Oh, Bother! It's Just A Thousand Years

by Thomas A. Droleskey

There are times when a man must resort to quoting A. A. Milne's Winnie the Pooh character in the face of the absurdities uttered on an almost daily basis by the lords of the counterfeit church of conciliarism. Here is an appropriate quotation in the face of the news that some kind of "reconciliation" between the counterfeit church of conciliarism and the Russian Orthodox Church sooner rather than later:

"Hallo, Rabbit, isn't that you?"

"No," said Rabbit, in a different sort of voice this time.

"But isn't that Rabbit's voice?"

"I don't think so," said Rabbit. "It isn't meant to be."

"Oh!" said Pooh.

He took his head out of the hole, and had another think, and then he put it back, and said:

"Well, could you very kindly tell me where Rabbit is?"

"He has gone to see his friend Pooh Bear, who is a great friend of his."

"But this is Me!" said Bear, very much surprised.

"What sort of Me?"

"Pooh Bear."

"Are you sure?" said Rabbit, still more surprised.

"Quite, quite sure," said Pooh.

"Oh, well, then, come in."

So Pooh pushed and pushed and pushed his way through the hole,, and at last he got in.

"You were quite right," said Rabbit, looking at him all over. "It is you. Glad to see you."

"Who did you think it was?"

"Well, I wasn't sure. You know how it is in the Forest. One can't have anybody coming into one's house.One has to be careful.What about a mouthful of something?"

Pooh always liked a little something at eleven o'clock in the morning, and he was very glad to see Rabbit getting out the plates and mugs; and when Rabbit said, "Honey or condensed milk with your bread?" he was so excited that he said, "Both," and then, so as not to seem greedy, he added, "but don't bother about the bread, please." And for a long time after that he said nothing . . . until, at last, humming to himself in a rather sticky voice, he got up, shook Rabbit lovingly by the paw, and said that he must be going on.

"Must you?" said Rabbit politely.

"Well," said Pooh, "I could stay a little longer if it--if you--" and he tried very hard to look in the direction of the larder.

"As a matter of fact," said Rabbit, "I was going out myself directly."

"Oh, well, then, I'll be going on. Good-bye."

"Well, good-bye, if you're sure you won't have any more."

"Is there any more?" asked Pooh quickly

Rabbit took the covers off the dishes, and said no, there wasn't.

"I thought not," said Pooh, nodding to himself. "Well, good-bye. I must be going on."

So he stated to climb out of the hole. He pulled with his front paws, and pushed with his back paws, and in a little while his nose was out in the open again . . . and then his ears . . . and then his front paws . . . and then his shoulders . . . and then--

"Oh, help!" said Pooh. "I'd better go back."

Oh, bother!" said Pooh. "I shall have to go on."

"I can't do either! said Pooh. "Oh, help and bother!" (A. A. Milne, The Complete Tales of Winnie-the-Pooh, with decorations by Ernest H. Shepard, Dutton Children's Books, published originally in 1926 and republished in 1994, pp. 23-25.)

 

Absurd? Of course! Then again, so is the following report from the National Catholic Register concerning the possible "reunion" between two false churches, the counterfeit church of conciliarism and the Russian Orthodox Church:

The Catholic Archbishop of Moscow has given a remarkably upbeat assessment of relations with the Orthodox Church, saying unity between Catholics and Orthodox could be achieved “within a few months.”

In an interview today in Italy’s Corriere della Sera newspaper, Archbishop Paolo Pezzi said the miracle of reunification “is possible, indeed it has never been so close.” The archbishop added that Catholic-Orthodox reunification, the end of the historic schism that has divided them for a millennium, and spiritual communion between the two churches “could happen soon, also within a few months.”

“Basically we were united for a thousand years,” Archbishop Pezzi said. “Then for another thousand we were divided. Now the path to rapprochement is at its peak, and the third millennium of the Church could begin as a sign of unity.” He said there were “no formal obstacles” but that “everything depends on a real desire for communion.”

On the part of the Catholic Church, he added, “the desire is very much alive.”

Archbishop Pezzi, 49, whose proper title is Metropolitan Archbishop of the Mother of God Archdiocese in Moscow, said that now there are “no real obstacles” on the path towards full communion and reunification. On issues of modernity, Catholics and Orthodox Christians feel the same way, he said: “Nothing separates us on bioethics, the family, and the protection of life.”

