Obeying The Commands Of A False Church

by Thomas A. Droleskey

The heart is perverse above all things, and unsearchable, who can know it? I am the Lord who search the heart and prove the reins: who give to every one according to his way, and according to the fruit of his devices.(Jeremias 17: 9-10)

 

Each of us is a weak vessel of clay. Some of us are more prone than others to be inconstant in the ways of the Faith and willful in the pursuit of our own desires. Leaving aside my terrible sins, for which I try to make reparation every day of my life and will be revealed for all to see on the Last Day at the General Judgment of the Living and the Dead, I can only look back with horror on the many mistakes I have made by pursuing my own will rashly rather than taking the advice of those more learned and/or experienced than I was when stubbornly doing as I wanted. Some of these mistakes affect me temporally to this very day. Other mistakes have deprived me of any credibility or respect I may have had in the eyes of those who knew me at the time they were made. All I can do, however, is try to learn from those mistakes and to accept the humiliation heaped upon my disordered pride and disordered self-love as a just penance for my sins, attempting to bend my will more perfectly to that of the Most Blessed Trinity, pledging my heart as an oblation to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.

It is with this very much uppermost in mind that I must make commentary on the tragedy of the closing of Christ the King Abbey in Cullman, Alabama, for an "indeterminate" period of time just sixty days after the death of its founding abbot, the late Father Leonard Giardina, O.S.B. Although I have thus far avoided any public comment on events that have been developing at the abbey in the past few months, other than noting the need for prayers on this website's home page, the public announcement made on Quinquagesima Sunday, March 6, 2011, by Father Sebastian, O.S.B., concerning its closing and his decision to obey what he calls "the authority of the Church" makes this matter, most regrettably, one of the public record. I am very sorry and very saddened that these events have occurred, recognizing, of course, that they have done so within the Providence of God, Who means to bring good out of every difficulty that we face in this passing, mortal vale of tears. (Please see Father Sebastian's special announcement of Sunday, March 6, 2011, for the rationale he used to justify his "reconciliation" with what we know to be is the counterfeit church of conciliarism.)

Although each of us must maintain true Charity for our fellow Catholics who have not as of yet come to accept the true state of the Church Militant at this time, it is not an act of Charity to remain silent about the heresies and errors and sacrileges of the counterfeit church of conciliarism and its "popes" and "bishops," and it is not to b uncharitable in the slightest to point out these heresies and errors and sacrileges.

Authentic Charity wills the good of others, the ultimate expression of which is the salvation of their immortal souls as members of the Catholic Church by persisting in a state of Sanctifying Grace until the moment of their deaths. It is impossible to please God as He has revealed Himself to us exclusively through His Catholic Church by persisting in falsehood or by seeking to take refuge in a call to "obedience" when Catholic truth itself is being undermined, contradicted and mocked by the officials of the counterfeit church of conciliarism. And it is not uncharitable in the slightest to point out the heresies and the errors and the sacrileges of this false church as to do so is our duty before God, Who hates heresy and wants us to hate it out of a profound love for Him as His Sacred Deposit of Faith.

Father Frederick William Faber explained over one hundred fifty years ago now that it is our duty to hate heresy and falsehood:

The love of God brings many new instincts into the heart. Heavenly and noble as they are, they bear no resemblance to what men would call the finer and more heroic developments of character. A spiritual discernment is necessary to their right appreciation. They are so unlike the growth of earth, that they must expect to meet on earth with only suspicion, misunderstanding, and dislike. It is not easy to defend them from a controversial point of view; for our controversy is obliged to begin by begging the question, or else it would be unable so much as to state its case. The axioms of the world pass current in the world, the axioms of the gospel do not. Hence the world has its own way. It talks us down. It tries us before tribunals where our condemnation is secured beforehand. It appeals to principles which are fundamental with most men but are heresies with us. Hence its audience takes part with it against us. We are foreigners, and must pay the penalty of being so. If we are misunderstood, we had no right to reckon on any thing else, being as we are, out of our own country. We are made to be laughed at. We shall be understood in heaven. Woe to those easy-going Christians whom the world can understand, and will tolerate because it sees they have a mind to compromise!

