Only Those Nasty Traditionalists
by Thomas A. Droleskey
William "Cardinal" Levada, the prefect of the counterfeit church of conciliarism's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was hand-picked for his current position by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, on May 13, 2005. Levada and the false ""pontiff" share a well-documented disregard for the nature of dogmatic truth. They both believe that believe that dogmatic truth is so complex and contains so many different possible interpretations that it is impossible for the human mind to grasp it completely or to express it adequately at any one time. The "limitations" of human language and particular historical circumstances in which men attempt to formulate an expression of dogmatic truth make it necessary to "re-evaluate" various dogmatic expressions at different times.
Indeed, Ratzinger/Benedict has told us in his own words that it was "necessary" to "learn" this "truth," meaning that the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, had kept it hidden from Holy Mother Church until now and that He did not direct the expression of dogmatic truths by the Fathers of the Church's dogmatic councils, a belief that is as blasphemous as it is heretical:
It is precisely in this combination of continuity and discontinuity at different levels that the very nature of true reform consists. In this process of innovation in continuity we must learn to understand more practically than before that the Church's decisions on contingent matters - for example, certain practical forms of liberalism or a free interpretation of the Bible - should necessarily be contingent themselves, precisely because they refer to a specific reality that is changeable in itself. It was necessary to learn to recognize that in these decisions it is only the principles that express the permanent aspect, since they remain as an undercurrent, motivating decisions from within.
"On the other hand, not so permanent are the practical forms that depend on the historical situation and are therefore subject to change. (Christmas greetings to the Members of the Roman Curia and Prelature, December 22, 2005.)
William "Cardinal" Levada made it clear in an interview he gave to the Whispers in the Loggia website nearly three years ago now that he believes in the exact same Modernist conception of dogmatic truth:
The role of the Church in that dialogue between an individual and his or her God, says the Cardinal, is not to be the first interlocutor, but the role is indispensable. "We believe that the apostles and their successors received the mission to interpret revelation in new circumstances and in the light of new challenges. That creates a living tradition that is much larger than the simple and strict passing of existing answers, insights and convictions from one generation to another.
But at the end of the day there has to be an instance that can decide whether a specific lifestyle is coherent with the principles and values of our faith, that can judge whether our actions are in accordance with the commandment to love your neighbor. The mission of the Church is not to prohibit people from thinking, investigate different hypotheses, or collect knowledge. Its mission is to give those processes orientation". . . . (Levada Gives Rare Interview.)
For Ratzinger/Benedict and Levada to be correct, that is, that it was necessary for the Church to "learn to recognize that in these decisions it is only the principles that express the permanent aspect" and that the "practical forms that depend on the historical situation" are "subject to change," then God the Holy Ghost failed the Catholic Church at the [First] Vatican Council when the following decree was issued with the approval of Pope Pius IX:
-
For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward
- not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence,
- but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.
-
Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.
God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever be in opposition to truth.
The appearance of this kind of specious contradiction is chiefly due to the fact that either: the dogmas of faith are not understood and explained in accordance with the mind of the church, or unsound views are mistaken for the conclusions of reason.
Therefore we define that every assertion contrary to the truth of enlightened faith is totally false. . . .
3. If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.
And so in the performance of our supreme pastoral office, we beseech for the love of Jesus Christ and we command, by the authority of him who is also our God and saviour, all faithful Christians, especially those in authority or who have the duty of teaching, that they contribute their zeal and labour to the warding off and elimination of these errors from the church and to the spreading of the light of the pure faith.
But since it is not enough to avoid the contamination of heresy unless those errors are carefully shunned which approach it in greater or less degree, we warn all of their duty to observe the constitutions and decrees in which such wrong opinions, though not expressly mentioned in this document, have been banned and forbidden by this holy see. (Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session III, Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Chapter 4, On Faith and Reason, April 24, 1870. SESSION 3 : 24 April 1870.)
If it was, as Ratzinger/Benedict contends, "necessary" to "learn" how we can "understand" the expressions of dogmatic truths differently at different times, then God the Holy Ghost did indeed fail Holy Mother Church at the [First] Vatican Council. Ratzinger/Benedict and his appointee Levada do not think in these terms, however, as to disbelieve in the nature of dogmatic truth as it has been defined by Holy Mother Church is to disbelieve in the very nature of God, which means that Ratzinger/Benedict, like his late mentor Hans Urs von Balthasar before him, believes that Divine revelation is obscure of its nature and is subject to perfection over time.