Also on matters of doctrine, the two churches are essentially in agreement. “There remains the question of papal primacy,” Archbishop Pezzi acknowledged, “and this will be a concern at the next meeting of the Catholic-Orthodox Commission. But to me, it doesn’t seem impossible to reach an agreement.”

Prospects for union with the Orthodox have increased markedly in recent years with the election of Pope Benedict XVI, whose work as a theologian in greatly admired in Orthodox circles. Benedict is also without the burden of the difficult political history between Poland and Russia, which hindered Polish Pope John Paul II from making as much progress as he would have liked regarding Catholic-Orthodox unity.

Relations have also been greatly helped by the election of Patriarch Kirill I earlier this year as leader of the Russian Orthodox Church, which is by far the largest of the national churches in the Orthodox Church. As the former head of the Moscow Patriarchate’s department for external relations, Kirill met Benedict on several occasions before and after he became Pope, and the Russian Orthodox Patriarch is well acquainted with the Roman Curia and with Catholicism. (Is Catholic-Orthodox Unity in Sight?)

 

It is, of course, no wonder that the Orthodox have great admiration for Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's work as a "theologian" as much of the latter's "theology" is but a reworking of the false presuppositions of Orthodoxy. As a disciple and propagandist of the New Theology, Ratzinger/Benedict believes that the Scholasticism of Saint Thomas Aquinas has corrupted a "true" understanding of Sacred Scripture and of the Fathers of the Church, especially those Fathers who have been reverenced by the East from time immemorial. It is this rejection of Scholasticism that is at the heart of Orthodoxy and Protestantism, which is why there is such "optimism" among conciliar officials for a "reconciliation" with the largest group amongst the Orthodox, the Russian Orthodox Church, as Ratzinger/Benedict shares the Orthodox and Protestant view concerning the "corrupting" influence of Scholasticism on the "true" meaning of Sacred Scripture and on the Fathers of the Church.

As this "corrupting" influence took place in the Second Millennium of the Church, you see, it is a relatively easy thing for a Modernist such as Ratzinger/Benedict to dispense with the binding pronouncements made by the dogmatic councils that met during the Second Millennium, especially since representatives of the Orthodox sects were not present at most of those councils. Ratzinger/Benedict believes, therefore, that the lack of Orthodox representation at such councils, save for the Council of Florence in 1439 that nearly effected a complete reconciliation between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches based upon an acceptance of Catholic doctrine, vitiates the obligation of the Orthodox to accept, at least unconditionally, all of the dogmatic formulae pronounced by the Council of Trent and the [First[ Vatican Council.

Thus it is that Ratzinger/Benedict, whose representatives will soon begin their "negotiations" with those from the Society of Saint Pius X (see Negotiating To Become An Apostate), believes that a way must be found to make such doctrines as Papal Primacy and Papal Infallibility acceptable to the Orthodox. In order to do this, however, history and truth must both be stood on their heads, as one can plainly see in Ratzinger's misnamed Principles of Catholic Theology and in The Ravenna Document, issued on the ninetieth anniversary of the Miracle of the Sun in the Cova da Iria near Fatima, Portugal, October 13, 2007, in order to create an ecclesiastical environment favorable to apparent "reconciliation" between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox confessions.

One of the most telling passages in The Ravenna Document is as follows:

The Church of God exists where there is a community gathered together in the Eucharist, presided over, directly or through his presbyters, by a bishop legitimately ordained into the apostolic succession, teaching the faith received from the Apostles, in communion with the other bishops and their Churches. The fruit of this Eucharist and this ministry is to gather into an authentic communion of faith, prayer, mission, fraternal love and mutual aid, all those who have received the Spirit of Christ in Baptism. This communion is the frame in which all ecclesial authority is exercised. Communion is the criterion for its exercise. (The Ravenna Document.)

 

This is false. The "Church of God" does not exist where there is a community gathered together in the Eucharist, presided over, directly or through his presbyters by a bishop legitimately ordained into the apostolic succession, teaching the faith received from the Apostles, in communion with the other bishops and their Churches. Validity of episcopal consecration (the proper term, of course) absent a complete submission to the authority of the Vicar of Christ and to the fullness of the Deposit of Faith as it has been taught by the Catholic Church throughout the centuries, including the centuries comprising the Second Millennium, does not make an ecclesiastical "body" part of the the Church of God. The Church of God is the Catholic Church. None other.