The love of souls is one of these instincts which the love of Jesus brings into our hearts. To the world it is proselytism, there mere wish to add to a faction, one of the selfish developments of party spirit. One while the stain of lax morality is affixed to it, another while the reproach of pharisaic strictness! For what the world seems to suspect least of all in religion is consistency. But the love of souls, however apostolic, is always subordinate to love of Jesus. We love souls because of Jesus, not Jesus because of souls. Thus there are times and places when we pass from the instinct of divine love to another, from the love of souls to the hatred of heresy. This last is particularly offensive to the world. So especially opposed is it to the spirit of the world, that, even in good, believing hearts, every remnant of worldliness rises in arms against this hatred of heresy, embittering the very gentlest of characters and spoiling many a glorious work of grace. Many a convert, in whose soul God would have done grand things, goes to his grave a spiritual failure, because he would not hate heresy. The heart which feels the slightest suspicion against the hatred of heresy is not yet converted. God is far from reigning over it yet with an undivided sovereignty. The paths of higher sanctity are absolutely barred against it. In the judgment of the world, and of worldly Christians, this hatred of heresy is exaggerated, bitter, contrary to moderation, indiscreet, unreasonable, aiming at too much, bigoted, intolerant, narrow, stupid, and immoral. What can we say to defend it? Nothing which they can understand. We had, therefore, better hold our peace. If we understand God, and He understands us, it is not so very hard to go through life suspected, misunderstood and unpopular. The mild self-opinionatedness of the gentle, undiscerning good will also take the world's view and condemn us; for there is a meek-loving positiveness about timid goodness which is far from God, and the instincts of whose charity is more toward those who are less for God, while its timidity is searing enough for harsh judgment. There are conversions where three-quarters of the heart stop outside the Church and only a quarter enters, and heresy can only be hated by an undivided heart. But if it is hard, it has to be borne. A man can hardly have the full use of his senses who is bent on proving to the world, God's enemy, that a thorough-going Catholic hatred of heresy is a right frame of man. We might as well force a blind man to judge a question of color. Divine love inspheres in us a different circle of life, motive, and principle, which is not only not that of the world, but in direct enmity with it. From a worldly point of view, the craters in the moon are more explicable things than we Christians with our supernatural instincts. From the hatred of heresy we get to another of these instincts, the horror of sacrilege. The distress caused by profane words seems to the world but an exaggerated sentimentality. The penitential spirit of reparation which pervades the whole Church is, on its view, either a superstition or an unreality. The perfect misery which an unhallowed  touch of the Blessed Sacrament causes to the servants of God provokes either the world's anger or its derision. Men consider it either altogether absurd in itself, or at any rate out of all proportion; and, if otherwise they have proofs of our common sense, they are inclined to put down our unhappiness to sheer hypocrisy. The very fact that they do not believe as we believe removes us still further beyond the reach even of their charitable comprehension. If they do not believe in the very existence our sacred things, how they shall they judge the excesses of a soul to which these sacred things are far dearer than itself? (Father Frederick Faber, The Foot of the Cross, published originally in England in 1857 under the title of The Dolors of Mary, republished by TAN Books and Publishers, pp. 291-295.)

 

Christ the King Abbey was founded by the late Father Leonard Giardina, O.S.B., to be a refuge away from the heresies and blasphemies and sacrileges of the "Second" Vatican Council and the "magisterium" of the conciliar "popes." He made this very clear in the Abbey's mission statement. Was he being uncharitable in choosing not to participate in various doctrinal and liturgical deviations that he knew were in se offensive to the Most Blessed Trinity and thus injurious to the eternal and temporal good of souls whose redemption has been wrought by the shedding of the Most Precious Blood of Our Divine Redeemer, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ?

To assert that it is "uncharitable" for traditional Catholics to do now what Abbot Leonard Giardina founded his abbey to do is defy all logic and rationality. Abbot Leonard was either correct or he was incorrect when deciding to found Christ the King Abbey under the principles enunciated in the mission statement the few readers of this site may read for themselves. His statement of principles do not have an "expiration" date as they were founded in Catholic truth, which is immutable because God Himself is immutable.

Alas, it is, as has been explicated on this site endlessly, conciliarism's attack on the nature of dogmatic truth that has served as a corrupt fountainhead, if you will, of each of the the false teachings of its counterfeit church that are enshrined in the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service, which continues to serve as a vessel to transmit those false teachings so as to assault the sensus Catholicus of baptized Catholics to such an extent that they can come to believe that everything in the life of the Catholic Church is subject to "updating" and "revision" with the passage of time.

This has been and continues to be one of the lifelong goals of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, whose attacks on the nature of dogmatic truth stand in direct contradiction to the teaching of the Catholic Church and are in defiance of the laws of logic itself. Ratzinger/Benedict's statements about the nature of dogmatic truth are the antithesis of propositions condemned in The Oath Against Modernism, September 1, 1910, that the monks of Christ the King Abbey were required to take and to uphold to the point of their deaths:

1971: "In theses 10-12, the difficult problem of the relationship between language and thought is debated, which in post-conciliar discussions was the immediate departure point of the dispute.

The identity of the Christian substance as such, the Christian 'thing' was not directly ... censured, but it was pointed out that no formula, no matter how valid and indispensable it may have been in its time, can fully express the thought mentioned in it and declare it unequivocally forever, since language is constantly in movement and the content of its meaning changes. (Fr. Ratzinger: Dogmatic formulas must always change.)

1990: The text [of the document Instruction on the Theologian's Ecclesial Vocation] also presents the various types of bonds that rise from the different degrees of magisterial teaching. It affirms - perhaps for the first time with this clarity - that there are decisions of the magisterium that cannot be the last word on the matter as such, but are, in a substantial fixation of the problem, above all an expression of pastoral prudence, a kind of provisional disposition. The nucleus remains valid, but the particulars, which the circumstances of the times influenced, may need further correction.

In this regard, one may think of the declarations of Popes in the last century [19th century] about religious liberty, as well as the anti-Modernist decisions at the beginning of this century, above all, the decisions of the Biblical Commission of the time [on evolutionism]. As a cry of alarm in the face of hasty and superficial adaptations, they will remain fully justified. A personage such as Johann Baptist Metz said, for example, that the Church's anti-Modernist decisions render the great service of preserving her from falling into the liberal-bourgeois world. But in the details of the determinations they contain, they became obsolete after having fulfilled their pastoral mission at their proper time.