It matters not to Ratzinger/Benedict or to William "Cardinal" Levada that this logically absurd and blasphemous view of dogmatic truth--and thus of the God Who is the source of Divine Revelation and Who guides its expression at the Church's dogmatic councils and by true popes--has been anathematized. He, Ratzinger/Benedict, has dispensed with past condemnations when he stated the following on June 27, 1990:
The text [of the document Instruction on the Theologian's Ecclesial Vocation] also presents the various types of bonds that rise from the different degrees of magisterial teaching. It affirms - perhaps for the first time with this clarity - that there are decisions of the magisterium that cannot be the last word on the matter as such, but are, in a substantial fixation of the problem, above all an expression of pastoral prudence, a kind of provisional disposition. The nucleus remains valid, but the particulars, which the circumstances of the times influenced, may need further correction.
In this regard, one may think of the declarations of Popes in the last century [19th century] about religious liberty, as well as the anti-Modernist decisions at the beginning of this century, above all, the decisions of the Biblical Commission of the time [on evolutionism]. As a cry of alarm in the face of hasty and superficial adaptations, they will remain fully justified. A personage such as Johann Baptist Metz said, for example, that the Church's anti-Modernist decisions render the great service of preserving her from falling into the liberal-bourgeois world. But in the details of the determinations they contain, they became obsolete after having fulfilled their pastoral mission at their proper time.
(Joseph Ratzinger, "Instruction on the Theologian's Ecclesial Vocation," published with the title "Rinnovato dialogo fra Magistero e Teologia," in L'Osservatore Romano, June 27, 1990, p. 6, Card. Ratzinger: The teachings of the Popes against Modernism are obsolete.)
It thus matters not to Ratzinger/Benedict and Levada that Pope Saint Pius X, writing in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907, prophetically condemned this heretical, anathematized proposition. Ratzinger/Benedict has no regard for anything that he believes has become "obsolete," including these words of Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominci Gregis:
Hence it is quite impossible [the Modernists assert] to maintain that they [dogmatic statements] absolutely contain the truth: for, in so far as they are symbols, they are the images of truth, and so must be adapted to the religious sense in its relation to man; and as instruments, they are the vehicles of truth, and must therefore in their turn be adapted to man in his relation to the religious sense. But the object of the religious sense, as something contained in the absolute, possesses an infinite variety of aspects, of which now one, now another, may present itself. In like manner he who believes can avail himself of varying conditions. Consequently, the formulas which we call dogma must be subject to these vicissitudes, and are, therefore, liable to change. Thus the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of dogma. Here we have an immense structure of sophisms which ruin and wreck all religion.
Behold the ruin and wreckage that have been wrought by the denial of the nature of dogmatic truth preached by the likes of Ratzinger/Benedict and William "Cardinal" Levada, who, as the conciliar prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, is overseeing the "negotiations" between officials of his false church and representatives of the Society of Saint Pius X. It boggles the mind that any rational, sane human being can believe that God is going to restore His Holy Church on the foundation of a denial of His own very nature, to say nothing of the rotten foundation provided by the false "pontiff's esteeming of the symbols of false religions and his actual affirmation of those false religions as valid means of sanctification and salvation for their adherents.
Yet it is, of course, that there are those, including many traditionally-minded Catholics, who are attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism who are content to ignore Ratzinger/Benedict's and Levada's apostasies in the false belief that total fidelity to Catholic doctrine is not necessary to remain a Catholic in good standing and/or to govern the Catholic Church in positions of ecclesiastical authority. Such a belief is contrary to the simple reiteration of Catholic doctrine given us by Pope Leo XIII in Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896:
The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a certain portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. "There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition" (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos).
The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodore :, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. "No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic" (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88).
Contrary to what some apologists for the legitimacy of the conciliar "pontiffs" contend, one does not remain a member of the Catholic Church by adhering to an unspecified "irreducible minima" of doctrines. There is no support for such a position in the writings of the Fathers of the Church or in any dogmatic pronouncements made by our true popes and/or the Fathers of the Church's twenty legitimate councils. As Pope Leo XIII noted in Satis Cognitum, the precise opposite is true, that is, one falls from the Faith in Its entirety if one falls from the Faith in but one thing. Ratzinger/Benedict and William Levada both reject the immutable teaching that dogma must be understood in exactly the same way at all times until the end of time. Such a rejection on its face expels them from the Catholic Church, unless, that is, the anathema authorized by Pope Pius IX below has become "obsolete" with the passage of time:
3. If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.
Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and William Levada feel perfectly free to embrace anathematized propositions as they do not believe that, given the passage of time and the changing of circumstances, such anathemas lose their credibility and their force. It is this blithe contempt for the teaching authority of the Catholic that has been preserved from all by the infallible guidance and protection of God the Holy Ghost that makes it possible for Benedict and Levada to welcome "Anglo-Catholics" into the conciliar fold while ignoring entirely Pope Saint Pius V's condemnation of their liturgical rites as heretical (see
Regnans in Excelsis, March 5, 1570). What does Regnans in Excelsis matter four hundred forty years after the fact? Everything to be a believing Catholic, nothing at all to those, such as Ratzinger/Benedict and Levada, who are possessed of a Modernist conception of the nature of dogmatic truth. This is, of course, the difference between belief and unbelief, between Catholicism and conciliarism.
There was a time when the Society of Saint Pius X, although steeped in a false ecclesiology that has helped to eviscerate a true understanding of the papacy and of the infallibility of Holy Mother Church's Ordinary Magisterium, reminded Catholics that one must believe in everything taught by Holy Mother Church without any exception at all lest one fall from the Faith in Its entirety. An article on the so-called Catechism of the Catholic Church in The Angelus made this clear over fifteen years ago now:
Faced with this new danger, it is necessary to remind ourselves that "Such is the nature of faith, that it is impossible to believe one thing and reject another," because "He who refuses to accept even one divinely revealed truth, in reality totally abandons the Faith -since he refuses to submit himself to God, who is Sovereign Truth itself and the motive for our act of Faith" ... "The Arians and Montanists most certainly did not abandon Catholic doctrine in all its entirety, but only some part of it - and we all know that as a result they were declared to be heretics and so excluded from the bosom of the Church. (Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum)"
The same pope quotes St. Augustine on this subject:
"On many points they agree with me. They disagree with me on only a few points. Yet, since they stand apart from me on these few points, it is pointless for them to stand with me on all the rest. (Ennarat on Ps. 54:19)"
Pope Leo continues: "It is only fair [that they be declared heretics and excluded from the Church), for those who take from Christian doctrine only those things which they want, rely upon their own judgment rather than relying upon Faith. Thus, by this refusal of 'bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ,’ they are really more obedient to themselves than they are to God. "
St. Augustine wrote: "If you only believe those parts of the Gospel that please and reject those parts that displease you, then you believe more in yourselves than you do in the Gospel. (Book 17: Contra Faustum Manich. ch. 3)"
Consequently, our attitude to the Catholic Faith should be one of - "either we profess it in its entirety, or not at all. (Benedict XV, Ad Beatorum Apostolorum Principio)" Only one error, in the tiniest detail of the Faith, suffices to make any Catechism unacceptable.
What then are we to think of this new Catechism, which pretends to be Catholic, while it propagates the same errors as Vatican II? Errors that are in no way insignificant, since they touch upon the very origins and structure of the Church; the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ; the unity and universality of His mediation, and in effect, His Divinity!
In future issues we will publish a detailed examination of the new Catechism by two of our learned colleagues. For the time being, we will simply say that in order to accept the new Catechism, it would be necessary to prove that there never was any reason whatsoever in resisting the "aggiornamento" of Vatican II.
(See The New Catechism: Is it Catholic?, which is also appended at the end of my own Piracy, Conciliar Style just in case it "disappears" one day from the Society of Saint Pius X's American website.)
William Levada does not believe this. Indeed, he has said that it will be necessary for the bishops and priests of the Society of Saint Pius X to accept everything in that "new catechism" and in the "magisterium" of the conciliar "pontiffs" in order for their canonical situation to be "regularized" by the counterfeit church of conciliarism:
The outstanding points of contention with the Lefebvre followers center on what Levada calls "obedience to the magisterium," or teaching authority, of the Pope, and specific decrees of the Second Vatican Council. "The Council is vast, and not all decrees are on the same level," Levada says. "The decree on religious liberty is one of the key issues that the Society has problems with." Lefebvre always opposed the reforms aimed at reaching out to other faiths. Levada insists there is much ground to cover in order to find out if the breakaway group is ready to rejoin the fold. "We will want to review the entire catechism of the Church with them," Levada adds, referring to the far-reaching document approved under the reign of Pope John Paul II that outlines fundamental Catholic teaching. (Schism with Lefebvrites Not Healed Yet, Says Vatican - TIME)
William Levada has also been in the vanguard of using the International Theological Commission to advance theological conclusions that, while not being "official" statements of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, serve nevertheless to undermine the teaching of the Catholic Church to such an extent that many ordinary Catholics attached to the conciliar church come to believe that "doctrine" has changed. This is certainly what happened as a result of the International Theological Commission's
The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptised, whose egregious text was approved by Ratzinger/Benedict on January 19, 2007, three months prior to its official release, at which point many Catholics came to believe that Limbo had been "abolished." This is no minor matter as there are conciliar priests and presbyters who are now openly advancing the false belief that aborted babies enjoy the glory of the Beatific Vision, thereby consigning to the same Orwellian memory hole as Regnans in Excelsis the following declarations of true popes:
The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable, that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name of the limbo of children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of the punishment of fire, just as if, by this very fact, that these who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk,—false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools. (Number 26, condemned by Pope Pius VI Auctorem Fidei, August 28, 1794.)
"For who would not detest a crime as execrable as this — a crime whose consequence is that not just bodies, but — still worse! — even souls, are, as it were, cast away? The soul of the unborn infant bears the imprint of God’s image! It is a soul for whose redemption Christ our Lord shed His precious blood, a soul capable of eternal blessedness and destined for the company of angels! Who, therefore, would not condemn and punish with the utmost severity the desecration committed by one who has excluded such a soul from the blessed vision of God? Such a one has done all he or she could possibly have done to prevent this soul from reaching the place prepared for it in heaven, and has deprived God of the service of this His own creature." (Pope Saint Pius V,
Effrænatam, October 28, 1588 translation by Father Brian Harrison, O.S. Could Limbo Be 'Abolished'?)
Children who die without being baptized go to limbo, where they don't enjoy God, but don't suffer either because whilst carrying the original sin...they don't deserve paradise but neither do they deserve hell or purgatory. (Pope Saint Pius X; see also Mr. John Vennari's 24 Reasons Why Not To Reject Limbo, mindful of his belief that Joseph Ratzinger is indeed the Vicar of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ on earth.)
William "Cardinal" Levada, true to his own Modernist spirit and that of the man who promoted him to his current post, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, is content to let the "past be the past," so to speak, as he promotes the conciliar agenda by claiming heretically that the Apostles "and their successors received the mission to interpret revelation in new circumstances and in the light of new challenges. That creates a living tradition that is much larger than the simple and strict passing of existing answers, insights and convictions from one generation to another." Pope Saint Pius X would have shunned a man who expressed such pure Modernism. What will the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter do in thirty-six days? Roll out the red carpet for this unreconstructed Modernist, that's what:
DENTON, Nebraska – January 22, 2010 – The Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter is pleased to announce the Pontifical Consecration of its newly built chapel at Our Lady of Guadalupe Seminary on Wednesday, March 3rd at 10:00am (CST). Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz will celebrate the Pontifical Consecration and Mass according to the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite.
The five hour ceremony will be held in the presence of a very special guest from the Vatican, William Cardinal Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter is delighted to have the presence of one of the highest ranking officials in the Catholic Church. Cardinal Levada’s presence is connected with his position as President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei established by Pope John Paul II and recently expanded by Pope Benedict XVI to facilitate the full incorporation into the life of the Church of communities and individuals attached to the Extraordinary Form. (Seminary Chapel To Be Consecrated: FSSP - North American District.)
I don't know about you. I'm not "attached to the Extraordinary Form." I am attached to the Catholic Faith. It's too bad that those welcoming Levada aren't attached enough to the Holy Faith to recognize him to be Its enemy in the service of the blaspheming "pontiff" he serves so loyally. And this is to say nothing of Levada's egregious record as a conciliar "archbishop" in Portland, Oregon, and San Francisco, California, who protected perverted priests and presbyters.
Pope Saint Pius X explained to us that maintaining the integrity of the Faith is not an "option" for a Catholic. Catholics are not permitted to be "conflicted" and "confused" and then spread their confusion and error in the minds of others:
Watch, O priests, that the doctrine of Christ, not your fault for losing the face of integrity. Always purity and integrity of the doctrine ... Many do not understand the zealous care and caution should be used to preserve the purity of doctrine ... When this doctrine can not be kept longer incorruptible and that the rule of truth is no longer possible in this world, then the Son of God appear a second time. But until that day we must keep intact the sacred tank and repeat the statement of the glorious Saint Hilary: 'Better to die in this century that corrupt the chastity of the truth .” (Pie X, Jérome Dal-Gal OM Conv. 1953, pp. 107-108).
To Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart belongs the triumph that will vanquish the lords of Modernity and Modernism once and for all.
May our own efforts to make reparation for our sins, many though they may be, to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary help to plant a few seeds so that more and more Catholics, clergy and laity alike, yet attached to the false structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism will once and for all in order to receive true Sacraments from true bishops and true priests who make absolutely no concessions to conciliarism, men who are never afraid to speak the truth and act with complete integrity in its behalf, knowing that no true pope can do, say or act as the conciliar "pontiffs" and "bishops" have done, said and acted.
While we pray for those who defect from the Faith, we never roll out the red carpet for them or pretend that they are any more members of the Catholic Church than the "Anglo-Catholics" who are seeking to join the conciliar sect without abjuring their theological errors and as they bring with them their condemned liturgical rites.
May Our Lady help us abundantly in these days of apostasy and betrayal.
Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?