Pope Pius XII noted the following in 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.

 

This does not mean a mere recognition of some kind of nebulous papal primacy as a "first among equals." No. The Vicar of Christ has plenipotentiary powers to govern the Catholic Church universally. This was recognized without question in the First Millennium, as Saint Jerome wrote to Pope Saint Damasus I:

"I, acknowledging no other leader than Christ, am bound in fellowship with Your Holiness; that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that the church was built upon him as its rock, and that whosoever gathereth not with you, scattereth."

 

Moreover, the passage from The Ravenna Document quoted above stated that that one of the conditions of the "Church of God" to be present was for it to teach the "faith received from the apostles." This is true as far as it goes. However, left unspoken in this passage is the fact that adherents of the schismatic and heretical Orthodox confessions believe that the "pure apostolic faith" of the First Millennium was "corrupted" during the Second Millennium by councils of the "Roman Church" in which they did not participate and therefore are not binding upon them. This belief is utter blasphemy against God the Holy Ghost, under Whose infallible guidance the dogmatic councils of the Catholic Church have met and conducted their deliberations before making solemn dogmatic pronouncements. God the Holy Ghost does not need heretics and schismatics present to do His holy business. To take anything away from the legitimacy of the councils of the Catholic Church held in the Second Millennium and the binding nature of the decrees they issued is to spit upon the very nature of the Church.

Every Christian on the face of this earth must believe everything that has been taught by the authority of the Catholic Church. Pope Pius XI, among so many others, made this clear in the aforementioned Mortalium Animos:

These pan-Christians who turn their minds to uniting the churches seem, indeed, to pursue the noblest of ideas in promoting charity among all Christians: nevertheless how does it happen that this charity tends to injure faith? Everyone knows that John himself, the Apostle of love, who seems to reveal in his Gospel the secrets of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and who never ceased to impress on the memories of his followers the new commandment "Love one another," altogether forbade any intercourse with those who professed a mutilated and corrupt version of Christ's teaching: "If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him: God speed you." For which reason, since charity is based on a complete and sincere faith, the disciples of Christ must be united principally by the bond of one faith. Who then can conceive a Christian Federation, the members of which retain each his own opinions and private judgment, even in matters which concern the object of faith, even though they be repugnant to the opinions of the rest? And in what manner, We ask, can men who follow contrary opinions, belong to one and the same Federation of the faithful? For example, those who affirm, and those who deny that sacred Tradition is a true fount of divine Revelation; those who hold that an ecclesiastical hierarchy, made up of bishops, priests and ministers, has been divinely constituted, and those who assert that it has been brought in little by little in accordance with the conditions of the time; those who adore Christ really present in the Most Holy Eucharist through that marvelous conversion of the bread and wine, which is called transubstantiation, and those who affirm that Christ is present only by faith or by the signification and virtue of the Sacrament; those who in the Eucharist recognize the nature both of a sacrament and of a sacrifice, and those who say that it is nothing more than the memorial or commemoration of the Lord's Supper; those who believe it to be good and useful to invoke by prayer the Saints reigning with Christ, especially Mary the Mother of God, and to venerate their images, and those who urge that such a veneration is not to be made use of, for it is contrary to the honor due to Jesus Christ, "the one mediator of God and men." How so great a variety of opinions can make the way clear to effect the unity of the Church We know not; that unity can only arise from one teaching authority, one law of belief and one faith of Christians. But We do know that from this it is an easy step to the neglect of religion or indifferentism and to modernism, as they call it. Those, who are unhappily infected with these errors, hold that dogmatic truth is not absolute but relative, that is, it agrees with the varying necessities of time and place and with the varying tendencies of the mind, since it is not contained in immutable revelation, but is capable of being accommodated to human life. Besides this, in connection with things which must be believed, it is nowise licit to use that distinction which some have seen fit to introduce between those articles of faith which are fundamental and those which are not fundamental, as they say, as if the former are to be accepted by all, while the latter may be left to the free assent of the faithful: for the supernatural virtue of faith has a formal cause, namely the authority of God revealing, and this is patient of no such distinction. For this reason it is that all who are truly Christ's believe, for example, the Conception of the Mother of God without stain of original sin with the same faith as they believe the mystery of the August Trinity, and the Incarnation of our Lord just as they do the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, according to the sense in which it was defined by the Ecumenical Council of the Vatican. Are these truths not equally certain, or not equally to be believed, because the Church has solemnly sanctioned and defined them, some in one age and some in another, even in those times immediately before our own? Has not God revealed them all? 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. But in the use of this extraordinary teaching authority no newly invented matter is brought in, nor is anything new added to the number of those truths which are at least implicitly contained in the deposit of Revelation, divinely handed down to the Church: only those which are made clear which perhaps may still seem obscure to some, or that which some have previously called into question is declared to be of faith.