(Joseph Ratzinger, "Instruction on the Theologian's Ecclesial Vocation," published with the title "Rinnovato dialogo fra Magistero e Teologia," in L'Osservatore Romano, June 27, 1990, p. 6, cited at Card. Ratzinger: The teachings of the Popes against Modernism are obsolete)

It is precisely in this combination of continuity and discontinuity at different levels that the very nature of true reform consists. In this process of innovation in continuity we must learn to understand more practically than before that the Church's decisions on contingent matters - for example, certain practical forms of liberalism or a free interpretation of the Bible - should necessarily be contingent themselves, precisely because they refer to a specific reality that is changeable in itself. It was necessary to learn to recognize that in these decisions it is only the principles that express the permanent aspect, since they remain as an undercurrent, motivating decisions from within.

On the other hand, not so permanent are the practical forms that depend on the historical situation and are therefore subject to change. (Christmas greetings to the Members of the Roman Curia and Prelature, December 22, 2005.)

Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical' misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. . . .

Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.

I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God. (The Oath Against Modernism, September 1, 1910; see also Nothing Stable, Nothing Secure.)

 

To be as charitable as possible, those who do not recognize that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has defected from the Catholic Faith by attacking the nature of dogmatic truth, to say nothing of his multiple other defections from the Faith (see, among so many others, Ratzinger's War Against Catholicism, Another Year of the Same Conciliar Apostasy, part one, Another Year of the Same Conciliar Apostasy, part two, Another Year of the Same Conciliar Apostasy, part three, Impressed With His Own Originality and Accepting "Popes" As Unreliable Teachers) concerning false ecumenism, inter-religious "dialogue" and inter-religious "prayer" services, religious liberty, episcopal collegiality, the new ecclesiology and separation of Church and State (see Mocking Pope Saint Pius X and Our Lady of Fatima and On Full Display: The Modernist Mind), have not been formed properly in sound philosophical or theological principles.

The Catholic Church can never give us errors or any kind. Her explication of the teaching deposited in her by her Invisible Head and Mystical Bridegroom, Christ the King, can never be ambiguous, never give rise to the impression of even the slightest hint of contradicting dogmatic statements made by her twenty legitimate councils and the teaching contained in her Ordinary Magisterium that has been explicated and defended by our true popes:

 

As for the rest, We greatly deplore the fact that, where the ravings of human reason extend, there is somebody who studies new things and strives to know more than is necessary, against the advice of the apostle. There you will find someone who is overconfident in seeking the truth outside the Catholic Church, in which it can be found without even a light tarnish of error. Therefore, the Church is called, and is indeed, a pillar and foundation of truth. You correctly understand, venerable brothers, that We speak here also of that erroneous philosophical system which was recently brought in and is clearly to be condemned. This system, which comes from the contemptible and unrestrained desire for innovation, does not seek truth where it stands in the received and holy apostolic inheritance. Rather, other empty doctrines, futile and uncertain doctrines not approved by the Church, are adopted. Only the most conceited men wrongly think that these teachings can sustain and support that truth. (Pope Gregory XVI, Singulari Nos, May 25, 1834.)

Just as Christianity cannot penetrate into the soul without making it better, so it cannot enter into public life without establishing order. With the idea of a God Who governs all, Who is infinitely Wise, Good, and Just, the idea of duty seizes upon the consciences of men. It assuages sorrow, it calms hatred, it engenders heroes. If it has transformed pagan society--and that transformation was a veritable resurrection--for barbarism disappeared in proportion as Christianity extended its sway, so, after the terrible shocks which unbelief has given to the world in our days, it will be able to put that world again on the true road, and bring back to order the States and peoples of modern times. But the return of Christianity will not be efficacious and complete if it does not restore the world to a sincere love of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. In the Catholic Church Christianity is Incarnate. It identifies Itself with that perfect, spiritual, and, in its own order, sovereign society, which is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ and which has for Its visible head the Roman Pontiff, successor of the Prince of the Apostles. It is the continuation of the mission of the Savior, the daughter and the heiress of His Redemption. It has preached the Gospel, and has defended it at the price of Its blood, and strong in the Divine assistance and of that immortality which has been promised it, It makes no terms with error but remains faithful to the commands which  it has received, to carry the doctrine of Jesus Christ to the uttermost limits of the world and to the end of time, and to protect it in its inviolable integrity. Legitimate dispenser of the teachings of the Gospel it does not reveal itself only as the consoler and Redeemer of souls, but It is still more the internal source of justice and charity, and the propagator as well as the guardian of true liberty, and of that equality which alone is possible here below. In applying the doctrine of its Divine Founder, It maintains a wise equilibrium and marks the true limits between the rights and privileges of society. The equality which it proclaims does not destroy the distinction between the different social classes. It keeps them intact, as nature itself demands, in order to oppose the anarchy of reason emancipated from Faith, and abandoned to its own devices. The liberty which it gives in no wise conflicts with the rights of truth, because those rights are superior to the demands of liberty. Not does it infringe upon the rights of justice, because those rights are superior to the claims of mere numbers or power. Nor does it assail the rights of God because they are superior to the rights of humanity. (Pope Leo XIII, A Review of His Pontificate, March 19, 1902.)

For the teaching authority of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men, and which is daily exercised through the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops who are in communion with him, has also the office of defining, when it sees fit, any truth with solemn rites and decrees, whenever this is necessary either to oppose the errors or the attacks of heretics, or more clearly and in greater detail to stamp the minds of the faithful with the articles of sacred doctrine which have been explained. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)

 

Please note that Pope Gregory XVI wrote that the truth can be found in the Catholic Church without "even a slight tarnish of error."

