by
Thomas A. Droleskey
There was never a time in the history of the Catholic Church prior to 1958 when it was necessary to attempt to project Catholicism into the words and acts of putative "popes" and into the official documents purporting to have been issued by her own authority. There has never been a time in the history of the Catholic Church when five successive claimants to the Throne of Saint Peter contradicted dogmatic councils and ignored, if not disparaged, the teaching reiterated by previous popes. No one can cite a single precedent for this. None. Five successive claimants to the Throne of Saint Peter who speak and act in ways that have been condemned repeatedly by the solemn authority of the Catholic Church? Never.
There has never been a time in the history of the Catholic Church when murkiness and obscurity were the norms of "papal" allocutions and sermons, also incorporated into documents issued by her purported authority. Although there are some dissenting Catholics in the libertarian camp who reject the Social Teaching of the Catholic Church concerning the necessity of the civil state's recognizing her as the true religion, placing them in league the heresy of Gallicanism as they pick and choose which parts of Church teaching they believe are acceptable to their "sophisticated" insights, no one can doubt the meaning of the words of Popes Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, and Pius XI. There was no room for murkiness or misunderstanding.
Consider these words from Pope Leo XIII's Immortale Dei on the necessity of the civil state's recognizing the true religion:
As a consequence, the State, constituted as it is, is clearly bound to act up to the manifold and weighty duties linking it to God, by the public profession of religion. Nature and reason, which command every individual devoutly to worship God in holiness, because we belong to Him and must return to Him, since from Him we came, bind also the civil community by a like law. For, men living together in society are under the power of God no less than individuals are, and society, no less than individuals, owes gratitude to God who gave it being and maintains it and whose everbounteous goodness enriches it with countless blessings. Since, then, no one is allowed to be remiss in the service due to God, and since the chief duty of all men is to cling to religion in both its teaching and practice-not such religion as they may have a preference for, but the religion which God enjoins, and which certain and most clear marks show to be the only one true religion -- it is a public crime to act as though there were no God. So, too, is it a sin for the State not to have care for religion as a something beyond its scope, or as of no practical benefit; or out of many forms of religion to adopt that one which chimes in with the fancy; for we are bound absolutely to worship God in that way which He has shown to be His will. All who rule, therefore, would hold in honor the holy name of God, and one of their chief duties must be to favor religion, to protect it, to shield it under the credit and sanction of the laws, and neither to organize nor enact any measure that may compromise its safety. This is the bounden duty of rulers to the people over whom they rule. For one and all are we destined by our birth and adoption to enjoy, when this frail and fleeting life is ended, a supreme and final good in heaven, and to the attainment of this every endeavor should be directed. Since, then, upon this depends the full and perfect happiness of mankind, the securing of this end should be of all imaginable interests the most urgent. Hence, civil society, established for the common welfare, should not only safeguard the wellbeing of the community, but have also at heart the interests of its individual members, in such mode as not in any way to hinder, but in every manner to render as easy as may be, the possession of that highest and unchangeable good for which all should seek. Wherefore, for this purpose, care must especially be taken to preserve unharmed and unimpeded the religion whereof the practice is the link connecting man with God.
Now, it cannot be difficult to find out which is the true religion, if only it be sought with an earnest and unbiased mind; for proofs are abundant and striking. We have, for example, the fulfillment of prophecies, miracles in great numbers, the rapid spread of the faith in the midst of enemies and in face of overwhelming obstacles, the witness of the martyrs, and the like. From all these it is evident that the only true religion is the one established by Jesus Christ Himself, and which He committed to His Church to protect and to propagate.
As noted above, there are dissenting Catholics in the libertarian camp (and in the John Birch Society) who reject this, placing them in league with the apostasy of conciliarism concerning Church-State relations, branding themselves as Modernists, as Pope Pius XI noted without any equivocation in Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922, and by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis, August 12, 1950:
Many believe in or claim that they believe in and hold fast to Catholic doctrine on such questions as social authority, the right of owning private property, on the relations between capital and labor, on the rights of the laboring man, on the relations between Church and State, religion and country, on the relations between the different social classes, on international relations, on the rights of the Holy See and the prerogatives of the Roman Pontiff and the Episcopate, on the social rights of Jesus Christ, Who is the Creator, Redeemer, and Lord not only of individuals but of nations. In spite of these protestations, they speak, write, and, what is more, act as if it were not necessary any longer to follow, or that they did not remain still in full force, the teachings and solemn pronouncements which may be found in so many documents of the Holy See, and particularly in those written by Leo XIII, Pius X, and Benedict XV.
There is a species of moral, legal, and social modernism which We condemn, no less decidedly than We condemn theological modernism. (Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922)
Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me"; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, August 12, 1950.)
The dissenting Catholics who have adopted the counterfeit church of conciliarism's view of Church-State relations cannot claim that there is any ambiguity in the words of Pope Leo XIII in Immortale Dei. They reject it, preferring the "insights" of an agnostic Jew such as Murray Rothbard or a libertarian Catholic such as Ludwig von Mises to the binding teaching of the Catholic Church from which no one may dissent legitimately and claim remain a faithful member of the Catholic Church. Joseph Ratzinger, the quintessential conciliarist, rejects this teaching, doing so by the use of his Hegelian, Modernist understanding of the nature of the inherent contradictions contained in truth, believing that something that might have been valid at one time may not be valid at a later time, a subject that was explored at great length in Modernism Then, Conciliarism Now two days ago. Even Ratzinger, however, cannot deny the plain words of what the true popes of the past taught as he denies the applicability of what they taught to the "needs" of "modern" man.
Similarly, there is no possible misinterpretation of these words of Pope Leo XIII that were contained in his last will and testament, if you will, A Review of His Pontificate, issued on March 19, 1902:
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 t ruth, 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.
These words are clear. Nations must return to the true Faith in order to know social order. Libertarians and those who have the spirit of Modernism and conciliarism in their rejection of the Social Teaching of the Catholic Church may reject Pope Leo XIII's comments. They can have no ambiguity about what he meant, however.
Pope Saint Pius X made himself abundantly clear on this same manner throughout his pontificate, stating the following in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910:
No, Venerable Brethren, We must repeat with the utmost energy in these times of social and intellectual anarchy when everyone takes it upon himself to teach as a teacher and lawmaker - the City cannot be built otherwise than as God has built it; society cannot be setup unless the Church lays the foundations and supervises the work; no, civilization is not something yet to be found, nor is the New City to be built on hazy notions; it has been in existence and still is: it is Christian civilization, it is the Catholic City. It has only to be set up and restored continually against the unremitting attacks of insane dreamers, rebels and miscreants. omnia instaurare in Christo.
There is no ambiguity here whatsoever. The Catholic City is not an "inter-denominational" city. It is not the "city" of American constitutionalism, which rejects the necessity of the civil state's reliance upon the Catholic Church on all that pertains to the good of souls. It is not the conciliarist "city" of "healthy secularity."
There is no also no ambiguity in Pope Pius XI's reiteration of the fact that the Catholic Church is the one and only (as in exclusive) path to social order within nations and peace among nations:
Because the Church is by divine institution the sole depository and interpreter of the ideals and teachings of Christ, she alone possesses in any complete and true sense the power effectively to combat that materialistic philosophy which has already done and, still threatens, such tremendous harm to the home and to the state. The Church alone can introduce into society and maintain therein the prestige of a true, sound spiritualism, the spiritualism of Christianity which both from the point of view of truth and of its practical value is quite superior to any exclusively philosophical theory. The Church is the teacher and an example of world good-will, for she is able to inculcate and develop in mankind the "true spirit of brotherly love" (St. Augustine, De Moribus Ecclesiae Catholicae, i, 30) and by raising the public estimation of the value and dignity of the individual's soul help thereby to lift us even unto God.