 

Pope Leo XIII had made a similar point in Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896:

Agreement and union of minds is the necessary foundation of this perfect concord amongst men, from which concurrence of wills and similarity of action are the natural results. Wherefore, in His divine wisdom, He ordained in His Church Unity of Faith; a virtue which is the first of those bonds which unite man to God, and whence we receive the name of the faithful - "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Eph. iv., 5). That is, as there is one Lord and one baptism, so should all Christians, without exception, have but one faith. And so the Apostle St. Paul not merely begs, but entreats and implores Christians to be all of the same mind, and to avoid difference of opinions: "I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms amongst you, and that you be perfect in the same mind and in the same judgment" (I Cor. i., 10). Such passages certainly need no interpreter; they speak clearly enough for themselves. Besides, all who profess Christianity allow that there can be but one faith. It is of the greatest importance and indeed of absolute necessity, as to which many are deceived, that the nature and character of this unity should be recognized. And, as We have already stated, this is not to be ascertained by conjecture, but by the certain knowledge of what was done; that is by seeking for and ascertaining what kind of unity in faith has been commanded by Jesus Christ.. . . .

For this reason the Fathers of the Vatican Council laid down nothing new, but followed divine revelation and the acknowledged and invariable teaching of the Church as to the very nature of faith, when they decreed as follows: "All those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written or unwritten word of God, and which are proposed by the Church as divinely revealed, either by a solemn definition or in the exercise of its ordinary and universal Magisterium" (Sess. iii., cap. 3). Hence, as it is clear that God absolutely willed that there should be unity in His Church, and as it is evident what kind of unity He willed, and by means of what principle He ordained that this unity should be maintained, we may address the following words of St. Augustine to all who have not deliberately closed their minds to the truth: "When we see the great help of God, such manifest progress and such abundant fruit, shall we hesitate to take refuge in the bosom of that Church, which, as is evident to all, possesses the supreme authority of the Apostolic See through the Episcopal succession? In vain do heretics rage round it; they are condemned partly by the judgment of the people themselves, partly by the weight of councils, partly by the splendid evidence of miracles. To refuse to the Church the primacy is most impious and above measure arrogant. And if all learning, no matter how easy and common it may be, in order to be fully understood requires a teacher and master, what can be greater evidence of pride and rashness than to be unwilling to learn about the books of the divine mysteries from the proper interpreter, and to wish to condemn them unknown?" (De Unitate Credendi, cap. xvii., n. 35).

 

The Orthodox may get concessions from the authorities of the counterfeit church of conciliarism concerning how they could "interpret," if not ignore, the Council of Florence or the Council of Trent or the [First] Vatican Council. The Catholic Church can grant no such concessions, as Pope Pius XI noted in Mortalium Animos:

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."

 

Although The Ravenna Document represented but a preliminary stage what of Walter "Cardinal" Kasper, the President of the The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, said could take another ten years to produce another such document dealing with other issues, one should make no mistake at all about the fact that the direction it takes comes straight out of Joseph Ratzinger's own Principles of Catholic Theology. The Ravenna Document and Principles of Catholic Theology both contend that the proper understanding of papal primacy is "open" to discussion and in need of clarification:

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)

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 primary was certainly far less different from that of Cerularius than from that, let us say, of the First Vatican Council. In other words, Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium. (Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, pp. 198-199)

 

"Nor is it 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"? Anyone out there who has not as of yet realized that Joseph Ratzinger defected from the Catholic Faith a long time ago want to "Mapquest" directions to Saint Gertrude the Great in West Chester, Ohio, or to Our Lady of the Rosary Chapel in Monroe, Connecticut, or to Christ the King Church in Lafayette, Louisiana, or to Mary Immaculate Church in Omaha, Nebraska, or to Queen of All Saints Church in Brooksville, Florida, or to Mount Saint Michael's Church in Spokane, Washington, or to Saint Hugh of Lincoln Church in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, or to Mary Immaculate Queen Church in Rathdrum, Idaho, or to Saint Clare's Church in Columbus, Ohio, or to Saint Michael's Chapel in Glenmont, New York, or to Saint Joseph's Church in Wayne, Michigan, or to Our Lady of the Angels Church in Santa Clarita, California, or to Holy Rosary Church in Phoenix, Arizona (just to mention a few places in the Catholic catacombs served by true bishops and true priests)?