Please note that Pope Leo XIII stressed that the Catholic Church "makes no terms with error but remains faithful to the command which it has received, to carry the doctrine of Jesus Christ to the uttermost limits of the world and to the end of time, and to protect it in its inviolable integrity."

Please note that that Pope Pius XI explained that the Catholic Church brings forth her teaching "with ease and security to the knowledge of men."

Anyone who says that this has been done by the counterfeit church of conciliarism, which has made its "reconciliation" with the false principles of Modernity that leave no room for the confessionally Catholic civil state and the Social Reign of Christ the King, is not thinking too clearly (and that is as about as charitably as I can put the matter). If the conciliar church has brought forth its teaching "with ease and security to the knowledge of men," why, as noted earlier in this article, is there such disagreement even between the "progressive" conciliarists and "conservative" conciliarists concerning the proper "interpretation" of the "Second" Vatican Council and its aftermath? Or does this depend upon what one means by "ease and security"?

 

What about the Novus Ordo service that is offensive to God of its very nature (see Taking The Obvious For Granted) and has given rise to the spectacle of scandalous "liturgies" in parish after parish? Indeed, some of the most scandalous exercises in "worship" authorized the the counterfeit church of conciliarism have been staged by the conciliar "popes" themselves, especially Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II and Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI? None of this can come from the Catholic Church:

CANON VII.--If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema. (Session Twenty-Two, Chapter IX, Canon VII, Council of Trent, September 17, 1562, CT022.)

 

The liturgical revolutionaries were honest enough to tell us very openly, very publicly that it was their direct intention to destroy the traditional liturgy of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church. Why do we tarry to believe them?

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.)

Let it be candidly said: the Roman Rite which we have known hitherto no longer exists. It is destroyed. (Father Joseph Gelineau, an associate of Annibale Bugnini on the Consilium, 1uoted and footnoted in the work of a John Mole, who believed that the Mass of the Roman Rite had been "truncated," not destroyed. Assault on the Roman Rite)

 

It is the duty of a Catholic to point out these truths out of true love for Our Lord and for the souls He redeemed on the wood of the Holy Cross. This is true Charity. Truth is the foundation of charity and unity. Nothing else.

Catholic truth unites. Falsehood and error divide.

Ordinary Catholics who love God despite their own sins and failings have been distressed--and rightly so--by the falsehoods and errors and blasphemies and sacrileges of the past fifty-two years may appear to those who have been shielded from the ugly realities of the conciliar church to be "angry" and "mean-spirited." Surely, many traditionally-minded Catholics are impatient and angry, refusing to see that this is all occurring within the Providence of God and that He has entrusted the cause of Holy Mother Church to the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of His Most Blessed Mother during this time of apostasy and betrayal. All right. Let this be stipulated.

Who can blame ordinary Catholics for being upset by the fact that they must drive hours upon hours to drive to true offerings of Holy Mass or to uproot themselves in order to move to locations where they can assist at true offerings of daily Mass? Who can blame ordinary Catholics for being upset with priests who believe that the conciliar revolutionaries are to be "obeyed" even though these revolutionaries do and say things that have been anathematized by the Catholic Church and that millions upon millions of Catholics preferred death by martyrdom rather than to do or say?

Why cannot there be more of a spirit of Charity for and patient forbearance with these suffering souls who just want to be fed with the true Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ the King in the Most Blessed Sacrament, who just want to be taught what Our Lord has entrusted to Holy Mother Church without the slightest change or deviation? Where is the Charity of Fathers Sebastian and Michael for these good, long-suffering souls who simply want the true Faith and nothing else? Has the language of these good souls been too strong for Fathers Sebastian and Michael? Perhaps they should acquaint themselves with the vigor exerted by Saint Jerome to defend the Faith when it was under attack by the Arians and their own false doctrines (see Putting Love of God Above All Else.)

Each of us gives bad example in our lives. Although we must be sorry for our bad example as we seek out the mercy of the Divine Redeemer in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance, resolving to amend our lives, the bad example that we may have given does not invalidate the truth of what it is we believe. Sure, yes, granted. The devil wants to use our bad example to seek to discredit the truths of the Faith during this time of apostasy and betrayal. Our bad example, though, does not invalidate, objectively speaking, the truth, which stands on its own merits. Truth exists independently of human acceptance of it.

The bad example given by a father or a mother can never be used by a child to quit the practice of the Faith even though this is precisely what the devil wants the child to do.

The bad example given by some traditionally-minded Catholics, who are, after all, merely weak vessels of clay, does not invalidate the truths that they are seeking to defend or the fact that the officials of the counterfeit church of conciliarism are spiritual robber barons. To believe otherwise is shallow and self-serving. No one is compelled to "obey" spiritual robber barons, and the good God has given us the use of reason and the sensus Catholicus to recognize truly good shepherds from the wolves in shepherds' clothing.

And the bad example given now and again by some traditional Catholic clergy and religious, who are themselves weak vessels of clay, does not invalidate the truth of our ecclesiastical situation. Bad example is never an excuse to abandon truth. Never.

