of Christ or Chaos in 1998 can look up the citation and send it to me. The closest thing that I can find online is the following, which comes from a reminiscence of O'Connor provided by the late pro-abortion "papal" "knight," Rabbi Leon Klenicki, in Full of Grace: An Oral Biography of John Cardinal O'Connor, edited by Terry Golway:

Once we invited him to talk at one of the Anti-Defamation League dinners. He was there to help present a booklet we had put out. During his speech, he told a story about how he once went to a Reform synagogue and he was the only one there with a yarmulke. Several Reform rabbis who were there looked at each others--I think they couldn't believe it--but everybody was laughing. The Cardinal had a serious point, too. Later that night, he said that he was in pain because there are Jews who do not want to exercise their Judaism because of assimilation or other reasons. It is their duty to practice their faith, he said, to prove that God exists and to refute the Holocaust. He sounded very much like a rabbi when he spoke. The crowd was all around him afterwards, shaking his hand and embracing him. I told him if he ever needed a job I knew a congregation that could use him. (Page 148 of Full of Grace: An Oral Biography of John Cardinal O'Connor.)


Ah, so the "Holocaust" is a justification for people practicing a false, dead, superseded religion that is hated by God? Yes, although I criticized O'Connor at the time, I was loathe to admit that his defection from the Faith concerning the Jews was to be called by its rightful name, apostasy.

O'Connor's apostate view of Jews was reiterated later that year, on Christmas night, to be precise, when he said on the American Broadcasting Company television network's Nightline program that "God was smiling" on the conversion of a Catholic man, Stephen Dubner, to Judaism.

*--Joseph "Cardinal" Bernardin, a true bishop, defected the Faith in numerous ways, most especially by stating that Saint John the Evangelist was the "source" of contemporary "anti-Semitism," blaspheming God the Holy Ghost, Who inspired the words that Saint John wrote in his Gospel and Epistles and the Book of the Apocalypse. See "Antisemitism: The Historical Legacy and the Continuing Challenge for Christians. Here is a key section from this work of blasphemy:

In the interim, as we await a scholarly resolution of the question of antisemitism in the New Testament, I would strongly urge that the Church adopt a pastoral approach. Father Raymond Brown, a renowned Catholic scholar on the Gospel of St. John, has suggested that the basis of a pastoral approach, at least with with respect to the Fourth Gospel, which is generally considered among the most problematic of all New Testament books in its outlook towards Jews and Judaism. In commenting on John's use of the term, "the Jews," Brown expresses his conviction that, by deliberately using this generic term (where other gospel writers refer to the Jewish authorities or the various Sacred Temple Jewish parties), John meant to extend to the synagogue of his own day blame that an earlier tradition had attributed to the Jewish authorities. Although John was not the first to engage in such extension, he is the most insistent New Testament author in this regard. Brown attributes this process in John to the persecution that Christians were experiencing during that time at the hands of the synagogue authorities. Jews who professed Jesus to be the Messiah had been officially expelled from Judaism, thus making them vulnerable to Roman investigation and punishment. Jews were tolerated by Rome, but who were these Christians whom the Jews disclaimed?

Father Brown maintains that this This is a key pastoral point. Christians today must come to see that such teaching, which an acknowledged part of their biblical heritage, can no longer be regarded as definitive teaching in light of our improved understanding of developments in the relationship between early Christianity and the Jewish community of the time. As Brown says in his book, The Community of the Beloved Disciple, "It would be incredible for a twentieth-century Christian to share or justify the Johannine contention that 'the Jews' are the children of the Devil, an affirmation which is placed on the lips of Jesus (John 8: 44)."

Negative passages such as these must be re-evaluated in light of the Second Vatican Council's strong affirmation in its Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Relations (Nostra Aetate) that Jews remain a covenanted people, revered by God. The teaching of recent Popes has also emphasized this. Pope John Paul II, in particular, has often highlighted the intimate bond that exists between Jews and Christians who are united in one ongoing covenant.


In other words, the Fathers of the "Second" Vatican Council knew more than God the Holy Ghost. Blasphemous.

*--Archbishop John Raphael Quinn, another true bishop, believes that matters such as women's ordination and contraception are open to "discussion" by the bishops in "consultation" with a Pope and in full compliance with "episcopal collegiality." See his Oxford Lecture on Papacy and Collegiality. Quinn, under whose "leadership" the Archdiocese of San Francisco became very "lavender-friendly," made an intervention at the 1980 in favor of a "re-examination" of the contention that contraception is intrinsically evil, which, of course, it it is:

On Sept. 26, 1980, the fifth Synod of Bishops began. Its subject: the family. There were several interesting interventions touching birth regulation. Cardinal Basil Hume of England insisted that those who experience the sacrament of marriage constitute "an authentic fons theologiae [theological source]." For some, the problem of Humanae Vitae remains a real problem not because of their frailty and weakness. "They just cannot accept that the use of artificial means of contraception in some circumstances is intrinsece inhonestum [intrinsically disordered]." Hume concluded that "if we [the Synod fathers] listen to all the different points of view," a right way will be found.

The most interesting intervention was that of Archbishop John R. Quinn of San Francisco. He noted that many men and women of good will do not accept the "intrinsic evil of each and every use of contraception." This conviction is shared by a majority of priests and theologians, a conviction found among "theologians and pastors whose learning, faith, discretion and dedication to the church are beyond doubt." Archbishop Quinn argued that this cannot be dismissed. He noted that the church "has always recognized the principle and fact of doctrinal development." Therefore, he proposed three things: 1) a new context for the teaching; 2) a widespread and worldwide dialogue between the Holy See and theologians on the meaning of this dissent; 3) careful attention to the process by which magisterial documents are written and communicated. He then elaborated these three points.

This was a careful, realistic and courageous statement. Careful--because the problem was stated accurately. For instance, Archbishop Quinn noted that the problem of many theologians is not that they view con­traception as "simply something good, desirable or indifferent." The problem is the usage of "intrinsically evil" to apply to every contraceptive act. Realistic--because Archbishop Quinn was absolutely correct in saying that "this problem is not going to be solved or reduced merely by a simple reiteration of past formulations or by ignoring the fact of dissent." Courageous--because the suggestions were made in the presence of the Pope, whose views on this matter were well known and who therefore could not be thought to have called the Synod to have them questioned. I say "questioned" because Archbishop Quinn did refer to "doctrinal development" in areas such as biblical studies and religious liberty. In these contexts development meant change.

Archbishop Quinn's remarks were widely publicized and bluntly rejected by some American prelates of a more immobilist caste of mind. Interventions like those of Cardinal Hume and Archbishop Quinn got nowhere. The interesting intervention of Durban's Archbishop Denis Hurley ("the act of artificially limiting the exercise of one faculty of life is intrinsically evil while the act of exterminating life itself is not") never even made the published synopses of the Synod. It finally appeared in The Tablet (1980, pp. 1105-1107). (America | The National Catholic Weekly - 'Humanae Vitae' 25 Years


That was quite a crew of "visitors" to "mediate" the dispute between "Dutch" Hunthausen and Donald Wuerl. None of this can come from the Catholic Church whatsoever.





© Copyright 2009, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.