"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"? One could only laugh a big belly laugh out loud if the matter did not involved the eternal fate of souls. Studied in greater depth? Do not the solemn pronouncements of the Catholic Church bind all human beings in all places at all times without any exception whatsoever? Not according to Walter Kasper and the clowns and jugglers with whom he worked on the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.

The [First] Vatican Council made the following declarations that bind every human being on the face of this earth

Therefore, if anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole church militant; or that it was a primacy of honour only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself: let him be anathema (Vatican I, Session 1.6)

.

Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.In this way, by unity with the Roman pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the church of Christ becomes one flock under one supreme shepherd. This is the teaching of the catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation. (Vatican I, Session 4, Chapter 3.2-5)

.

So, then, if anyone says that the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema. (Vatican I, Session 4, Chapter 3.9)

 

The conciliarists have anathematized themselves by their own words.

The plain fact of the matter is that one cannot claim that there is any need to "understand" papal primacy and be of one mind and one heart with Catholic teaching. As noted before, conciliarists must distort history of the First Millennium in order to distort the truth about the dogmatic pronouncements made in the Second Millennium. Ratzinger/Benedict belief that  Papal Primacy was exercised and understood differently in the First Millennium than in the Second Millennium is contrary to truth, as Pope Leo XIII made clear 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.)

 

Hegelian revisionists must deny history and Catholic doctrine both at the same time in an effort to build yet another story to the One World Ecumenical Church, which might soon include "Anglo-Catholics" and the Society of Saint Pius X, proving that there is room for Opus Dei, Focolare, Communion and Liberation, Cursillo, the "Catholic Charismatic Renewal," World Youth Day, the Sant'Egidio Community, the Taize Community, and dozens of others of like-minded "movements" in the counterfeit church of conciliarism. What a coup it would be to get the largest Orthdox confession, the Russian Orthodox Church, into the building of the One World Ecumenical Church. Oh, bother! It's just a thousand years, right?

Left unaddressed in the National Catholic Register report, which is based on what could be--and most likely is--nothing more than the sappy optimism of a conciliar archbishop who may very well be underestimating, if not totally ignoring, the deep, deep hostility among many Russian Orthodox clergy and laity for the Catholic Church, on discussions between the representatives of the counterfeit church of conciliarism and those of the Russian Orthodox Church is whether the Orthodox will be required to accept the doctrines of the Filioque, Original Sin, Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and Papal Infallibility as defined solemnly by the magisterial authority of the Catholic Church. Will the Russian Orthodox be forced to abandon their support for divorce and remarriage without a decree of nullity. Will they be forced to abjure their support for contraception? Don't hold your breaths for a statement to be issued by the "Catholic-Orthodox Commission" to address these important points of doctrine. Archbishop Pezzi has said that there are "no obstacles" other than Papal Primacy, meaning that other matters can be shelved with a sigh of Winnie-the-Pooh, "Oh, bother!"

What Archbishop Pezzi does not seem to understand is that it is fidelity to everything contained in the Deposit of Faith that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has entrusted exclusively to the Catholic Church that matters, not conciliarism's false concept of "communion" that permits certain dogmas to "slide" in order to stress "agreement" on allegedly "fundamental" points of doctrine, a distinction that the Catholic Church teaches us is false on its very face. Any kind of "reconciliation" based on a rejection of any point of doctrine contained in the Deposit of Faith is false and is a cause for no kind of celebration or rejoicing whatsoever.

Indeed, the errors of Russian Orthodoxy are at the root of the errors of Russia that Our Lady explained to Jacinta and Francisco Marto and Lucia dos Santos would spread if Russia was not consecrated to her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart by a true pope (and, as Our Lady explained later to Sister Lucia, with all of the world's bishops). Our Lady did not mention Communism. She did not mention Marxism-Leninism. Our Lady spoke about the "errors of Russia." Russian Orthodoxy is at the root of those "errors of Russia," which is why the errors of Orthodoxy must be abjured by its adherents before they can joint without any preconditions or qualifications the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order.