One of the supreme ironies of the sad, tragic situation at Christ the King Abbey is that the very Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ is denied by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI in the name of a "healthy" or "positive" secularity. Speaking as Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre on July 14, 1987, the future "Benedict XVI" made it abundantly clear that the civil state has no obligation to recognize the true religion or to accord her the favor and protection of the laws:

Under pressure, Rome gave in. On July 14, Cardinal Ratzinger received Archbishop Lefebvre at the Holy Office. At first the Cardinal persisted in arguing that "the State is competent in religious matters."

"But the State must have an ultimate and eternal end," replied the Archbishop.

"Your Grace, that is the case for the Church, not the State. By itself the State does not know."

Archbishop Lefebvre was distraught: a Cardinal and Prefect of the Holy Office wanted to show him that the State can have no religion and cannot prevent the spread of error. However, before talking about concessions, the Cardinal made a threat: the consequence of an illicit episcopal consecration would be "schism and excommunication."

"Schism?" retorted the Archbishop. "If there is a schism, it is because of what the Vatican did at Assisi and how you replied to our Dubiae: the Church is breaking with the traditional Magisterium. But the Church against her past and her Tradition is not the Catholic Church; this is why being excommunicated by a liberal, ecumenical, and revolutionary Church is a matter of indifference to us."

As this tirade ended, Joseph Ratzinger gave in: "Let us find a practical solution. Make a moderate declaration on the Council and the new missal a bit like the one that Jean Guitton has suggested to you. Then, we would give you a bishop for ordinations, we could work out an arrangement with the diocesan bishops, and you could continue as you are doing. As for a Cardinal Protector, and make your suggestions."

How did Marcel Lefebvre not jump for joy? Rome was giving in! But his penetrating faith went to the very heart of the Cardinal's rejection of doctrine. He said to himself: "So, must Jesus no longer reign? Is Jesus no longer God? Rome has lost the Faith. Rome is in apostasy. We can no longer trust this lot!" To the Cardinal, he said:

"Eminence, even if you give us everything--a bishop, some autonomy from the bishops, the 1962 liturgy, allow us to continue our seminaries--we cannot work together because we are going in different directions. You are working to dechristianize society and the Church, and we are working to Christianize them.

"For us, our Lord Jesus Christ is everything. He is our life. The Church is our Lord Jesus Christ; the priest is another Christ; the Mass is the triumph of Jesus Christ on the cross; in our seminaries everything tends towards the reign of our Lord Jesus Christ. But you! You are doing the opposite: you have just wanted to prove to me that our Lord Jesus Christ cannot, and must not, reign over society.

Recounting this incident, the Archbishop described the Cardinal's attitude" "Motionless, he looked at me, his eyes expressionless, as if I had just suggested something incomprehensible or unheard of." Then Ratzinger tried to argue that "the Church can still say whatever she wants to the State," while Lefebvre, the intuitive master of Catholic metaphysics, did not lose sight of the true end of human societies: the Reign of Christ." Fr. de Tinguy hit the nail on the head when he said of Marcel Lefebvre: "His faith defies those who love theological quibbles." (His Excellency Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, The Biography of Marcel Lefebvre, Kansas City, Missouri: Angelus Press, 2004, pp. 547-548.)

 

The Catholic teaching on the Social Reign of Christ the King is so foreign to the mind of Joseph Ratzinger that he sat "motionless" with "expressionless" eyes as the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre defended the rights of Our King to reign over men and their nations. There would be a similar reaction if any one of us tried to explain to him that he has offended God greatly by many of his words and actions. You see, he, Ratzinger/Benedict, does not believe that God hates false religions. He believes that God the Holy Ghost works in and through these false religions to help build the "better" world. And although he has been quite careful not to embrace openly the theology of universal salvation that was advanced by one of his chief mentors, the late Father Hans Urs von Balthasar, his actions and his words have certainly given the impression that those who adhere to false religions are not in any jeopardy whatsoever of losing their immortal souls for all eternity. He has, of course, publicly rejected what he refers to disparagingly as "the ecumenism of the return."

The situation at Christ the King Abbey in Cullman, Alabama, is very similar to other situations, including that of the Transalpine Redemptorists that was the subject of The Cost of "Recognition" Keeps Getting Higher and Higher. It is my completely noninfallible belief, that God is using these sad situations to further chastise us. It is my personal belief that we will keep losing our chapels and traditional refuges until we resolve to be less worldly, to make more sacrifices, to embrace a spirit of voluntary penance in reparation for our sins as the consecrated slaves of Christ the King through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart Mary our Immaculate Queen, resolving to pray more and more Rosaries each and every day.

We must, of course, pray for the valiant Catholics who have moved to Cullman, Alabama, to receive the true Sacraments there in their noble fight to preserve the mission statement of the late Abbot Leonard Giardina as they seek to defend Catholic truth. We must pray for Fathers Sebastian and Michael as they prepare to "obey" spiritual robber barons, asking the good God to open their hearts to the entreaties being made of them by the sheep and by fellow members of the clergy who have their own eternal and temporal good very much in mind.

When all is said and done, though, we must spend more time in prayer before Our Lord's Real Presence, if this is at all possible in your location, and to pledge ourselves to console the good God through His Most Blessed Mother's Holy Rosary as we call upon the patronage of Saint Joseph during this month of March.

Remember these words. Remember them well. They will be fulfilled when the the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary is made manifest:

 

"I will reign in spite of all who oppose Me." (words of Our Lord to Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque, quoted in: The Right Reverend Emile Bougaud. The Life of Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque, reprinted by TAN Books and Publishers in 1990, p. 361.)

 

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.

See also: A Litany of Saints

Appendix A

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI versus Popes Pius IX and XI on False Ecumenism

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.)

It is for this reason that so many who do not share 'the communion and the truth of the Catholic Church' must make use of the occasion of the Council, by the means of the Catholic Church, which received in Her bosom their ancestors, proposes [further] demonstration of profound unity and of firm vital force; hear the requirements [demands] of her heart, they must engage themselves to leave this state that does not guarantee for them the security of salvation. She does not hesitate to raise to the Lord of mercy most fervent prayers to tear down of the walls of division, to dissipate the haze of errors, and lead them back within holy Mother Church, where their Ancestors found salutary pastures of life; where, in an exclusive way, is conserved and transmitted whole the doctrine of Jesus Christ and wherein is dispensed the mysteries of heavenly grace.

It is therefore by force of the right of Our supreme Apostolic ministry, entrusted to us by the same Christ the Lord, which, having to carry out with [supreme] participation all the duties of the good Shepherd and to follow and embrace with paternal love all the men of the world, we send this Letter of Ours to all the Christians from whom We are separated, with which we exhort them warmly and beseech them with insistence to hasten to return to the one fold of Christ; we desire in fact from the depths of the heart their salvation in Christ Jesus, and we fear having to render an account one day to Him, Our Judge, if, through some possibility, we have not pointed out and prepared the way for them to attain eternal salvation. In all Our prayers and supplications, with thankfulness, day and night we never omit to ask for them, with humble insistence, from the eternal Shepherd of souls the abundance of goods and heavenly graces. And since, if also, we fulfill in the earth the office of vicar, with all our heart we await with open arms the return of the wayward sons to the Catholic Church, in order to receive them with infinite fondness into the house of the Heavenly Father and to enrich them with its inexhaustible treasures. By our greatest wish for the return to the truth and the communion with the Catholic Church, upon which depends not only the salvation of all of them, but above all also of the whole Christian society: the entire world in fact cannot enjoy true peace if it is not of one fold and one shepherd. (Pope Pius IX, Iam Vos Omnes, September 13, 1868.)

So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it. . . .  Let, therefore, the separated children draw nigh to the Apostolic See, set up in the City which Peter and Paul, the Princes of the Apostles, consecrated by their blood; to that See, We repeat, which is 'the root and womb whence the Church of God springs,' not with the intention and the hope that 'the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth' will cast aside the integrity of the faith and tolerate their errors, but, on the contrary, that they themselves submit to its teaching and government. Would that it were Our happy lot to do that which so many of Our predecessors could not, to embrace with fatherly affection those children, whose unhappy separation from Us We now bewail. Would that God our Savior, "Who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth," would hear us when We humbly beg that He would deign to recall all who stray to the unity of the Church! In this most important undertaking We ask and wish that others should ask the prayers of Blessed Mary the Virgin, Mother of divine grace, victorious over all heresies and Help of Christians, that She may implore for Us the speedy coming of the much hoped-for day, when all men shall hear the voice of Her divine Son, and shall be 'careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.'" (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928; see also Not An Ecumenist Among Them.)

Appendix B

Other Examples Contrasting Joseph Ratzinger's False Religion of Conciliarism, to which no one owes "obedience," and the True Religion, Catholicism, to which each of us owes obedience to the point of of death

First, Ratzinger/Benedict blasphemes God repeatedly by entering into places of false worship (an action that is proscribed by the Canon Law of the Catholic Church, a proscription that has injunctions dating back to Apostolic times; see The Laws of God Forbidding All Communication in Religion With Those of a False Religion) and esteeming them as "sacred" and as "jewels" that "stand out on the face of the earth. Millions of saints gave up their lives rather than even to give the appearance of such blasphemy and apostasy. His actions in this regard have been on full display during his pilgrimage to Jordan and Israel (see Archbishop Who?, Accustomed to Apostasy, Knights of Conciliarism, How Catholics Act and Speak in Jerusalem, and Words and Actions of Antichrist). These violations against the First Commandment have been open and blatant.

Ratzinger/Benedict has gone into four different synagogues and has been treated as an inferior by his Talmudic hosts.

Ratzinger/Benedict has gone into several mosques (and delivered an address outside of a third in Jordan, which he called a "jewel" and a "splendid" place of "worship"), taking off his shoes on both occasions and once turning in the direction of Mecca and assuming the Mohammedan "prayer" position.

Ratzinger/Benedict has personally esteemed the symbols of five false religions with his own priestly hands. (See for yourself, April 17, 2008 - 6:15 p.m. - Interreligious Gathering.)

 

Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ would have done none of those things. Each of those things are hideous in His sight. No one can do those things and remain a member of the Catholic Church in good standing, no less hold ecclesiastical office within her ranks legitimately.

Indeed, Saint Benedict of Nursia, to whom Fathers Sebastian and Michael have appealed as an example of obedience to the Church, destroyed the temple of Apollo that was on Monte Cassino. He did not "worship" with the pagans there. He did not "esteem" the temple. He destroyed it with his own hands. The "pope" to whom Fathers Sebastian and Michael wish to submit wrote in God and the World that there were in the past certain "Christian hotheads and fanatics who destroyed temples, who were unable to see paganism as anything more than idolatry that had to be radically eliminated."

In contrast to Benedict XVI, our last true pope thus far, Pope Pius XII, praised the work of Saint Benedict on Monte Cassino when he destroyed the false idol and the temple where it was place and given diabolical worship:

Then it was that this holy man saw that the time, ordained by God's providence, had come for him to found a family of religious men and to mold them to the perfection of the Gospels. He began under most favorable auspices. "For in those parts he had gathered together a great many in the service of God, so that by the assistance of Our Lord Jesus Christ he built there 12 monasteries, in each of which he put 12 monks with their Superiors, and retained a few with himself whom he thought to instruct further".

But while things started very favorably, as We said, and yielded rich and salutary results, promising still greater in the future, Our saint with the greatest grief of soul, saw a storm breaking over the growing harvest, which an envious spirit had provoked and desires of earthly gain had stirred up. Since Benedict was prompted by divine and not human counsel, and feared lest the envy which had been aroused mainly against himself should wrongfully recoil on his followers, "he let envy take its course, and after he had disposed of the oratories and other buildings -- leaving in them a competent number of brethren with superiors -- he took with him a few monks and went to another place". Trusting in God and relying on His ever present help, he went south and arrived at a fort "called Cassino situated on the side of a high mountain . . .; on this stood an old temple where Apollo was worshipped by the foolish country people, according to the custom of the ancient heathens. Around it likewise grew groves, in which even till that time the mad multitude of infidels used to offer their idolatrous sacrifices. The man of God coming to that place broke the idol, overthrew the altar, burned the groves, and of the temple of Apollo made a chapel of St. Martin. Where the profane altar had stood he built a chapel of St. John; and by continual preaching he converted many of the people thereabout".

Cassino, as all know, was the chief dwelling place and the main theater of the Holy Patriarch's virtue and sanctity. From the summit of this mountain, while practically on all sides ignorance and the darkness of vice kept trying to overshadow and envelop everything, a new light shone, kindled by the teaching and civilization of old and further enriched by the precepts of Christianity; it illumined the wandering peoples and nations, recalled them to truth and directed them along the right path. Thus indeed it may be rightly asserted that the holy monastery built there was a haven and shelter of highest learning and of all the virtues, and in those very troubled times was, "as it were, a pillar of the Church and a bulwark of the faith". (Pope Pius XII, Fulgens Radiatur, March 21, 1947; see also A Tale of Two Benedicts.)

 

Who is correct, Fathers Sebastian and Michael? "Pope" Benedict XVI or Saint Benedict of Nursia? To whom to do you pledge your obedience?

 

Second, Ratzinger/Benedict embraces conciliarism's definition of "religious liberty" as he praises the nonexistent ability of false religions to "contribute" to the "betterment" of nations and the world. Condemned by Pope Pius VI, Brief Quod aliquantum, March 10, 1791, Religious Liberty, a “Monstrous Right, Pope Pius VII in Post Tam Diuturnas, April 29, 1814, Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832, by Pope Pius IX in Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864, and by Pope Leo XIII in Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885, and Libertas, June 20, 1888. He did so yesterday, May 14, 2009, in Nazareth when meeting with representatives of "other religions" in an Auditorium that is part of the Shrine of the Annunciation there:

At the heart of all religious traditions is the conviction that peace itself is a gift from God, yet it cannot be achieved without human endeavor. Lasting peace flows from the recognition that the world is ultimately not our own, but rather the horizon within which we are invited to participate in God’s love and cooperate in guiding the world and history under his inspiration. We cannot do whatever we please with the world; rather, we are called to conform our choices to the subtle yet nonetheless perceptible laws inscribed by the Creator upon the universe and pattern our actions after the divine goodness that pervades the created realm.

Galilee, a land known for its religious and ethnic diversity, is home to a people who know well the efforts required to live in harmonious coexistence. Our different religious traditions have a powerful potential to promote a culture of peace, especially through teaching and preaching the deeper spiritual values of our common humanity. By molding the hearts of the young, we mold the future of humanity itself. Christians readily join Jews, Muslims, Druze, and people of other religions in wishing to safeguard children from fanaticism and violence while preparing them to be builders of a better world.

 

Ratzinger/Benedict's respect for the ability of false religions" to contribute to a better world has been condemned repeatedly by the Catholic Church, including by Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832:

 

This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. "But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error," as Augustine was wont to say. When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly "the bottomless pit" is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws -- in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty.

 

This respect for false religions is the work of Antichrist. It has been a hallmark of the entirety of Joseph Ratzinger's priesthood.

Third, Ratzinger/Benedict endorses the "separation of Church and State," a thesis called absolutely false by Pope Saint Pius X in Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906, and rejects the obligation of the civil state to recognize the Catholic Church as its official religion and to pursue the common temporal good in light of man's Last End, an obligation reiterated by pope after pope following the rise of the religiously indifferentist civil state of Modernity.

Ratzinger/Benedict, therefore, falls into the category of a social modernist described by Pope Pius XI in Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922 (see: The Binding Nature of Catholic Social Teaching).

Fourth, Joseph Ratzinger has long rejected the official philosophy of the Catholic Church, the Scholasticism of Saint Thomas Aquinas, in favor of the condemned precepts of the so-called "New Theology, the subject of an article, The Memories of a Destructive Mind: Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger's Milestones, on a Society of Saint Pius X website that may well "disappear"--along with other "damaging" citations that will have to be removed as part of the conciliar process of "purification of memory"--once a formal "regularization" takes place. (See also: Attempting to Coerce Perjury.) This rejection of Scholasticism is, as Pope Saint Pius X noted in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, a cornerstone of Modernism and is a mockery of the decrees of numerous popes reaffirming the work of Saint Thomas Aquinas as the sure guarantee against error. (See Ratzinger's War Against Catholicism.)

Pope Leo XIII summarized the decrees of these popes as follows in Aeterni Patris, August 4, 1879:

But, furthermore, Our predecessors in the Roman pontificate have celebrated the wisdom of Thomas Aquinas by exceptional tributes of praise and the most ample testimonials. Clement VI in the bull 'In Ordine;' Nicholas V in his brief to the friars of the Order of Preachers, 1451; Benedict XIII in the bull 'Pretiosus,' and others bear witness that the universal Church borrows luster from his admirable teaching; while St. Pius V declares in the bull 'Mirabilis' that heresies, confounded and convicted by the same teaching, were dissipated, and the whole world daily freed from fatal errors; others, such as Clement XII in the bull 'Verbo Dei,' affirm that most fruitful blessings have spread abroad from his writings over the whole Church, and that he is worthy of the honor which is bestowed on the greatest Doctors of the Church, on Gregory and Ambrose, Augustine and Jerome; while others have not hesitated to propose St. Thomas for the exemplar and master of the universities and great centers of learning whom they may follow with unfaltering feet. On which point the words of Blessed Urban V to the University of Toulouse are worthy of recall: 'It is our will, which We hereby enjoin upon you, that ye follow the teaching of Blessed Thomas as the true and Catholic doctrine and that ye labor with all your force to profit by the same.' Innocent XII, followed the example of Urban in the case of the University of Louvain, in the letter in the form of a brief addressed to that university on February 6, 1694, and Benedict XIV in the letter in the form of a brief addressed on August 26, 1752, to the Dionysian College in Granada; while to these judgments of great Pontiffs on Thomas Aquinas comes the crowning testimony of Innocent VI: 'is teaching above that of others, the canonical writings alone excepted, enjoys such a precision of language, an order of matters, a truth of conclusions, that those who hold to it are never found swerving from the path of truth, and he who dare assail it will always be suspected of error.'

The ecumenical councils, also, where blossoms the flower of all earthly wisdom, have always been careful to hold Thomas Aquinas in singular honor. In the Councils of Lyons, Vienna, Florence, and the Vatican one might almost say that Thomas took part and presided over the deliberations and decrees of the Fathers, contending against the errors of the Greeks, of heretics and rationalists, with invincible force and with the happiest results. But the chief and special glory of Thomas, one which he has shared with none of the Catholic Doctors, is that the Fathers of Trent made it part of the order of conclave to lay upon the altar, together with sacred Scripture and the decrees of the supreme Pontiffs, the 'Summa' of Thomas Aquinas, whence to seek counsel, reason, and inspiration.

A last triumph was reserved for this incomparable man -- namely, to compel the homage, praise, and admiration of even the very enemies of the Catholic name. For it has come to light that there were not lacking among the leaders of heretical sects some who openly declared that, if the teaching of Thomas Aquinas were only taken away, they could easily battle with all Catholic teachers, gain the victory, and abolish the Church. A vain hope, indeed, but no vain testimony. (Pope Leo XIII, Aeterni Patris, August 4, 1879.)

 

Fifth, Ratzinger/Benedict holds to a view of the Doctrine of Justification that, in essence, hinges on the belief that the Fathers of the Council of Trent, who met under the influence and protection of God the Holy Ghost, were wrong (as is explained in Attempting to Coerce Perjury). See Bishop Donald Sanborn's Critical Analysis of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification.

Sixth, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has dared to disparage Pope Pius IX's The Syllabus of Errors, December 8, 1864, by referring to the texts the "Second" Vatican Council's Gaudium et Spes and Dignitatis Humanae as part of a "countersyllabus of errors:"

Let us be content to say here that the text serves as a countersyllabus and, as such, represents on the part of the Church, an attempt at an official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789 (Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, p. 382.)

 

Pope Leo XIII, writing in Custodi di Quella Fede, December 8, 1864, explained that there can be no "reconciliation" between the Church and the maxims of the revolutions of Modernity:

Everyone should avoid familiarity or friendship with anyone suspected of belonging to masonry or to affiliated groups. Know them by their fruits and avoid them. Every familiarity should be avoided, not only with those impious libertines who openly promote the character of the sect, but also with those who hide under the mask of universal tolerance, respect for all religions, and the craving to reconcile the maxims of the Gospel with those of the revolution. These men seek to reconcile Christ and Belial, the Church of God and the state without God. (Pope Leo XIII, Custodi di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892.)

 

Seventh, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has used the cover provided him by the "non-binding" work of the International Theological Commission and "pontifical" councils to undermine belief in Limbo, in the unicity of the Church, in her mission to seek to convert all men, including the Protestants and the Orthodox, with great urgency and to convince Catholics that we can "learn" from the "fruit" of "inter-religious dialogue. Such documents as The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptised and the Balamand Statement and The Ravenna Document contain numerous defections from the Catholic Faith, each of which is believed whole-heartedly by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI.

Mind you, this is just a partial listing. The articles linked in the main body of this commentary contain information for those as of yet unconvinced that conciliarism is not Catholicism.