Finally, the Church is able to set both public and private life on the road to righteousness by demanding that everything and all men become obedient to God "Who beholdeth the heart," to His commands, to His laws, to His sanctions. If the teachings of the Church could only penetrate in some such manner as We have described the inner recesses of the consciences of mankind, be they rulers or be they subjects, all eventually would be so apprised of their personal and civic duties and their mutual responsibilities that in a short time "Christ would be all, and in all." (Colossians iii, 11)
Since the Church is the safe and sure guide to conscience, for to her safe-keeping alone there has been confided the doctrines and the promise of the assistance of Christ, she is able not only to bring about at the present hour a peace that is truly the peace of Christ, but can, better than any other agency which We know of, contribute greatly to the securing of the same peace for the future, to the making impossible of war in the future. For the Church teaches (she alone has been given by God the mandate and the right to teach with authority) that not only our acts as individuals but also as groups and as nations must conform to the eternal law of God. In fact, it is much more important that the acts of a nation follow God's law, since on the nation rests a much greater responsibility for the consequences of its acts than on the individual.
When, therefore, governments and nations follow in all their activities, whether they be national or international, the dictates of conscience grounded in the teachings, precepts, and example of Jesus Christ, and which are binding on each and every individual, then only can we have faith in one another's word and trust in the peaceful solution of the difficulties and controversies which may grow out of differences in point of view or from clash of interests. An attempt in this direction has already and is now being made; its results, however, are almost negligible and, especially so, as far as they can be said to affect those major questions which divide seriously and serve to arouse nations one against the other. No merely human institution of today can be as successful in devising a set of international laws which will be in harmony with world conditions as the Middle Ages were in the possession of that true League of Nations, Christianity. It cannot be denied that in the Middle Ages this law was often violated; still it always existed as an ideal, according to which one might judge the acts of nations, and a beacon light calling those who had lost their way back to the safe road.
There exists an institution able to safeguard the sanctity of the law of nations. This institution is a part of every nation; at the same time it is above all nations. She enjoys, too, the highest authority, the fullness of the teaching power of the Apostles. Such an institution is the Church of Christ. She alone is adapted to do this great work, for she is not only divinely commissioned to lead mankind, but moreover, because of her very make-up and the constitution which she possesses, by reason of her age-old traditions and her great prestige, which has not been lessened but has been greatly increased since the close of the War, cannot but succeed in such a venture where others assuredly will fail.
It is apparent from these considerations that true peace, the peace of Christ, is impossible unless we are willing and ready to accept the fundamental principles of Christianity, unless we are willing to observe the teachings and obey the law of Christ, both in public and private life. If this were done, then society being placed at last on a sound foundation, the Church would be able, in the exercise of its divinely given ministry and by means of the teaching authority which results therefrom, to protect all the rights of God over men and nations.
Crystal clear clarity is what you find in the documents of the Catholic Church, something that is not true in the world of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, where truth, sometimes beautifully expressed, is mixed in with errors, sometimes overt and egregious (such as referring to Mount Hiei in Japan as "sacred," something that offends the honor of God Himself, Who has lost the voices of more than a handful of Catholics in the past two months who might have previously defended His Sacred Honor as a result of such an abominable blasphemy but refuse to do so now because they feel compelled to shield Joseph Ratzinger from almost all criticism as a result of Summorum Pontificum, sometimes diabolically subtle. Pope Saint Pius X pinpointed the Modernist penchant for speaking out of both sides of their mouth at the same time:
The Modernists completely invert the parts, and of them may be applied the words which another of Our predecessors Gregory IX, addressed to some theologians of his time: "Some among you, puffed up like bladders with the spirit of vanity strive by profane novelties to cross the boundaries fixed by the Fathers, twisting the meaning of the sacred text...to the philosophical teaching of the rationalists, not for the profit of their hearer but to make a show of science...these men, led away by various and strange doctrines, turn the head into the tail and force the queen to serve the handmaid."
This will appear more clearly to anybody who studies the conduct of Modernists, which is in perfect harmony with their teachings. In their writings and addresses they seem not unfrequently to advocate doctrines which are contrary one to the other, so that one would be disposed to regard their attitude as double and doubtful. But this is done deliberately and advisedly, and the reason of it is to be found in their opinion as to the mutual separation of science and faith. Thus in their books one finds some things which might well be approved by a Catholic, but on turning over the page one is confronted by other things which might well have been dictated by a rationalist. When they write history they make no mention of the divinity of Christ, but when they are in the pulpit they profess it clearly; again, when they are dealing with history they take no account of the Fathers and the Councils, but when they catechize the people, they cite them respectfully. In the same way they draw their distinctions between exegesis which is theological and pastoral and exegesis which is scientific and historical. So, too, when they treat of philosophy, history, and criticism, acting on the principle that science in no way depends upon faith, they feel no especial horror in treading in the footsteps of Luther and are wont to display a manifold contempt for Catholic doctrines, for the Holy Fathers, for the Ecumenical Councils, for the ecclesiastical magisterium; and should they be taken to task for this, they complain that they are being deprived of their liberty. Lastly, maintaining the theory that faith must be subject to science, they continuously and openly rebuke the Church on the ground that she resolutely refuses to submit and accommodate her dogmas to the opinions of philosophy; while they, on their side, having for this purpose blotted out the old theology, endeavor to introduce a new theology which shall support the aberrations of philosophers.
This aspect of Modernism was on full display at Mariazell in Austria on the Feast of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Saturday, September 8, 2007, as Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI gave a sermon that mixed in authentic elements of the Faith with pure, unadulterated Modernism. This sermon contains a what Pope Leo XIII noted in Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896, the following danger:
There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition.
Two passages from Joseph Ratzinger's sermon in Mariazell demonstrates how he defects from the Faith, although the fact that his drops of poison are mixed in with "elements of Catholicism" will give his defenders yet another chance to claim that anyone who claims to find problems in the following words is nothing other than a "heresy hunter" who is simply looking for trouble where there is none to be found. The fact that believing Catholics can disagree about the meaning of words spoken by a putative "pope" is itself a sign of the problems we face in this time of apostasy and betrayal. As noted above, the passages from the true popes of the past are very clear. One either accepted them or he rejected them. Modernism is deigned of its nature to obfuscate truth so as to permit heterodoxy to pass for orthodoxy.