The errors of Russia, as noted above, antedate Marxism-Leninism. Indeed, Marxism-Leninism, the most aggressive, atheistic form of socialism, was but a logical successor of nearly one thousand years of errors in Russia that made it possible for Talmudic financiers to build on the overthrow of the the Social Reign of Christ the King wrought by Orthodoxy by instituting the overtly anti-Theistic rule of the politburo. Just take a look at three of the pre-Communist errors of Russia, which is, I believe,proving to be the means in the current administration of Caesar Obamus by which a chastisement is being visited upon the West for its infidelity to Christ the King and to Mary our Immaculate Queen:

1. Denial of Papal Primacy, presaging the errors of Martin Luther and John Calvin and Thomas Cranmer, et al.

2. Denial of the Magisterial Authority of the Catholic Church, leaving doctrinal decisions in the hands of committees of bishops.

3. The subordination of the Orthodox Church to the civil state, presaging the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King and the separation of Church and State wrought by Martin Luther and cemented by the rise of Judeo-Masonry and other, inter-related forces of naturalism.

 

Obviously, the errors of Russian Orthodoxy helped to shape the nature of Russian government over the centuries, something that Greek Orthodoxy, finding itself immersed in the heart of Mohammedanism, could not do. Thus it is that Russian Orthodoxy helped to pave the way over the centuries for Protestantism and Freemasonry by means of its rejection of the Social Reign of Christ King as it must be exercised by the Catholic Church.

The principle error of Modernity, the rejection of the Incarnation as an absolute necessity in the right ordering of men and their nations, had its antecedent roots in Russia. The errors of Russia influenced, albeit indirectly at times and through many filters, the ideas of the so-called Enlightenment in the West. And the failure of those anti-Incarnational and, at times, anti-Theistic ideas to resolve social problems, which have their remote cause in Original Sin and their proximate causes in the Actual Sins of men, made possible the rise of all manner of utopian theories. After all, if "heaven" is to be here on earth and men cannot resolve their problems by means of mere structural reform sanctioned by a majority of "reasonable men" (see Locke, John, Second Treatise on Civil Government), then men who do not realize that the state of nations depends upon the right ordering of souls according to the tenets contained in the Deposit of Faith entrusted exclusively to the Catholic Church and in cooperation with the graces won for men by the shedding of every single drop of the Most Precious Blood of the Divine Redeemer, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, on the wood of the Holy Cross, will gravitate all too naturally to increasingly more utopian schemes of naturalism, including Bolshevism. The failure of Western liberalism, which had been influenced in many ways by the errors of Russia, to "improve" the lot of man helped to create a fertile seed ground for Bolshevism.

Men and their nations must convert unconditionally to the Catholic Faith. Men and their nations must recognize and accept the Social Reign of Christ the King as it must be exercised by the Catholic Church, giving public honor as well to Mary our Immaculate Queen, especially by means of Rosary Processions and pilgrimages in her blessed honor. There is no "finessing" or "nuancing" the Catholic Faith. One accepts or rejects It en toto. There is no middle ground at all, except, that is, for the apostates in the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

 

May we offer up our own daily prayers and penances and mortifications and sacrifices and humiliations to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, giving unto these twin hearts of love as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit. Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has undergone His Mystical Passion, Death and Burial at the hands of the conciliarists. May it be our privilege to help plant a few seeds for the Resurrection of the Mystical Body of Christ by doing penance for our own sins and those of the whole world as we flee from everything to do with the insanity and absurdity and infidelity of conciliarism and its counterfeit church.

It is never a "bother" to adhere to the totality of the Catholic Faith. May Our Lady help us to do so as we lift high the Cross of her Divine Son in our daily lives, giving her with joy and gladness all of the sufferings of the present moment as the devoted clients and slaves of her Immaculate Heart.

What are we waiting for?

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us now and the hour of our deaths. Amen.

All to thee, Blessed Mother. All to thy Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart. Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, we love you. Save souls!

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 Luke 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 Cornelius and Cyprian, pray for us.

Saints Euphemia, Lucy, and Geminianus, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints