No Lessons Learned After Forty Years of Appeasement and Apostasy

by Thomas A. Droleskey

 

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's decision to rewrite the Prayer for the Conversion of the Jews contained in the 1961 Missal of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII, a shameful exercise of using the timelessness of the Sacred Liturgy to respond to the contingent circumstances of time, has turned out to please very few people except his hard-core cheerleaders in Catholic circles who have put aside the simple truth that this Modernist has never abjured anything of his past writings, indeed, has stated on several occasions that he is the same now as he was in the past in all "essential things:" (See: The Memories of a Destructive Mind: Joseph 'Cardinal' Ratzinger's Milestones, part 1 and Part II: The Memories of a Destructive Mind: Joseph 'Cardinal' Ratzinger's Milestones for an analysis of Ratzinger's writings that is quite similar to some offered on this site in the past two years.)

Revolutionaries rarely learn the lessons of history, keeping their hands on their shopworn ploughs as they never turn back to look on the fields of devastation that they have left behind them. No, revolutionaries keep on plowing their fields of devastation as they sing merrily to themselves about how much "progress" they are making in behalf of their self-proclaimed "noble" causes. The very false premises which motivated their bloody revolts are never re-examined. They are constantly invoked as the means by which the "future" will be made better.

Make no mistake about this, ladies and gentlemen, the conciliar revolutionaries unleashed a most bloody revolt against the Deposit of Faith at the "Second" Vatican Council and in the four decades thereafter. Countless millions of Catholic souls have been devastated by the offenses given to the Most Blessed Trinity in the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service, both by means of "approved" novelties and the "unapproved" innovations that no amount the conciliar Vatican's remonstrations has ever retarded in the slightest, and by the numerous ways, both "approved" and "unapproved," by which the Faith has been undermined from the pulpit and in the classrooms of ostensibly "Catholic" educational institutions. Marriages have been ruined. Vocations have been lost. Public sinners have been reaffirmed in their sins. Grave scandal and sacrilege have been given by one conciliar "pontiff" and "bishop" after another, including the public participation in "inter-religious" prayer that is deeply offensive and loathsome to Almighty God. These are incontrovertible facts.

Catholic schools in the control of the conciliar revolutionaries have been in the vanguard of undermining the innocence and purity of children by exposing them to classroom instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments in direct violation of the absolute prohibition on such instruction imposed by Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929. The most vile form of propaganda in behalf of all manner of sins against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments have been disseminated in these classrooms, including overt efforts to "normalize" perverse sins against these two commandments. Even such matters as contraception and abortion have been treated in many instances as matters of "conscience" about which individual Catholics are free to "choose" as they see fit, yes, even if this means violating what is referred to pejoratively as "official Church teaching.

Indeed, a former student of mine wrote to me a few weeks ago to explain that his ten-year old daughter, who is enrolled in a conciliar elementary school at the moment, was going to be required to read a book about the late gangster Al Capone. Why does a fourth grader have to read about Al Capone, no less a book that included references that are nothing more than an assault against all manner of virtues? Some of these problems were pointed out by friend in a letter to the principal of the lay school, which is located in the Archdiocese of New York:

I was reading parts of Al Capone Does My Shirts which, as you know, was required reading for the class of 5-2 as part of their homework assignment last night. Please understand that I cannot allow my daughter to continue to read it. This book contains lewd, offensive references that are made in many parts throughout the book, some of which are discussed herein below.

This type of material, I am sure you will agree, is grossly inappropriate to our young children whose formation in our Holy Catholic Faith is so heavily dependant on you, one of many of their role models, and on their exposure to good Catholic resources which should be primarily designed to nurture their developing Faith.

Our dear Blessed Mother told the three shepherd children of Fatima, Portugal in 1917 that the greatest source of perdition for souls at that time was impurity. What can we say about our culture 90 years since then? This message could never be more relevant therefore to embrace today, in this secular-dominated, humanistic, religiously indifferent, anti-Catholic society in which we are living today. It is especially disappointing particularly because such words from Heaven were entrusted to our Catholic Church, the infallible explicator of God’s Truth.

At the age of 10, my daughter should not have to wonder what rape means. What will you tell my daughter rape means should she ask you in class? What should I tell her now at home if she asks me? On page 1, paragraph 2, it states, “…murderers, rapists, hit men, con men, stickup men…” my daughter does not nor do I want her knowing what it means to be raped or what a “rapist” is. In the next paragraph, it states, “I want to be here like I want poison oak on my private parts.” This is purely unadulterated scandal forced upon our innocent Catholic children. Can I really expect my daughter to speak respectfully at home to her parents when the authority figures at her school, acting in the place of her parents for six hours per day, are exposing her to such lewd, offensive, perversion such as this? In fact, with this type of inappropriate material permitted in the classroom, what is really happening is that my daughter is being trained to be desensitized to scandal, lewdness, impurity, and indeed, perversion.

On page 4, paragraph 2, it states, “”They even have a crapper in each tower so the guards don’t have to come down to take a leak.” I am teaching my daughter, or at least trying to anyway, the value of striving to be a self-disciplined lady who loves purity. Indeed, I insist that true feminine virtue should only be modeled after Our Lady herself, the consummate Lady, and perfect Christian. This “crapper” reference, and the ridiculous reference to “taking a leak” is grossly offensive to that purity and threatens the values of decency that will affect every single student in your classroom.

I am sure that there are wonderfully instructive resources other than this book, which depicts the notorious American criminal Al Capone, are available that will aid in the students’ reading skills and edify their souls in The Faith simultaneously.

Please know that I am not trying to be condescending or sarcastic here. Last year at St. Teresa’s School, my son Ryan was required to read the John Steinback novel The Red Pony, which featured a character who angrily stated our Lord‘‘s Holy Name in a most offensive manner as, “Jesus Christ!” I am simply overwhelmed that the aforementioned can happen in a Catholic community.

I assume that you simply did not have time to review this book before requiring it as reading material for your students. Therefore, please discontinue its use as a required reading resource for her class. It is inappropriate for any child to read and it is violently offensive to our Catholic Faith.

 

Such sordid material is simply routine in what passes for "Catholic" education in the institutions under the control of the counterfeit church of conciliarism. As one who taught at the college level for over thirty years, my good readers, I can attest quite personally to the devastation of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ's vineyard at the hands of the conciliar revolutionaries. Most of my students over the course of those thirty years of college teaching in my field of political science were Catholics. Most of them, with some very rare exceptions here and there, knew nothing about the Faith, and the little that they thought they know about the Faith was wrong.

One of my students, a young man named Anthony, who had been to thirteen years of "Catholic" education (Kindergarten through Twelfth Grade), blurted out in amazement when I was lecturing on First and Last Things in an Introduction to Political Science course at the C. W. Post Campus of Long Island University in the Fall 1995 Semester, "Is this what the Faith is about? Why hasn't anyone taught this to me before." "Because Anthony," I explained to him, "you have been the victim of Catholic educational fraud." And this harkens back to an earnest young student at Nassau Community College in the Spring 1983 Semester who was a product of Catholic education and asked "Who's Judas?" when I mentioned the name of the betrayer of Our Lord in a class lecture just about twenty-five years ago now. "Perhaps the bishops and priests and nuns responsible for your training," I told her.

Does anyone think that Donald Wuerl, the conciliar "archbishop" of Washington, D.C., who was appointed to this prestigious position by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, is going to do anything about such problems? Does anyone think that George Niederauer, another Ratzinger/Benedict appointee and an abject panderer to the community of perversity that is welcomed with such false compassion by the Archdiocese of San Francisco, is going to do anything about such problems? Does anyone think that Patrick McGrath in San Jose or Roger Mahony in Los Angeles or Tod Brown in Orange or Robert Brom in San Diego are going to do anything about such problems? No, classroom instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments is here to stay. Wuerl, for example, has been a huge promoter of such "instruction" dating to his long tenure as a priest and "bishop" (both as an auxiliary and as the ordinary) of the Diocese of Pittsburgh. Mahony? You have to be kidding.

No, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is far too busy advancing the life-long agenda that he outlined in An Introduction to Christianity and in Principles of Catholic Theology, among other of his works over the decades, to be bothered with the fate of souls of young Catholics, many of whom will gather at the hootenanny that is World Youth Day in Melbourne, Australia, later this year (an event that features not one program to discuss the crime of the taking of innocent preborn lives). After all, "most" people, he wrote in Spe Salvi, are going to Purgatory, right? No need to bother oneself about fidelity of teaching and the maintenance in supposedly Catholic schools. Far more important for a busy "pope" is to advance conciliarism's agenda of false ecumenism. Anyone who denies that Ratzinger/Benedict has not made false ecumenism a priority in his "pontificate" is either intellectually dishonest--and thus deceiving others deliberately--or willfully blind.