The following passage from Ratzinger/Benedict's September 8, 2007, sermon reveals multiple defections from the Catholic Faith:
So if we Christians call him the one universal Mediator of salvation, valid for everyone and, ultimately, needed by everyone, this does not mean that we despise other religions, nor are we arrogantly absolutizing our own ideas; on the contrary, it means that we are gripped by him who has touched our hearts and lavished gifts upon us, so that we, in turn, can offer gifts to others. In fact, our faith is decisively opposed to the attitude of resignation that considers man incapable of truth -- as if this were more than he could cope with. This attitude of resignation with regard to truth, I am convinced, lies at the heart of the crisis of the West, the crisis of Europe. If truth does not exist for man, then neither can he ultimately distinguish between good and evil. And then the great and wonderful discoveries of science become double-edged: they can open up significant possibilities for good, for the benefit of mankind, but also, as we see only too clearly, they can pose a terrible threat, involving the destruction of man and the world. We need truth. Yet admittedly, in the light of our history we are fearful that faith in the truth might entail intolerance. If we are gripped by this fear, which is historically well grounded, then it is time to look towards Jesus as we see him in the shrine at Mariazell. We see him here in two images: as the child in his Mother's arms, and above the high altar of the Basilica as the Crucified. These two images in the Basilica tell us this: truth prevails not through external force, but it is humble and it yields itself to man only via the inner force of its veracity. Truth proves itself in love. It is never our property, never our product, just as love can never be produced, but only received and handed on as a gift. We need this inner force of truth. As Christians we trust this force of truth. We are its witnesses. We must hand it on as a gift in the same way as we have received it, as it has given itself to us.
We do not despise other religions? No, this is apostasy. God hates false religions. Hates them. He loves the adherents of false religions in that He wills for them their eternal good, which can be safeguarded only by their unconditional conversion to the Catholic Faith, which unconditional conversion makes it possible for those converted out of false religions to sanctify their souls on a daily basis in cooperation with the graces won for us by the shedding of every single drop of Our Lord's Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross and that flow into our hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, the Mediatrix of All Graces. We are to love those in false religions, meaning that we will their unconditional conversion to the true Faith. We must, however, hate the false religions themselves as instruments of the devil to lead souls into Hell for all eternity.
It is clear, therefore, that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, a disciple of the propagandist of "universal salvation," the late Father Hans Urs von Balthasar, rejects the late Father Frederick Faber's reiteration of the constant Catholic teaching that God hates heresy, meaning that we must hate all heresy and falsehood as well:
This 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. 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. The mild self-opinionatedness of the gentle, undiscerning good will also take the world's view and condemn us; for there is a meek-looking positiveness about the 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 daring enough for a harsh judgment. Heresy can only be hated by an undivided heart. (The Dolors of Mary, 1857.)
If we hated sin as we ought to hate it, purely, keenly, manfully, we should do more penance, we should inflict more self-punishment, we should sorrow for our sins more abidingly. Then, again, the crowning disloyalty to God is heresy. It is the sin of sins, the very loathsomest of things which God looks down upon in this malignant world. Yet how little do we understand of its excessive hatefulness! It is the polluting of God’s truth, which is the worst of all impurities.
Yet how light we make of it! We look at it, and are calm. We touch it and do not shudder. We mix with it, and have no fear. We see it touch holy things, and we have no sense of sacrilege. We breathe its odor, and show no signs of detestation or disgust. Some of us affect its friendship; and some even extenuate its guilt. We do not love God enough to be angry for His glory. We do not love men enough to be charitably truthful for their souls.
Having lost the touch, the taste, the sight, and all the senses of heavenly-mindedness, we can dwell amidst this odious plague, in imperturbable tranquility, reconciled to its foulness, not without some boastful professions of liberal admiration, perhaps even with a solicitous show of tolerant sympathies.
Why are we so far below the old saints, and even the modern apostles of these latter times, in the abundance of our conversations? Because we have not the antique sternness? We want the old Church-spirit, the old ecclesiastical genius. Our charity is untruthful, because it is not severe; and it is unpersuasive, because it is untruthful.
We lack devotion to truth as truth, as God’s truth. Our zeal for souls is puny, because we have no zeal for God’s honor. We act as if God were complimented by conversions, instead of trembling souls rescued by a stretch of mercy
We tell men half the truth, the half that best suits our own pusillanimity and their conceit; and then we wonder that so few are converted, and that of those few so many apostatize.
We are so weak as to be surprised that our half-truth has not succeeded so well as God’s whole truth.
Where there is no hatred of heresy, there is no holiness.
A man, who might be an apostle, becomes a fester in the Church for the want of this righteous indignation. (The Precious Blood, 1860)
Conciliarism has shown itself willing not only to live with false religions but to extol their non-existent qualities as reflecting the very goodness of God Himself, acting, practically speaking, as though, despite all of their protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, the Incarnation is a matter of complete indifference to men and the right ordering of the nations in which they live. False religions exist in defiance of the First Commandment and their false religious beliefs and practices must be eradicated from the face of this earth. God does not want any sort of "co-existence" of the true Faith with false religions. He wants Catholics to seek the unconditional conversion of everyone in the world to the true Faith, an unconditional conversion that Joseph Ratzinger categorically rejects. While we do bear ourselves kindly to our fellow men, we nevertheless must pray and to work for the unconditional conversion to the true Faith, never giving even the slightest hint of acceptance of the errors of their false religions.
Although those not properly catechized in the Faith may find the litany that follows "harsh," it is nevertheless a statement of the Mind of God Himself as He has deposited It exclusively in the Catholic Church.
God hates Talmudic Judaism, which is false religion containing multiple blasphemies against Him and His Most Blessed Mother.
God hates Mohammedanism, which denies that He is a Trinity of Persons--Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, denying the Divine Redeemer's Sacred Humanity and promoting acts contrary to the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law.
God hates Hinduism and the pantheism that it represents.
God hates Buddhism and the disordered, narcissistic love of self it engenders.
God hates animism and all other types of "native" religions, including those of the Americas, Africa, and the aboriginal people of Australia and New Zealand.
God hates Shintoism and Taoism.
Got hates the Bah'ai movement.
God hates Protestantism, which is a denial of the Divine Plan He Himself instituted to effect man's return to Him through His true Church. Protestantism is particularly odious as it purports to be a form of "Christianity" while divorcing man from the magisterial authority of the true Church and separating him from the sacraments he needs to get him home to Heaven. The American preface to Saint Leonard of Port Maurice's The Hidden Treasure: Holy Mass puts the matter very directly:
"Where there is no Mass," writes one of the Fathers of the English Oratory, "there is no Christianity." The reason is plain. Christ's life was one of sacrifice--not merely of the figurative sacrifice of praise and prayer, but one of outward act, of suffering and of death. His religion must be like Himself: it must be the continuation of the divine human life that He led upon earth, representing and perpetuating, by some sacred rite, the sacrifice that began in the womb of Mary and ended upon the cross of Calvary. That rite is the holy Mass. Do we always realize it as such? Does the conviction sink deep into us, when offering, or assisting at the adorable sacrifice, that Jesus is re-enacting, in our presence, the mysteries of His life and death?
The altar of the Mass is the holy house of Nazareth, the city of Bethlehem, the Egyptian place of exile, the hill of Calvary, the garden-tomb in which Our Saviour's corpse reposed, and the Mount of Olives from which He ascended. The Passion, it is true, is that which is primarily represented and continued in the holy Mass; yet the prayers and rites of the sacrifice refer, at times, to other mysteries. Thus the dropping of a part of the sacred host into the chalice, before the Agnus Dei,represents the reunion of Christ's soul with His body and blood on the morning of the Resurrection. For a description of the many and beautiful analogies between the eucharistic life of Our Lord and His sacred Infancy, we refer the reader to Father Faber's Treatise on the Blessed Sacrament.
The Mass is truly a "hidden treasure," and, alas, our cold, dead faith allows it to remain so. If we valued it as we ought, we would hurry every morning to the church, ceaseless of the snows of winter and the heats of summer, in order to get a share of the riches of this treasure.
The saints knew the value of one Mass: that it was a dark day in their calendar on which they were deprived of the happy privilege of saying or hearing Mass. Although St. Francis de Sales was overburdened with apostolic work on the Mission of the Chablais, he made it a point never to miss his daily Mass. In order to keep his holy resolution, he had frequently to cross the river Drance, to the village of Marin, in which there was a Catholic church. It happened, in the winter of 1596, that a great freshet carried away a portion of the bridge over the stream, and the passengers were, in consequence, compelled to cross on a plank laid over those arches of the broken structure that had withstood the waters. Heavy falls of snow, followed by severe frosts, made this board very slippery, so that it became dangerous to attempt passing on on it; but St. Francis was not be deterred, for despite the remonstration of his friends, he made the perilous journey every morning, creeping over the icy plank on his hands and feet, thus daily risking his life rather than lose Mass.
Dear Christian reader! beg this glorious saint to obtain for you and me some portion of his burning love for the most holy and adorable sacrifice of the altar.
God hates the Photian heresy of Orthodoxy, which denies Papal primacy, Papal infallibility, the Filioque, and various dogmas as they have been defined and explained by the authority of the Catholic Church (Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the correct understanding of the doctrine of Original Sin), to say nothing of their support for divorce and remarriage (up to three times).
God hates each and every false religion. He wants these false religions eradicated and each their pagan, diabolical, superstitious practices to abolished and never given any credence or respectability at any point in the future.
Ah, you see, such a statement of the Catholic Faith is too much for the supreme ecumenist, Joseph Ratzinger, who says that we must use "force" to bring the Faith to others. That is a loaded term, which is meant to connote his belief that it was wrong for missionaries in the past to seek the unconditional conversion of others without engaging them in a period of "inter-religious dialogue" and without attempting to incorporate their false practices into the Catholic liturgy in the name of the "inculturation" of the Gospel. Ratzinger's use of the term "force" is a red herring as no Catholic is in favor of using military force to convert others, although God has sanctioned such force to repel the attacks of those in false religions, using the victories such as those won by Our Lady's Rosary in the Battle of Lepanto on October 7, 1571, and at the Gates of Vienna on September 13, 1683, as the means to convert Mohammedans to the true Faith! No, Ratzinger is referring to any effort to seek the unconditional conversion of others to the Catholic Faith, especially those who seek to "obliterate" the traditions of those false religions.
A book, evidently out of print at the present time, one that will not be named here so as not to stick a thumb in the eyes of those who may not want to admit that the Joseph Ratzinger they once criticized is the same now as he has always been, noted this exact fact:
By way of background on this issue, we note that when Cardinal Ratzinger was still Father Ratzinger, a former peritus of the Council, he provided in his Theological Highlights of Vatican II the following explanation of the Council's teaching on Christian unity and Church membership:
"The new text describes the relationship between the Church and non-Catholic Christians without speaking of "membership." By shedding this terminological armor, the text acquired a much wider scope. . . . The Catholic has to recognize that his own Church is not yet prepared to accept the phenomenon of multiplicity in unity; he must orient himself toward this reality. . . . Meantime the Catholic Church has no right to absorb the other Churches. The Church has not yet prepared a place of their own, but this they are legitimately entitled to. . . . A basic unity--of Churches that remain Churches, yet become one Church--must replace the idea of conversion, even though conversion retains its meaningfulness for those in conscience motivated to seek it. (Joseph Ratzinger, Theological Highlights of Vatican II, pp. 61, 68.)
This remarkable text, which Cardinal Ratzinger has never repudiated, declares that the Magisterium can "shed" its own established terminology on membership in the Church, that the Bride of Christ had neglected to "prepare" itself for acceptance of the "reality" of non-Catholic confessions, that organizations indisputably founded by mere men in a rebellion against divine authority have a positive right to exist and be given "a place" by the one true Church, and that Protestants need not convert to Catholicism unless they are "motivated" to do so. In all candor, we do not see how Father Ratzinger's opinions here could have avoided censure during the reign of any preconciliar Pope.
As we have already demonstrated abundantly, these opinions are quite in line with the current thinking of Cardinal Ratzinger's fellow German bishop, Cardinal Walker Kasper, the new head of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity. We have noted that in the Italian journal Adista, Kasper declared "today that we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of a return, by which the others would 'be converted' and return to being 'Catholics' This was expressly abandoned by Vatican II." Any Catholic should be horrified to see the head of a pontifical council ostensible devoted to "Christian unity" placing contemptuous quotation marks around the very words converted and Catholics. According to Cardinal Kasper, Vatican II "abandoned" what the Holy Office in 1949 describe as "the teachings of the encyclicals o the Roman Pontiffs on the return of the dissidents to the one true Church" and "the Catholic truth regarding...the only true union by the return of the dissidents to the one true Church."
And yet the context of Kasper's remarks in Adista was a defense of DI [Dominus Iesus] against Protestant critics! Nor did Cardinal Ratzinger offer any correction of Kasper's opinion, which Kasper expressed within days of his elevation to the rank of cardinal. These finds do not inspire confidence that DI represents a major course correction in the Church's postconciliar drift from her prior clarity of teaching about the condition of the dissidents who need to return to the one true Church.
Before Vatican II, it was perfectly obvious that there could that there could never be Christian unity unless the Orthodox and the Protestants assented to every single point of Catholic doctrine, thus becoming Catholics themselves. It is just as obvious that anyone who prescinds from even the least point of Catholic doctrine can never be united with us. As Pope Leo XIII taught in Satis Cognitum: "The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium."
Equally obvious is that to embrace the whole of Catholic doctrine without reservation is necessarily to turn away from the human institutions in which that doctrine was more or less corrupted, and to turn instead toward the Catholic Church, in which the Deposit of Faith has always been preserved undefiled. That is what conversion means. Even in today's ecumenical confusion, we still hear about the "conversion stories" of ex-Protestants.
How, for example, could any Lutheran came to an acceptance of the whole of Catholic teaching under the influence of God's grace, yet continue to insist upon belonging to an organization named after a psychotic, foul-mouthed, womanizing drunkard of a monk, who ran off and married a nun, indeed the greatest arch-heretic in Church history, who referred to the Vicar of Christ as an "ass-head."? What cold the husk of Luther's decrepit human organization possibly offer any Lutheran that is not found in superabundance in the Roman Catholic Church? Could anyone who would cling to the notion of belonging to Luther's version of a church ever be in union with us? On the other hand, if the Lutherans, by some miracle of grace, all suddenly decided to abjure every one of Luther's errors--in which case, why would they wish to be associated any longer with the name of Luther?--the Catholic Church would have no reason, much less a duty, to make a "place" for Luther's "church." It would simply cease to exist as a separate organization, the Lutherans having become Catholics. Is this really something that is debatable today? Apparently so.
That Christian unity can somehow be accomplished without all Christians becoming Catholics is one of the Zen-like notions that abound in postconciliar thinking. But not only has Cardinal Ratzinger never retracted Father Ratzinger's opinions, we also now find that they have become Vatican policy at the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity. Nor does it appear that DI in any way reproves Kasper's opinions. To the contrary: in discussing DI with the press, Cardinal Ratzinger affirmed his own support for the novel notion of "reconciled diversity" that we discussed earlier:
"Question: So then, after the publication of your document, is the ecumenical formula of 'reconciled diversity' still valid?
"Ratzinger: I accept the concept of a reconciled diversity, if it does not mean equality of content and the elimination of the question of truth so that we could consider ourselves one even if we believe and teach different things. To my mind this concept is used well, if it says that, despite our differences, which do not allow us to regard ourselves as mere fragments of a Church of Jesus Christ that does not exist in reality, we meet in the peace of Christ and are reconciled to one another, that is, we recognize that our division as contradicting the Lord's will and this sorrow spurs us to seek unity and to pray to him in the knowledge that we all need his love."
Notice that Ratzinger acknowledges that we could not consider ourselves one with Protestants unless we all believed in the same things. But in the meantime he proposes that "despite the difference" we can all be "reconciled to one another" as we "seek unity." Ratzinger does not explain--because quite obviously he cannot explain--how we can ever "find" unity with Protestants without their return to the one true Church Nor does he explain what it is that Catholics are "seeking" in terms of "unity," given that they already have the true Faith in the unity of the one true Church. Perhaps this is why Ratzinger has declared that "for the moment, I wouldn't dare venture to suggest any concrete realization, possible or imaginable, of this future Church. We are at an intermediate stage of unity in diversity."
Thus, according to Cardinal Kasper and (it would appear) Cardinal Ratzinger, there are no longer any dissidents who must return to the one true Church, but only "Christians engaged in a joint ecumenical "search for unity." The notion that the conversion and return of non-Catholics to the Catholic Church has suddenly been replaced by some other (as yet undefined) "model" of unity obviously has important implications for our understanding of DI. For if a return to the one true Church is no longer seen as necessary for Christian unity, then it can hardly be necessary salvation as such. This would men that the members of heretical and schismatic confessions, are presumed by DI to be adequately secured in their salvation, without need of formal membership in the Catholic Church and recourse to her sacraments.
How can DI's apparent abandonment of the return of the dissidents to the one true Church to be reconciled with the perennial Magisterium? As recently as 1943, Pope Pius XII declared in his monumental encyclical Mystici Corporis:
"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."
For this reason, Pius XII implored all who would call themselves Christians "to correspond to the interior movements of grace, and to seek to withdraw from that state in which they cannot be sure of their salvation." Pius XII was warning heretics and schismatics as charitably as he could that they were risking eternal damnation if they did not correspond to grace and enter the Catholic Church. Where do we find this teaching affirmed in DI 176 or anywhere else in the document, or, for that matter, anywhere in the vast "ecumenical venture" as a whole? And is it not this very teaching that needs affirming, in view of the moral decrepitude of the Protestant sects?
Indeed, the use of this loaded term "force" is reminiscent of the use of the term "violence" by professional baby-killers to refer to even peaceful, prayerful Rosary processions made around abortuaries. There was a woman in Toledo, Ohio, in 1995 who was visited by the two agents Federal Bureau of Investigation's "Task Force on Clinic Violence," a statist monstrosity that was created following the passage of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act in 1994. What prompted the visit of field agents from this F.B.I. task force to the women, a young mother, in Toledo, Ohio, twelve years ago? She had written a letter to a baby-killer to say that she was praying for her conversion. The woman was told by the F.B.I. agents that she would be arrested and charged with a violation of F.A.C.E. as a "terrorist" if she wrote such a letter again. The Orwellians of the civil state and the Hegelians of the counterfeit church of conciliarism misuse and abuse language as the means by which the true meaning of good actions can be rendered into something malicious.
Thus it is, you see, that "force" in the context of seeking the conversion of others might refer to Saint Boniface's mocking the tree worshiped by the pagans in Germany, effecting the conversion of so many to the true Faith, as Pope Pius XII explained in Ecclesiae Fastos, June 5, 1954:
To begin and carry out successfully this tremendous undertaking, he earnestly called for companions from the Benedictine monasteries in his own land, then flourishing in learning, faith and charity, -- for monks and nuns too, among whom Lioba was an outstanding example of evangelical perfection. They readily answered his call, and gave him precious help in his mission. And in those same lands there were not wanting those who, once the light of the Gospel had reached them, eagerly embraced the faith, and then strove mightily to bring it to all whom they could reach. Thus were those regions gradually transformed after Boniface, supported, as we have said, by the authority of the Roman Pontiffs, undertook the task; "like a new archimandrite he began everywhere to plant the divine seed and root out the cockle, to build monasteries and churches, and to put worthy shepherds in charge of them." Men and women flocked to hear him preach, and hearing him were touched by grace; they abandoned their ancient superstitions, and were set afire with love for the Redeemer; by contact with his teaching their rude and corrupt manners were changed; cleansed by the waters of baptism, they entered an entirely new way of life. Here were erected monasteries for monks and nuns, which were centers not only of religion, but also of Christian civilization, of literature, of liberal arts; there dark and unknown and impenetrable forests were cleared, or completely cut down, and new lands put to cultivation for the benefit of all; in various places dwellings were built, which in the course of centuries would grow to be populous cities.
Thus the untamed Germanic tribes, so jealous of their freedom that they would submit to no one, undismayed even by the mighty weight of Roman arms, and never remaining for long under their sway, once they were visited by the unarmed heralds of the Gospel, docilely yielded to them; they were drawn, stirred and finally penetrated by the beauty and truth of the new doctrine, and at last, embracing the sweet yoke of Jesus Christ, willingly surrendered to Him.
Saint Hyacinth used Heavenly force to do battle with the demons in Russia in the Thirteenth Century:
Today every city [in Russia] has its churches and monasteries," Hyacinth explained as they set out on their journey. "Yet there is work for us because for generations the Russian bishops and priests have been living in error. Like so many others in the East, particularly in Turkey and Greece, they accept only part of what the Church teaches. And since the clergy are in error, so, naturally, are the people. They have been led astray so completely that they no longer understand what is meant by Truth."
"I know about one of the errors in Russia," said Florian. "The priests and people don't recognize the Pope as Vicar of Christ on earth. Isn't that so, Father?"
Hyacinth nodded. "That is one of the errors. But there are several others. For instance, the Russian Christians don't believe that in Purgatory souls are cleansed from the stain of sin or that the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ at the very instant the priest pronounces the words of Consecration. They say, too, that the Holy Ghost proceeds from God the Father alone and not also from the Son" . . . .
For a moment all was silence as Hyacinth fixed his eyes in careful scrutiny upon the island. Then suddenly his hands clenched. Drawn up at one side of the island were several small boats. And toward the center, from amidst the thick trees, rose a slender column of smoke!
"The pagans!" he whispered. "They're offering sacrifice!"
Yes, the hour of sunrise was a favorite time for idol worship and gratefully Hyacinth realized that his plans were working out well More than a hundred men and women must be on the island, kneeling in a secret grove before the ugly statue they believed to be a god. Already there must have been prayers and hymns, then the burning of a lamb or calf before the idol. Soon the service would be over and the pagans would stream down to their boats to return to their homes in Kiev.
"I've no time to lose," he said firmly. "Kneel down, Brother Martin, and pray that I do something really worthwhile to help these poor people!"
Before the young religious could realize what was happening, Hyacinth had turned and started down the grassy slope to the river's edge. His black cloak floated before him like a sail, and for a moment Martin knelt as one in a dream--forgetful of the command to pray. With what speed his beloved superior moved! Why, he was all but flying down the hill! Then the young friar grew really weak, for suddenly he understood that he was witnessing a genuine wonder. By now Father Hyacinth had reached the Dnieper and was starting to cross over to the island. But not in a boat. Ah, no! Father Hyacinth was walking on the river as thought it were dry land!
"Mother of God! cried Martin. "I heard that he did such a thing at Vishogrod . . . on the Vistula! But here? Before me? Oh, no! It's too much!
Presently Hyacinth landed safely on the island, then disappeared into the thick woods. And, though Martin strained his eyes for several minutes, he could see him no longer. Nor was any sound to be heard save the harsh cries of water birds as they circled over the river in search of food.
As he looked and listened in an agony of suspense, the young religious tried to clasp his trembling hands in prayer. Oh, what was going to happen? Would Father Hyacinth really seek out the pagans? Would he put a stop to their heathen sacrifice?
"It can mean death," he [Martin] thought. "Even I know that the Russian pagans are little more than crude barbarians."
Suddenly there was a clamor in the distance, muted at first, then growing louder, and with a sinking heart, the young man realized that the pagans were aroused. They were pouring out of the woods with screams and shouts. But soon he could see that they were not attacking Father Hyacinth. They were not even making for their boats. Rather, they were throwing themselves on their knees in a very frenzy of terror. And why? Because a black-and-white-clad friar was striding out of the woods and driving before him a horrible creature--half man, half beat---with flames shooting from its mouth and eyes!
Martin's blood ran cold as he looked at the terrible sight. Could it be that this was the Devil? that Father Hyacinth's prayers had forced him to leave the idol and appear before the pagans in one of his hellish shapes?
"Oh, if one some of the Russian priests could be here!" whispered the young friar, his teeth clattering. "Maybe this would teach them not to speak ill of a true servant of God!"
Martin was wrong. When word of the miracle was noised about in Kiev, the jealousy of the heretical priests reached alarming proportions. So Father Hyacinth had gone to the island and found the pagans worshiping before an old oak tree? With one blow he had sent the great tree crumbling into dust? As the Evil One emerged from the tree, he had fought with him hand to hand, then thrown him into the Dnieper? (Mary Fabyan Windeatt, Saint Hyacinth: Apostle of the Northland.)
Too much force? Not enough "dialogue"? Perhaps Saint Hyacinth should have engaged the pagans to see which of their practices could be use in the liturgy? It is impossible to reconcile conciliarism's toleration of false religions, which is far different than the tolerance extended to the adherents of false religions as we seek their conversion without permitting them to propagate their false beliefs civilly, with the urgency which impelled Catholic missionaries to risk their lives to seek the conversion of all people everywhere to the true Faith. There is no reconciling the efforts of Saint Peter himself, the first Pope, to seek the conversion of the Jews on the first Pentecost Sunday with Joseph Ratzinger's belief that there is no need to do so today.
Another passage in Joseph Ratzinger's sermon at Mariazell two days ago bears a bit of attention as well. Continuing conciliarism's Modernist mania for refusing to speak of "negatives" in most, although not all, instances, Ratzinger/Benedict XVI turned the Ten Commandments upside down by refusing to speak of God's absolute prohibitions against certain things, including all forms of false worship and blasphemy (such as his going into that mosque in Turkey and his calling Mount Hiei "sacred"), speaking in "positive" terms of a "yes" that one makes by following the Commandments. Our obligation to obey the Ten Commandments is not the result of some sentimentality that impels to say, "Gee, I think I'm going to say "yes" to this." Our obligation to obey the Ten Commandments as they have been entrusted to the Catholic Church is our solemn duty before God.
If with Jesus Christ and his Church we constantly re-read the Ten Commandments of Sinai, entering into their full depth, then a great, valid and lasting teaching unfolds before us. The Ten Commandments are first and foremost a "yes" to God, to a God who loves us and leads us, who carries us and yet allows us our freedom: indeed, it is he who makes our freedom real (the first three commandments). It is a "yes" to the family (fourth commandment), a "yes" to life (fifth commandment), a "yes" to responsible love (sixth commandment), a "yes" to solidarity, to social responsibility and to justice (seventh commandment), a "yes" to truth (eighth commandment) and a "yes" to respect for other people and for what is theirs (ninth and tenth commandments). By the strength of our friendship with the living God we live this manifold "yes" and at the same time we carry it as a signpost into this world of ours today.
Huh? Double-huh? Triple-huh? Duh? Double-duh? Triple-duh? Huh? The first three Commandments are about freedom? The first three Commandments are about freedom? Freedom? Freedom? Huh? Let's review them one-by-one:
I am the Lord Thy God; thou shalt not have any strange gods before me.
Let's turn the tables here: Joseph Ratzinger, where is your "yes" to God concerning the First Commandment? You praise false religions. You enter a place of devil worship, a mosque, treating it as though it were a "holy" place, assuming the prayer posture of Mohammedan, turning in the direction of Mecca. You have called mountain upon which worship is offered to the devil as "sacred." You have wished God's "choicest" blessings upon Talmudic Jews and Methodists. You have been in synagogues without urging anyone to convert to the true Faith. You have rejected the "theology of the return," as you disparagingly called it in an address to Protestants in Cologne, Germany, on August 19, 2005. Your "papal preacher" noted on September 30, 2005, that the Catholic Church has "lost the right" to seek the conversion of the Jews. Your keep in power the Rector of the Church of the Most Holy Trinity in Fatima, Portugal, Luciano Guerra, three years and four months after Hindus offered their diabolical "worship" to their false goddess in the Chapel of the Apparitions, the very place where the Mother of God appeared seeking the conversion of sinners to the true Faith! You do not believe that the civil state has the obligation to acknowledge the true religion. Where is your "yes" to the First Commandment that you and your fellow conciliarists defy consistently and with total arrogance?
The counterfeit church of conciliarism has "beatified" a woman, Mother Teresa of Calcutta, who reaffirmed Hindus and Buddhists and others in their false religions. Where was Mother Teresa's "yes" to the First Commandment?
The counterfeit church of conciliarism is considering the "beatification" of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, who assembled leaders of the false religions of world, including his own, conciliarism, in Assisi, Italy, and who kissed the Koran and asked non-clerics such as the non-archbishop of Canterbury offer "blessings" with him (who, being a a true bishop, could give a blessing himself) and who praised voodoo witch doctors and animists and participate in vile, vulgar, profane pagan ceremonies in the context of alleged "papal masses," as well as appearing as an "equal" with a Talmudic rabbi and a Mohammedan imam in Jerusalem in the year 2000. Where was Karol Wojtyla's "yes" to the First Commandment?
Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain.
This is a matter of freedom? This is a command that requires us to treat God and everything pertains to Him with sacredness. Joseph Ratzinger believes that false religions have the right to blaspheme God by promoting their false beliefs publicly so that they can seek "converts" to their false religions. He believes that the beliefs of false religions can contribute to the "betterment" of civil societies. He presides over the blasphemous and sacrilege abomination known as the Novus Ordo Missae. High altars have been smashed and statues destroyed to make room for their abomination, wherein pagan ceremonies are incorporated all too frequently around the world in a celebration of the very false beliefs that the Mother of God herself sought to eliminate by appearing, for example, to Juan Diego in 1531 on Tepeyac Hill. The conciliar Vatican has showcased a motion picture, The Nativity Story, which blasphemes the Mother of God by portraying her to be a sulky, moody, rebellious teenager, thereby making of mockery of the perfect gift of Integrity she has by virtue of the effects of her Immaculate Conception. Conciliarism has blasphemed great saints such as Saints Philomena and Christopher by suppressing their feasts, meaning the Catholic Church had it "wrong" for centuries. Where is conciliarism's "yes" to the Second Commandment.
Remember thou keep holy the Sabbath day.
Once again, this is an obligation, one that is imposed upon us at the moment of our Baptism. Although Joseph Ratzinger had said in the past as a "cardinal" that he was not concerned about those who missed Mass on Sunday, he did stated yesterday, September 9, 2007, that going to Mass on Sunday is a "necessity," refusing once again to speak in the terms of God Himself, Who has indeed imposed strict obligations upon us that we must fulfill. We do so out of love for Him, to be sure. It is nothing "heroic," however, to keep God's Commandments. Saying "yes" to God is what we are required to do. There is no choice here. There is a duty to be fulfilled. It is what He requires of us. No, Joseph Ratzinger rarely speaks of Mortal Sin and the loss of one's soul. He a progenitor and unapologetic apologist of the conciliarist view of "keeping things positive," which is why there is almost no reference to sin or God's judgment on souls or Hell in the Latin editio typica of the Novus Ordo Missae.
As we know, however, conciliarism has undermined the sanctity of the Lord's Day, Sunday, making it possible for people to have "free time" on Sunday by permitting them to fulfill their Sunday obligation on Saturday, a disastrous turn of events that began, believe it or not, with the corrupt Angelo Roncalli (the one responsible for the hideous "missal" that bears his "papal" name) as early as 1960. And what percentage of Catholics even go to Mass on Sundays now that the Novus Ordo service has reaffirmed them in a life without the Cross and without the fear of the possibility of going to Hell?
There are other aspects of the sermon given at Mariazell on September 8, 2007, that will be explored soon. The sermon, however, is a perfect case-in-point as to the modus operandi of Modernism that was described so perfectly by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis one hundred years to the day before Joseph Ratzinger's assertion that we do not despise other religions.
Psalm 95 tell us God's mind on false religions perfectly:
For all the gods of the Gentiles are devils: but the Lord made the heavens. (Psalm 95: 5)
Saint John the Beloved gave us the example that the Catholic Church followed until 1958, one that does not matter to Joseph Ratzinger and his fellow conciliarists:
Whosoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine, the same hath both the Father and the Son. 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 he that saith unto him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works. (2 John 1: 9-11)
Saint Paul himself, a convert from Judaism, mind you, wrote the following:
Bear not the yoke with unbelievers. For what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever?
And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God; as God saith: I will dwell in them, and walk among them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore, Go out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing: And I will receive you; and I will be a Father to you; and you shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. (2 Cor. 6: 14-18)
Where is conciliarism's "yes" to objective truth? Something that is true is true in and of itself and not dependent at all upon how it is "received" by man. The essence of Modernism, however, asserts that truth is not really true unless we accept it as such. Immanuel Kant, call your office.
Where is conciliarism's "yes" to the truth in its assertion that modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition and the Protestant-Masonic Novus Ordo service are but two "forms of the one Roman Rite"? How can it be said that there are only two forms of the "one" Roman Rite when there is a third, the "Anglican use" "Mass" that is neither a rite in and of itself nor recognized as a form of the Roman Rite?
Where is conciliarism's "yes" to truth when its quasi-official documents, which are meant to catechize the faithful without appearing to stain their hands with something "official," can assert that good hope can be held out that the souls of unbaptized infants go to Heaven?
Where's conciliarism's "yes" to truth as one statement of the Catholic Church after another is disparaged and redefined?
What part of Catholic Tradition yields ground to a "gender-inclusive" translation of Holy Writ, to be used, of course, in the context of a man-centered liturgy?
Saint Jerome would approve of this?
Yes, even in the context of some truly beautiful passages that are in perfect accord with Catholic teaching, you see, one will find the "drops of poison" referred to by Pope Leo XIII in Satis Cognitum and described so exactingly by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi:
Although they express their astonishment that We should number them amongst the enemies of the Church, no one will be reasonably surprised that We should do so, if, leaving out of account the internal disposition of the soul, of which God alone is the Judge, he considers their tenets, their manner of speech, and their action. Nor indeed would he be wrong in regarding them as the most pernicious of all the adversaries of the Church. For, as We have said, they put into operation their designs for her undoing, not from without but from within. Hence, the danger is present almost in the very veins and heart of the Church, whose injury is the more certain from the very fact that their knowledge of her is more intimate. Moreover, they lay the ax not to the branches and shoots, but to the very root, that is, to the faith and its deepest fibers. And once having struck at this root of immortality, they proceed to diffuse poison through the whole tree, so that there is no part of Catholic truth which they leave untouched, none that they do not strive to corrupt. Further, none is more skillful, none more astute than they, in the employment of a thousand noxious devices; for they play the double part of rationalist and Catholic, and this so craftily that they easily lead the unwary into error; and as audacity is their chief characteristic, there is no conclusion of any kind from which they shrink or which they do not thrust forward with pertinacity and assurance To this must be added the fact, which indeed is well calculated to deceive souls, that they lead a life of the greatest activity, of assiduous and ardent application to every branch of learning, and that they possess, as a rule, a reputation for irreproachable morality. Finally, there is the fact which is all but fatal to the hope of cure that their very doctrines have given such a bent to their minds, that they disdain all authority and brook no restraint; and relying upon a false conscience, they attempt to ascribe to a love of truth that which is in reality the result of pride and obstinacy.
As noted above, even the Ten Commandments are not beyond a little "touching up," shall we say, to make them "palatable" for the "sensitivities" of "modern" man. Catholicism does not mix truth and error. Conciliarism does so all of the time, providing us with all the more reason to flee from everything to do with conciliarism and from any effort, no matter how remote, to claim that the spiritual robber barons of conciliarism exercise ecclesiastical office legitimately.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007, is the Feast of the Holy Name of Mary, commemorating the 324th anniversary of Polish King Jan Sobieski's victory over the Mohammedan Turks at the Gates of Vienna by means of the praying of Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary and the pious invocation of her glorious name while in battle. We are in a battle with principalities and powers, as Saint Paul noted in his Epistle to the Ephesians:
Put you on the armour of God, that you may be able to stand against the deceits of the devil. For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and power, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places. (Ephesians 6: 11-12.)
The "high places" today are to be found in the bastions of the anti-Incarnational, naturalistic civil state and in the counterfeit church of conciliarism that has subjected, mystically speaking, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to a Crucifixion, Death and Burial as the defined teaching and constant tradition of the Catholic Church has been mocked, scourged and spat upon over and over again. We must, therefore, intensify our daily acts of prayer and penance and mortification and almsgiving to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.
We must cleave to the Mass of the ages in the catacombs, spending time with Our Beloved in His Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament, praying as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit, wrapping ourselves in the mantle of Our Lady's Brown Scapular as we wear also her Miraculous Medal, making sure to distribute Green Scapulars and blessed Miraculous Medals to those whom God's Holy Providence places in our daily paths. We must embrace every cross, every humiliation, every rejection, every bit of ridicule, every trial that might come our way with perfect resignation to the God's Holy Will, helping to make reparation for our own sins and those of the world as we pray for the conversion of everyone who rejects the Faith.
The final triumph belongs to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Are we willing to battle for her the way that King Jan Sobieski did 324 years ago on September 13 (the date of the actual battle at the Gates of Vienna as opposed to the date of the feast of the Holy Name of Mary, which is on September 12)? Are we willing to put our devotion to Mary Immaculate on full display to counter the errors of Modernity in the world and of Modernism in the counterfeit church of conciliarism?
Holy Name of Mary, be our our salvation!
Omnia instaurare in Christo.
Our Lady of Sorrows, pray for us!
Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us now and at the hour of our deaths. Amen.
All to you, Blessed Mother. All to your Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart. Jesus, Mary
Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.
Saint Joseph, pray for us.
Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.
Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.
Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.
Pope Saint Pius X, pray for us.
Saint Peter Claver, pray for us.
Saint Nicholas of Tolentino, pray for us.
Saint Gorgonius, pray for us.
Saint Giles, pray for us.
Saint Cloud, pray for us.
Saint Lawrence Justinian, pray for us.
Saint Hadrian, pray for us.
Saint Stephen of Hungary, pray for us.
Saint Rose of Lima, pray for us.
Saint Joseph Calasanctius, pray for us.
Pope Saint Zephyrinus, pray for us.
Saint Louis IX, King of France, pray for us.
Saint Jane Frances de Chantal, pray for us.
Saint Bartholomew, pray for us.
Saint Philip Benizi, pray for us.
Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, pray for us.
Saint John Eudes, pray for us.
Saint Hyacinth, pray for us, pray for us.
Saint Agapitus, pray for us.
Saint Helena, pray for us.
Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.
Saint Clare of Assisi, pray for us.
Saint Athanasius, pray for us.
Saint Irenaeus, pray for us.
Saints Monica, pray for us.
Saint Jude, pray for us.
Saint John the Beloved, pray for us.
Saint Francis Solano, pray for us.
Saint John Bosco, pray for us.
Saint Dominic Savio, pray for us.
Saint Scholastica, pray for us.
Saint Benedict, pray for us.
Saint Joan of Arc, pray for us.
Saint Antony of the Desert, pray for us.
Saint Francis of Assisi, pray for us.
Saint Thomas Aquinas, pray for us.
Saint Bonaventure, pray for us.
Saint Augustine, pray for us.
Saint Francis Xavier, pray for us.
Saint Peter Damian, pray for us.
Saint Turibius, pray for us.
Saint Francis Solano, pray for us.
Saint Frances Xavier Cabrini, pray for us.
Saint Lucy, pray for us.
Saint Monica, pray for us.
Saint Agatha, pray for us.
Saint Anthony of Padua, pray for us.
Saint Basil the Great, pray for us.
Saint Philomena, pray for us.
Saint Cecilia, pray for us.
Saint John Mary Vianney, pray for us.
Saint Vincent de Paul, pray for us.
Saint Vincent Ferrer, pray for us.
Saint Athanasius, pray for us.
Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque, pray for us.
Saint Isaac Jogues, pray for us.
Saint Rene Goupil, pray for us.
Saint John Lalonde, pray for us.
Saint Gabriel Lalemont, pray for us.
Saint Noel Chabanel, pray for us.
Saint Charles Garnier, pray for us.
Saint Anthony Daniel, pray for us.
Saint John DeBrebeuf, pray for us.
Saint Alphonsus de Liguori, pray for us.
Saint Therese Lisieux, pray for us.
Saint Lucy, pray for us.
Saint Dominic, pray for us.
Saint Hyacinth, pray for us.
Saint Basil, pray for us.
Saint Vincent Ferrer, pray for us.
Saint Sebastian, pray for us.
Saint Tarcisius, pray for us.
Saint Bridget of Sweden, pray for us.
Saint Gerard Majella, pray for us.
Saint John of the Cross, pray for us.
Saint Teresa of Avila, pray for us.
Saint Bernadette Soubirous, pray for us.
Saint Genevieve, pray for us.
Saint Vincent de Paul, pray for us.
Pope Saint Pius V, pray for us.
Saint Rita of Cascia, pray for us.
Saint Louis de Montfort, pray for us.
Venerable Anne Catherine Emmerich, pray for us.
Venerable Pauline Jaricot, pray for us.
Father Miguel Augustin Pro, pray for us.
Francisco Marto, pray for us.
Jacinta Marto, pray for us.
Juan Diego, pray for us.
Father Maximilian Kolbe,M.I., pray for us.
The Longer Version of the Saint Michael the Archangel Prayer, composed by Pope Leo XIII, 1888
O glorious Archangel Saint Michael, Prince of the heavenly host, be our defense in the terrible warfare which we carry on against principalities and powers, against the rulers of this world of darkness, spirits of evil. Come to the aid of man, whom God created immortal, made in His own image and likeness, and redeemed at a great price from the tyranny of the devil. Fight this day the battle of our Lord, together with the holy angels, as already thou hast fought the leader of the proud angels, Lucifer, and his apostate host, who were powerless to resist thee, nor was there place for them any longer in heaven. That cruel, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil or Satan who seduces the whole world, was cast into the abyss with his angels. Behold this primeval enemy and slayer of men has taken courage. Transformed into an angel of light, he wanders about with all the multitude of wicked spirits, invading the earth in order to blot out the Name of God and of His Christ, to seize upon, slay, and cast into eternal perdition, souls destined for the crown of eternal glory. That wicked dragon pours out. as a most impure flood, the venom of his malice on men of depraved mind and corrupt heart, the spirit of lying, of impiety, of blasphemy, and the pestilent breath of impurity, and of every vice and iniquity. These most crafty enemies have filled and inebriated with gall and bitterness the Church, the spouse of the Immaculate Lamb, and have laid impious hands on Her most sacred possessions. In the Holy Place itself, where has been set up the See of the most holy Peter and the Chair of Truth for the light of the world, they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety with the iniquitous design that when the Pastor has been struck the sheep may be scattered. Arise then, O invincible Prince, bring help against the attacks of the lost spirits to the people of God, and give them the victory. They venerate thee as their protector and patron; in thee holy Church glories as her defense against the malicious powers of hell; to thee has God entrusted the souls of men to be established in heavenly beatitude. Oh, pray to the God of peace that He may put Satan under our feet, so far conquered that he may no longer be able to hold men in captivity and harm the Church. Offer our prayers in the sight of the Most High, so that they may quickly conciliate the mercies of the Lord; and beating down the dragon, the ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, do thou again make him captive in the abyss, that he may no longer seduce the nations. Amen.
Verse: Behold the Cross of the Lord; be scattered ye hostile powers.
Response: The Lion of the Tribe of Juda has conquered the root of David.
Verse: Let Thy mercies be upon us, O Lord.
Response: As we have hoped in Thee.
Verse: O Lord hear my prayer.
Response: And let my cry come unto Thee.
Verse: Let us pray. O God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, we call upon Thy holy Name, and as suppliants, we implore Thy clemency, that by the intercession of Mary, ever Virgin, immaculate and our Mother, and of the glorious Archangel Saint Michael, Thou wouldst deign to help us against Satan and all other unclean spirits, who wander about the world for the injury of the human race and the ruin of our souls.
Response: Amen.