Joseph Ratzinger has reached out to the Orthodox, referring to himself and the "patriarch" of Constantinople as "pastors in the Church o Christ" on November 30, 2006:

This commitment comes from the Lord’s will and from our responsibility as Pastors in the Church of Christ.

 

The "patriarch" of Constantinople is a "pastor" in the "Church of Christ? How is this possible? Is the "patriarch" a bishop of the Catholic Church? Does he recognize Papal Primacy and the doctrine of papal infallibility? Does he accept the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the bodily Assumption of Our Lady as they have been defined by the infallible teaching authority of the Catholic Church? Does he accept the doctrine of Purgatory as defined by the authority of the Catholic Church? How is this man a "pastor" in the Church of Christ"? Is the Church of Christ larger than the Catholic Church?

Pope Pius XI noted the following in Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928:

Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors. Did not the ancestors of those who are now entangled in the errors of Photius and the reformers, obey the Bishop of Rome, the chief shepherd of souls? Alas their children left the home of their fathers, but it did not fall to the ground and perish for ever, for it was supported by God. Let them therefore return to their common Father, who, forgetting the insults previously heaped on the Apostolic See, will receive them in the most loving fashion. For if, as they continually state, they long to be united with Us and ours, why do they not hasten to enter the Church, "the Mother and mistress of all Christ's faithful"? Let them hear Lactantius crying out: "The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this the house of Faith, this the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling. For life and salvation are here concerned, which will be lost and entirely destroyed, unless their interests are carefully and assiduously kept in mind."

 

Here is a call for the unconditional conversion of the Orthodox and the Protestants to the Catholic Church. Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI considers it possible for a schismatic and a heretic to be a "pastor" in the Church of Christ without assenting to everything contained in the Deposit of Faith as it has been entrusted by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to the authority of the Catholic Church that He Himself founded upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope. Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's reference to the "patriarch" of Constantinople as being a "pastor" in the "Church of Christ" with him is a slap in the face to Pope Pius XI. It is also a slap in the face to Pope Pius XII's Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943:

They, therefore, walk in the path of dangerous error who believe that they can accept Christ as the Head of the Church, while not adhering loyally to His Vicar on earth. They have taken away the visible head, broken the visible bonds of unity and left the Mystical Body of the Redeemer so obscured and so maimed, that those who are seeking the haven of eternal salvation can neither see it nor find it.

 

What does this matter to Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI? He just uses his Hegelian/Modernist understanding of the nature of dogmatic truth to wipe away those dogmatic statements and encyclical letters that he does not "like." The perennial teaching of the Catholic Church as it has been handed down to us over the centuries--and in the same sense in which it has been understood always--by the infallible guidance of the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, is like so much play dough in the hands of Joseph Ratzinger, a thorough and unrepentant disciple and practitioner of Modernism's progeny, "the new theology." Everything is fungible. Everything is negotiable. Everything is subject to reinterpretation and revision in light of the "hermeneutics" of "continuity and discontinuity," as Ratzinger/Benedict noted in his infamous December 22, 2005, address to the conciliar curia (which was but a "papal" reiteration of the statement he made in L'Osservatore Romano on July 2, 1990, that certain teachings of the past popes become "obsolete in the particulars that they contain").

 

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is willing to dispense with nearly a thousand years of dogmatic pronouncements in order to effect a false "communion" with the Orthodox, as he noted in Principles of Catholic Theology in 1982 and as was expressed as a possibility in The Ravenna Document nearly four months ago, October 13, 2007:

How, then are the maximum demands to be decided in advance? Certainly, no one who claims allegiance to Catholic theology can simply declare the doctrine of primacy null and void, especially not if he seeks to understand the objections and evaluates with an open mind the relative weight of what can be determined historically. Nor it is possible, on the other hand, for him to regard as the only possible form and, consequently, as binding on all Christians the form this primacy has taken in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. . . .

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 primacy 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 )

 

Poor Pope Leo XIII had it wrong, therefore, 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.)

 

Pope Pius XI must have had it all wrong in Mortalium Animos. So did Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis. "Enlightenment" has finally dawned upon the conciliarists. Everything else in the past that contradicts the conciliarist apostasies must be ignored or explained away. Did Benedict or anyone in the conciliar Vatican officially recognize the centenary of Pope Saint Pius X's Pascendi Dominci Gregis on September 8 last year? Did Benedict or anyone in the conciliar Vatican officially recognize the eightieth anniversary of Mortalium Animos? How could they? Pascendi is  roadmap into the mind of Joseph Ratzinger. Mortalium Animos is the direct contradiction of these words uttered by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI in Cologne, Germany, August 19, 2005:

We all know there are numerous models of unity and you know that the Catholic Church also has as her goal the full visible unity of the disciples of Christ, as defined by the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council in its various Documents (cf. Lumen Gentium, nn. 8, 13; Unitatis Redintegratio, nn. 2, 4, etc.). This unity, we are convinced, indeed subsists in the Catholic Church, without the possibility of ever being lost (cf. Unitatis Redintegratio, n. 4); the Church in fact has not totally disappeared from the world.

On the other hand, this unity does not mean what could be called ecumenism of the return:  that is, to deny and to reject one's own faith history. Absolutely not!

It does not mean uniformity in all expressions of theology and spirituality, in liturgical forms and in discipline. Unity in multiplicity, and multiplicity in unity:  in my Homily for the Solemnity of Sts Peter and Paul on 29 June last, I insisted that full unity and true catholicity in the original sense of the word go together. As a necessary condition for the achievement of this coexistence, the commitment to unity must be constantly purified and renewed; it must constantly grow and mature. Ecumenical meeting at the Archbishopric of Cologne English

 

How have the Orthodox and the Protestants responded to all of the overtures that have been made to them by the conciliarists? By demanding more concessions, that's how.

How have the Russian Orthodox, for example, responded to the conciliar Vatican's various overtures, including the Balamand Agreement? With contempt. "Give us more," they keep saying, demanding that Catholic priests in Russia who still have the sensus Catholicus adhere to the conciliar Vatican's concessions in that Balamand Agreement, two of which follow:

22) 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 Eastern 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 glory in them or draw an argument from them to accuse or disparage the other Church. God alone knows His own witnesses. Whatever the past may have been, it must be left to the mercy of God, and all the energies of the Churches should be directed so that the present and the future conform better to the will of Christ for His own.

24) It will also be necessary—on the part of both Churches— that the bishops and all those with pastoral responsibilities in the Churches scrupulously respect the religious liberty of the faithful. In turn, the faithful must be able to express themselves for this purpose. In fact, particularly in situations of conflict, religious liberty requires that the faithful should be 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.

25) Furthermore, the necessary respect for Christian freedom— one of the most precious gifts received from Christ—should not become an occasion for undertaking a pastoral project which may also involve the faithful of other Churches, without previous consultation with the pastors of these Churches. Not only should every form of pressure, of any kind whatsoever, be excluded, but respect for consciences, motivated by an authentic exigency of faith, is one of the principles guiding the pastoral concern of those responsible in the two Churches and should be the object of their common reflection (cf. Galatians 5:13). Full Text of the Balamand Statement 

 

In other words, it is absolutely certain that those in the Orthodox churches are saved. Their souls are in no peril whatsoever, making a mockery of the Pope Eugene IV's Papal Bull, Cantate Domino, issued during the Council of Florence, 1442:

It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

 

The Russian Orthodox, in particular, have responded with great arrogance even though they were accorded great concessions in the Balamand Agreement. None of this seems to matter to the conciliar Vatican as its leaders forge ahead with their hands on the plough that continues to devastate the vineyard of the Divine Master, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, as a report on the Tradition in Action website (which does not embrace the sedevacantist position) indicates:

The failure of Catholic-Russian Schismatic dialogue becomes more apparent each year, at least to everyone except Pope Benedict XVI and his Vatican ecumenical experts. Here are a few recent incidents that reflect the dismal tone of these inter-confessional relations.

In this month of January the Vatican officially announced that the Pauline Year would start on June 28th and be full of ecumenical events. This fits with Benedict XVI’s announcement at the beginning of his pontificate that his top priority would be ecumenism. Topping that agenda would be to mend fences with the Eastern Schismatic Churches, especially the Russian one. In fact, Benedict has been wooing Russian patriarch Alexis II with the same insistence and subservience that JPII showed before him.

The Vatican warmly invited Alexis II to the opening of the ecumenical “year of St. Paul” in June. The news spread that relations were warming, there was a very good chance the invitation would be accepted, all the normal gossip that finds its way to press organs to maintain optimism that ecumenism is progressing, and thus the concessions are paying off.

These romantic expectations shortly revealed themselves to be far from the truth. On January 24 Rome Interfax news agency reported that the invitation from the Vatican was cursorily rejected by the head of the Russian Schismatic Church. Why? Despite all the ecumenical concessions by Pope Benedict, “relations remain strained,” Alexis stated.

Still too many conversions in the Ukraine, perhaps, despite the fact that Pope Benedict XVI, following JPII’s policy, has sent clear instructions to Catholic clergy in Russia that there should be no missionary work. I am speaking of missionary efforts like those of the past that aimed at bringing people to the Catholic Faith. The modern charitable work such as AIDS centers, food and immunization centers, etc., wrongly called “missionary efforts,” receive Vatican support.

Straining hard to keep relations strained...

To know how high-handed and unreasonable Alexis II has become in his dealings with the Vatican, consider the new charge he brought against it last week on January 23, 2008. He pretends to be wounded because the Vatican would have “deliberately orchestrated to exclude the Moscow patriarchate” from the meeting of the joint “Orthodox”-Catholic theological commission that met in Ravenna in October.

He claims that the presence of the Estonian “orthodox” delegation was intended to provoke a reaction from the Russian Schismatic participants. In fact, the Russian delegation walked out of the meeting to protest the Estonian’s being there. The Russian Schismatics don’t recognize the independence of the Estonian Schismatics, who refused the leadership of the former in 1996.

Even though I strongly disagree with these ecumenical meetings, Alexis’ charge is unsubstantiated. The Ravenna meeting was convoked with the purpose of finding common ground to mend the deep rift between the Catholics and Schismatics. When Russia, the largest and most influential of the Schismatic splinters, walked out, the meeting could not meet its goal. And the final declaration of the meeting – despite the positive spin the Catholic press tried to give it – was the report of a party where the main star left in a fit after insulting the host. That is, the final declaration lost its punch. This is exactly what the Vatican did not want.

Clearly Alexis II is continuing his agenda of humiliating the Vatican as much and as often as possible. Another Rebuff from the Russian Schismatics

What has been the response of the Protestants to over forty years of concessions to them, starting with the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service that was designed of its very nature to attract them into what passes for the Catholic Church? Utter and complete indifference. The counterfeit church of conciliarism has made numerous concessions to Protestants, as well as Protestants, including prohibiting proselytizing them, as outlined in the conciliar Vatican's Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism, March 25, 1993 ( Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity):

Catholics are invited to respond according to the directives of their pastors, in solidarity and gratitude with the efforts that are being made in many Churches and ecclesial Communities, and in the various organizations in which they cooperate, to reestablish the unity of Christians. Where ecumenical work is not being done, or not being done effectively, Catholics will seek to promote it. Where it is being opposed or hampered by sectarian attitudes and activities that lead to even greater divisions among those who confess the name of Christ, they should be patient and persevering. At times, local Ordinaries, Synods of Eastern Catholic Churches and Episcopal Conferences may find it necessary to take special measures to overcome the dangers of indifferentism or proselytism

 

To overcome the dangers of indifferentism or proselytism? In other words, one cannot be indifferent about the truth, yet at the same time one cannot seek to overtly convert others, meaning, of course, that there is no eternal danger to the souls of those who are outside of the Catholic Church.

How has the Novus Ordo itself worked to bring a conclusion to a needless "search for unity"? Remember, Annibale Bugnini and Giovanni Montini/Paul VI both believed that the Novus Ordo, which was planned with the help of six liberal Protestant "observers," would be instrumental in the work of false ecumenism:

We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren that is for the Protestants." (Annibale Bugnini, L'Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965.)

"[T]he intention of Pope Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the Mass, was to reform the Catholic liturgy in such a way that it should coincide with the Protestant liturgy.... [T]here was with Pope Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or at least to correct, or at least to relax, what was too Catholic in the traditional sense, in the Mass, and I, repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist mass" (Dec. 19, 1993), Apropos, #17, pp. 8f; quoted in Christian Order, October, 1994. (Jean Guitton, a close friend of Giovanni Montini/Paul VI. The quotation and citations are found in Christopher A. Ferrara and Thomas E. Woods, Jr., The Great Facade, The Remnant Publishing Company, 2002, p. 317.)

 

How well has this scheme worked? Catholics have been driven out, mercifully as I have come to learn, of the Novus Ordo and most of the Protestants have remained exactly where they have been in their false sects.

The Mohammedans? How have they responded to Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II's entreaties to them? He even committed the blasphemous, sacrilegious act of kissing the Koran some seven and one-half years before Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI took his shoes off in the Blue Mosque in Istanbul, Turkey, as to signify that he was in a holy place and then turned in the direction of Mecca and assumed the Mohammedan prayer position. How have the Mohammedans responded to Benedict's constant calls upon them to respect the conciliar error of "religious liberty"? Apart from a few Western-leaning intellectuals amongst the Mohammedans, most of those follow the false teachings of a false religion want nothing to do with religious liberty, thank you much. Undeterred, however, Ratzinger/Benedict keeps making those plaintive pleas, believing that the "monotheistic religions" can work together to combat secularism in the world in a inter-denominational way that was condemned in the strongest terms possible by Pope Saint Pius X in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.

The Jews? Well, they are showing just how grateful they are that Ratzinger/Benedict went to all of the trouble of rewriting the Good Friday prayer, already truncated by Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII, so as to remove all references to their being self-blinded in their rejection of the Sacred Divinity of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity made Man by the power of the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, in the Virginal and Immaculate Womb of His Most Blessed Mother. Even this, however, was not enough to satisfy the most militant of the leaders of Talmudic Judaism, men who will never be satisfied until and unless anyone who considers himself to be a Catholic ceases to insist that Our Lord is indeed the Messiah who has come to save all men, including the Jews:

The top Vatican cardinal in charge of relations with Jews on Thursday denied that a new prayer for their conversion was offensive and said Catholics had the right to pray as they wish.

The Vatican had come under fire from Jewish groups in recent days for changing its Good Friday service to include a prayer urging God to let Jews "recognize Jesus Christ as savior of all men."

Earlier this week, Pope Benedict ordered changes to a Latin prayer for Jews at traditionalist Good Friday services, deleting a reference to their "blindness" over Christ.

Cardinal Walter Kasper spoke in an interview in a leading Italian newspaper a day after world Jewish leaders said the new prayer could set back inter-religious dialogue by decades.

"We think that reasonably this prayer cannot be an obstacle to dialogue because it reflects the faith of the Church and, furthermore, Jews have prayers in their liturgical texts that we Catholics don't like,"

"I must say that I don't understand why Jews cannot accept that we can make use of our freedom to formulate our prayers," Kasper, a German, told the Corriere della Sera.

"One must accept and respect differences," said the cardinal.

In a separate interview with Vatican Radio, Kasper said: "The Holy Father wanted to say 'yes, Jesus Christ is the savior of all men, including the Jews'."

He added: "But this does not mean we are embarking on a mission [to convert Jews]. We are giving witness to our faith."

"When the Pope speaks now of the conversion of the Jews, one must understand this correctly. He quotes verbatim the eleventh chapter of the Apostle Paul's letter to the Romans. There the Apostle says that we as Christians hope, that when the fullness of the Gentiles enter the Church, that then will all of Israel be converted. That is an eschatalogical end-time hope, and thus does not mean that we have the intention of pursuing the conversion of the Jews as one pursues the conversion of the Gentiles (pagans)."

The Anti-Defamation League on Thursday called the revision to the prayer "cosmetic revisions," saying that the prayer is still "deeply troubling" because of its call to convert Jews.

Apart from the deletion of the word "blindness," the new prayer - which has retained the name 'Prayer for Conversion of the Jews' - also excludes a former a phrase that asked God to "remove the veil from their hearts".

Instead, the new prayer hopes that Jews will recognize Christ. According to an unofficial translation from Latin, the new prayer says in part:

"Let us also pray for the Jews. So that God our Lord enlightens their hearts so that they recognize Jesus Christ savior of all men."

The prayer also asks God that "all Israel be saved."

Jewish groups had protested against the old prayer and had asked the Pope to change it. The groups complained last year when the Pope issued a decree allowing a wider use of the old-style Latin Mass and a missal, or prayer book, that was phased out after the reforms of the Second Vatican Council, which met from 1962 to 1965.

"While we appreciate that some of the deprecatory language has been removed from a new version of the Good Friday prayer for the Conversion of Jews in the 1962 Roman Missal, we are deeply troubled and disappointed that the framework and intention to petition God for Jews to accept Jesus as Lord was kept intact," ADL Director Abraham H. Foxman said in a statement.

"Alterations of language without change to the 1962 prayer's conversionary intent amount to cosmetic revisions, while retaining the most troubling aspect for Jews, namely the desire to end the distinctive Jewish way of life," adds the statement.

In a letter to Pope Benedict in late January, the ADL said it worried the new prayer "would be devastating to the deepening relationship (Vatican Rejects Criticism of New Prayer for Jewish Conversion)

 

This press report demonstrates just how utterly out of touch with reality the conciliarists are. Walter Kasper did not speak publicly on this matter without the personal approval of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. It is clear that both of them believed that the rewritten prayer would deflect criticism from the likes of Abraham Foxman and other Talmudic leaders. However, this is what happens when one proceeds to tamper with the timelessness of the Sacred Liturgy in order to appease anyone, including the ancient enemies of the Faith. There was no need to rewrite the Prayer for the Conversion of the Jews, one of the most ancient prayers in the liturgy of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church. Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI chose to rewrite the prayer at the behest of the Jews. This is very similar to what Giovanni Montini/Paul VI did when insisting upon the removal of the Offertory from the Mass of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church and inserting in its place "table prayers" from the Christophobic Talmud itself. Such an act of betrayal was without precedent in the history of the Catholic Church up to that time, although it established quite a precedent for future "pontiffs" and "bishops" in the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

This is not at all the same thing as what Pope Pius XI did, for example, in instituting the Feast of Christ the King with the issuance of Quas Primas on December 11, 1925. Pope Pius XI was opposing the anticlericalism and naturalism of our era by reminding Catholics of the doctrine that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is the King of nations as well as individual men. He was not trying appease the enemies of the Catholic Faith by obliterating traditional liturgical prayers by replacing them with murky compositions that do not at all convey convey, and even go so far as to deny, elements of Catholic doctrine. Similarly, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's actions are not all similar to the instituting of the Feast of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus as a universal feast in 1856 (with the rank of double major) and its elevation to the rank of double of the first class by Pope Leo XIII in 1889. The Sacred Liturgy has never been used for political purposes to appeal to the enemies of the Church, people who will never be satisfied with any entreaties made to them until the very Sacred Divinity of Our Lord Himself has been denied outright.

Forty years of appeasement have taught the conciliarists nothing. Like committed Bolsehviks who were aghast that the "workers of the world" did not unite around Marxism-Leninism, the conciliarists cannot believe that their false ecumenism's concessions to their fellow non-Catholics has aroused fierce opposition from the very people they were seeking to appeal to in a spirit of "inter-religious" dialogue. This is, to paraphrase Dr. Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn's discussion in 1978 of the ethnocentricity of Western leaders, who viewed the rest of the world through a Western lens of pluralism, the fruit of conciliarism-centricity, if you will, results in viewing false religions through its own Modernist lenses. The whole effort to appease the Jews to begin with was ludicrous, and now the conciliarists are bearing the brunt of the anger that is being directed at that for having been so incredibly stupid to think that they could have forestalled the criticism that they are now enduring.

The reaction of the Talmudic community is quite similar to the reaction of Mohammedans when "Professor" Ratzinger/Benedict said the following at Regensburg University in Germany, September 12, 2006:

I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on - perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara - by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both. It was presumably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than those of his Persian interlocutor, The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur'an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship between - as they were called - three "Laws" or "rules of life": the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur'an. It is not my intention to discuss this question in the present lecture; here I would like to discuss only one point - itself rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole - which, in the context of the issue of "faith and reason", I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue.

In the seventh conversation (διάλεξις - controversy) edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to some of the experts, this is probably one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness that we find unacceptable, on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached. The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably (σὺν λόγω) is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death..." Meeting with the representatives of science in the Aula Magna of the University of Regensburg (September 12, 2006)

 

A firestorm of a controversy ensued that blind sided Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. At least one Catholic priest was killed in Turkey as a result of the remarks, which were certainly historically accurate but designed to encourage Mohammedans to embrace the conciliarist worldview, something of which they want no part. This is why Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI felt compelled to visit the Blue Mosque in Istanbul, Turkey and to remove his shoes, thereby believing that "peace" and "understanding" could be bought by offending God and signifying that a place of false worship was at all holy rather than a den of the devil himself. That this has happened yet again in the context of the effort to appease Talmudic Jews by re-writing the Good Friday prayer for their conversion is just further testimony to the utter bankruptcy of conciliarsm.

More to the point, however, is the fact that Walter "Cardinal" Kasper gave the definitive Vatican interpretation of the meaning of the new prayer, which, as reported on this site two days ago, DOES NOT call for the conversion of the Jews now, a definite change from the prayer in the 1961 Missal and an act of apostasy that signifies that it is not necessary for the Jews to convert before they die, that individual Jews are more or less assured of their salvation without converting to the true Faith. Apart form being a betrayal of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and the entire missionary work undertaken by the first Pope, Saint Peter, on Pentecost Sunday when he preached on the necessity of such a conversion, which resulted in the conversion of three thousand Jews that very day, this is an act of manifest cruelty to the Jews themselves, who are in need of converting to the Faith.

These are Walter Kasper's own words

In a separate interview with Vatican Radio, Kasper said: "The Holy Father wanted to say 'yes, Jesus Christ is the savior of all men, including the Jews'."

He added: "But this does not mean we are embarking on a mission [to convert Jews]. We are giving witness to our faith."

"When the Pope speaks now of the conversion of the Jews, one must understand this correctly. He quotes verbatim the eleventh chapter of the Apostle Paul's letter to the Romans. There the Apostle says that we as Christians hope, that when the fullness of the Gentiles enter the Church, that then will all of Israel be converted. That is an eschatalogical end-time hope, and thus does not mean that we have the intention of pursuing the conversion of the Jews as one pursues the conversion of the Gentiles (pagans)." 

[This appeared in the original text of the Haaretz article. This quote, which emanated from Vatican Radio, has been removed from an updated text that appears when one clicks on the link above. My thanks to the intrepid Mr. Mark Stabinski for sending me the full text as it appeared originally on the Haaretz website before the quotation was removed. A news story on the Catholic News Service contains part of the quote cited above:

["But if this prayer, today, speaks of the conversion of the Jews, that doesn't mean we intend to carry out a mission," he said.

[Rather, he said, the pope's revised prayer expresses an "eschatological hope" by citing St. Paul's expectation that when "the full number of the Gentiles" enters the church, then all Israel will be saved. Vatican cardinal defends New Prayer.]

 

The "conversion" being sought is merely an "end-time hope, and thus does not mean that we have the intention of pursuing the conversion of the Jews as one pursues the conversion of the Gentiles (pagans)." End of argument. This exactly what was stated on this site two days ago, and it is means, as noted above, that individual followers of the Talmud do not have to convert to the true Faith before they die in order to be saved, that they are more less "safe" where they are.

Those who want to see the truth of this matter will see it. Those who don't will persist in their defense of a man who has seen fit to blaspheme God over and over again and who is content to forge ahead with the revolutionary program that he helped to plan and of which he believes himself to be the true interpreter.

We must storm Heaven during these days of Lent that are now upon us. It took me far, far too long to recognize that men who speak and act such as the conciliarists have fallen from the Faith in accordance with this simple statement of Catholic truth by Pope Leo XIII in Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896:

 

The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a certain portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. "There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition" (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos).

The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodore :, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. "No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic" (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88).

The need of this divinely instituted means for the preservation of unity, about which we speak is urged by St. Paul in his epistle to the Ephesians. In this he first admonishes them to preserve with every care concord of minds: "Solicitous to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Eph. iv., 3, et seq.). And as souls cannot be perfectly united in charity unless minds agree in faith, he wishes all to hold the same faith: "One Lord, one faith," and this so perfectly one as to prevent all danger of error: "that henceforth we be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive" (Eph. iv., 14): and this he teaches is to be observed, not for a time only - "but until we all meet in the unity of faith...unto the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ" (13). But, in what has Christ placed the primary principle, and the means of preserving this unity? In that - "He gave some Apostles - and other some pastors and doctors, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ" (11-12).

 

Our only hope in this season of penance is to rely ever more devotedly upon the intercessory power of the Queen of the Most Holy Rosary, Our Lady. She will guide us as we seek to save our immortal souls by doing reparation for our sins and those of the whole world, offering to the Most Sacred Heart of her Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the fruit of all of our prayers and penances and sufferings and humiliations and sacrifices and almsgiving through her own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, to which belongs the final victory. We must never despair in these times and apostasy and betrayal. The Mystical Body of Christ that is the Church Militant on earth has indeed undergone a mystical Passion, Death, and Burial. She will arise anew. We must plant a few seeds to help such a Resurrection of the Mystical Body of Christ as the consecrated slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Our Lady promised Saint Dominic de Guzman, the founder of the Order of Preachers, that she would save the world by means of her Most Holy Rosary and the Brown Scapular. She will save us with these holy instruments if we but let her do so. And may the saint we honor today, Saint John of Matha, one of the founders of the Trinitarians, help us to be ransomed from this present moment of apostasy and betrayal.

Clinging to the good guidance and true sacraments given to us by true bishops and priests in the Catholic catacombs who make no concessions to conciliarism or to its wolves in shepherds' clothing, may we be united in our Rosaries and in our efforts to pass out Green Scapulars to those whom God's Providence places in our paths each day so that the whole world will be as Our Lord desires: Catholic in every aspect of personal and social life.

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.

Saint Titus, pray for us.

Saint John of Matha, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints