Outcome Based Conciliar Math:

Assisi I + Assisi II + Assisi III = A-P-O-S-T-A-S-Y

(or Another Year of the Same Conciliar Apostasy, part four)

(or Unity and Peace Cannot Be Based In Error and Falsehood, part three)

by Thomas A. Droleskey

As happens so frequently in the world of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, events that have been built up for a long time wind up being somewhat anticlimactic. The events themselves are so very predictable as they are based on the same old apostasies and heresies and errors and falsehoods that have created this counterfeit ape of the Catholic Church. Indeed, the events become caricatures of themselves over the course of time.

To wit, the so-called "beatification" of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II on Sunday, May 1, 2011, Low Sunday, was entirely anticlimactic (see Anticlimactic "Beatification" for an Antipope). There was little more to say that had not been said in previous articles on the subject ( "Beatifying" Yet Another Conciliar Revolutionary, "Canonizing" A Man Who Protected Moral Derelicts, Unimaginable Deceit and Duplicity, Not The Work of God, To Be Loved by the Jews, Perhaps Judas Was the First to Sing "A Kiss is Just a Kiss and Enjoy the Party, George, Enjoy the Party.)

Well, the same is true now, the day after the Assisi III travesty took place in the Basilica of St. Mary of the Angels in Assisi, Italy. The only "difference" this time was the the leaders of the "world's religions" did not pray jointly. They simply worshiped their devils or, in the case of the invited atheists, stared into space in the rooms that had been assigned to them in the hostel adjacent to the basilica in the one hundred five minutes allotted for "prayer and reflection." There is really little more to add that has not already been said in Another Year of the Same Conciliar Apostasy, Part One, Another Year of the Same Conciliar Apostasy, Part Two, Another Year of the Same Conciliar Apostasy, Part Three, Not Interested in Assisi III, Night and Day and, most recently, in Processing Along The Path To Antichrist).

Although there was no common prayer yesterday, there was the madness of a "common pledge" to "work together" for "justice and peace" in the world. The images of Assisi III, sans common prayer, are precisely the same images as Assisi I and Assisi II. They are images of apostasy, blasphemy, sacrilege, syncretism and religious indifferentism. Those images convey far more than the dense words spoken on October 27, 1986, and on January 24, 2002, by Karol Wojtyla/John Paul or those spoken yesterday by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. Most people in the world do not read the dense remarks of men possessed of diabolically convoluted thought processes that betray their Modernist beliefs by way of the "new theology," which was condemned by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis, August 12, 1950, in which they were trained and from which they had taken the inspiration for their work of theological and liturgical destruction.

The images from 1986 and 2011 are the same. Only the faces of some of them have changed:

October 27, 1986

October 27, 1986

October 27, 2011

 

The message conveyed by both of these images is simple: all religions are equal. "Religions" must join together to fight "irreligion" and "violence" and "injustice" in the world.

The message is a lie, one that comes straight from the devil himself.

It is impossible for false religions to be instruments of peace or justice.

False religions can never advance the sanctification or salvation of its adherents.

False religions can never advance any notion of true justice or peace.

Two of these false religions, Talmudism, which is not the dead religion of Biblical Judaism, specifically deny the Sacred Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in the most blasphemous terms in their "holy books" from the devil, which are, respectively, the Talmud and the Koran.

The Orthodox churches defect from the Catholic Faith in numerous ways, starting with a belief in Papal Primacy and Papal Infallibility and numerous other doctrines (see Appendix A in Modernist At Work, part three).

Each of the Protestant sects is founded on a rejection of the simple truth that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ founded but one and only one Church, the Catholic Church, upon the Rock of Saint Peter, the Pope, defecting from the true Faith in numerous other ways. Many of the "mainline" Protestant sects have lost belief in the very words of Sacred Scripture upon which their false sects were founded to "preserve," becoming little more than real-life versions of the late Clerow Wilson's "Church of What's Happening Now." Yes, obviously, the same can be said of the counterfeit church of conciliarism in many areas and especially at the de facto level of pastoral praxis.

The leaders of "other religions," including those who worship the "Great Thumb" and those who worship their ancestors and Asiatic cults of the devil (Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Shintoism--which is a made up religion in Japan to exalt that country's nationalistic myths), are simply unreconstructed pagans.

None of these people knows anything about "peace" or "justice." Each is an enemy of Christ the King. Each refuses to accept the fact that the path to world peace runs through the Immaculate Heart of Mary and her Fatima Message, and by "each" here, of course, I mean to include the leader of the false religion who convened yesterday's travesty, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI.

Wishful Thinking

Many of Ratzinger/Benedict's cheerleaders in the conciliar church's "conservative" circles kept insisting before yesterday's rank violation of the First and Second Commandments that the false "pontiff" only "reluctantly" undertook another Assisi event, that he more or less "had" to do so because he could not ignore Assisi I's twenty-fifth anniversary. Indeed, Ratzinger/Benedict himself wrote this very thing to a cleric who had complained to him.

This is an interesting contention, one that will be examined very briefly.

Why did the twenty-fifth anniversary of Assisi I have to be commemorated with another Assisi event? Why? For public relations? So that the "feelings" of the leaders of the other false religions of the world would not be hurt? Why?

Ratzinger/Benedict has seen fit to let pass unnoticed the centenary of Pope Saint Pius X's Lamentabili Sane on July 1, 2007.

Ratzinger/Benedict has seen fit to let pass unnoticed the centenary of Pope Saint Pius X's Pascendi Dominici Gregis on September 3, 2007.

Ratzinger/Benedict has seen fit to let pass unnoticed the centenary of Pope Saint Pius X's condemnation of The Sillon in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.

Ratzinger/Benedict has seen fit to let pass unnoticed the fiftieth anniversary of Pope Pius XII's condemnation of his own "new theology" in Humani Generis on August 12, 2010.

What's the big deal about letting Assisi I pass by with only a mention at a Wednesday "general audience" talk?

Ratzinger/Benedict is the leader of the pack when it comes to wishful thinking that he "had" to "do" something to commemorate the twenty-fifth anniversary of Assisi I as he happens to be a firm believer in the "ability" of false religions to "contribute" to the "building of a better world." In other words, he believes in madness. Make no mistake about it: he really, really believes in this madness.

More to the point, however, Ratzinger/Benedict has lavished praise upon Assisi I in the past, doing so in a message sent to an "interreligious meeting" that took place on what he called "the sacred Mount Hiei," where the Tendai sect of Buddhists worship their devils, on August 3, 2007:

I am glad to greet you and all the religious leaders gathered on the occasion of the Twentieth Anniversary of the Religious Summit Meeting on Mount Hiei. I wish also to convey my best wishes to Venerable Eshin Watanabe, and to recall your distinguished predecessor as Supreme Head of the Tendai Buddhist Denomination, Venerable Etai Yamada. It was he who, having participated in the Day of Prayer for Peace in Assisi on that memorable day of 27 October 1986, initiated the “Religious Summit Meeting” on Mount Hiei in Kyoto in order to keep the flame of the spirit of Assisi burning. I am also happy that Cardinal Paul Poupard, President of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, is able to take part in this meeting.

"From the supernatural perspective we come to understand that peace is both a gift from God and an obligation for every individual. Indeed the world’s cry for peace, echoed by families and communities throughout the globe, is at once both a prayer to God and an appeal to every brother and sister of our human family. As you assemble on the sacred [to the devil-worshiping Buddhists, that is] Mount Hiei, representing different religions, I assure you of my spiritual closeness. May your prayers and cooperation fill you with God’s peace and strengthen your resolve to witness to the reason of peace which overcomes the irrationality of violence!

"Upon you all I invoke an abundance of divine blessings of inspiration, harmony and joy.” (Benedict XVI sends message to interreligious meeting in Japan, found at first on a Society of Saint Pius X website, DICI; this link, curiously enough, no longer works.)

It has also been contended by some "conservative" defenders of Ratzinger/Benedict that he is opposed to "common prayer" with other religions. This is not so. Yes, he might say that this is what he believes. However, he has been together in the presence of Anglicans and Lutherans during times of "joint prayer" without any objection at all. Indeed, he has even given "joint blessings" with a man who was present in Assisi yesterday, the layman Rowan Williams, who is the non-archbishop of Canterbury and thus the leader of the "Worldwide Anglican Communion:"

Friday, September 17, 2010, Westminster Abbey, Westminster, England

 

One who lives in a world of Hegelian contradictions by way of his Hegelian mentor, the late Father Hans Urs von Balthasar, a man who believed that truth contains inherent contradictions and paradoxes, cannot see how his very actions contradict his words repeatedly. One who rejects--and quite indeed, hates--the Scholasticism of Saint Thomas Aquinas will live in a perpetual fog of internal self-contradiction. What is even more astounding is the fact that supposedly "intelligent" commentators do not see that is so patently obvious.

This self-contradiction is apparent in the message that Ratzinger/Benedict sent five years ago on the occasion of the twentieth anniversary of Assisi I, wherein he lavished praise upon it while taking pains to state that efforts must be made to convince people that Assisi  I "did not lend itself to syncretist interpretations found on a relativistic concept." Ratzinger went on to state that the way to avoid any such appearance of syncretism is for the "religious traditions" to say their prayers by themselves at such gatherings, which is what happened yesterday. There is only one little problem with this: the prayers addressed to the demons by adherents of false religions do not give honor and glory to the Most Blessed Trinity. Consider the following excerpt from that message:

Among the features of the 1986 Meeting, it should be stressed that this value of prayer in building peace was testified to by the representatives of different religious traditions, and this did not happen at a distance but in the context of a meeting. Consequently, the people of diverse religions who were praying could show through the language of witness that prayer does not divide but unites and is a decisive element for an effective pedagogy of peace, hinged on friendship, reciprocal acceptance and dialogue between people of different cultures and religions.

We are in greater need of this dialogue than ever, especially if we look at the new generations. Sentiments of hatred and vengeance have been inculcated in numerous young people in those parts of the world marked by conflicts, in ideological contexts where the seeds of ancient resentment are cultivated and their souls prepared for future violence. These barriers must be torn down and encounter must be encouraged.

I am glad, therefore, that the initiatives planned in Assisi this year are along these lines and, in particular, that the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue has had the idea of applying them in a special way for young people.

In order not to misinterpret the meaning of what John Paul II wanted to achieve in 1986 and what, to use his own words, he habitually called the "spirit of Assisi", it is important not to forget the attention paid on that occasion to ensuring that the interreligious Prayer Meeting did not lend itself to syncretist interpretations founded on a relativistic concept.

For this very reason, John Paul II declared at the outset: "The fact that we have come here does not imply any intention of seeking a religious consensus among ourselves or of negotiating our faith convictions. Neither does it mean that religions can be reconciled at the level of a common commitment in an earthly project which would surpass them all. Nor is it a concession to relativism in religious beliefs" (ibid., n. 2).

I would like to reaffirm this principle which constitutes the premise for the interreligious dialogue that the Second Vatican Council was hoping for, as is expressed in the Declaration on the Relations of the Church to Non-Christian Religions (cf. Nostra Aetate, n. 2).

I gladly take this opportunity to greet the representatives of other religions who are taking part in one or other of the Assisi commemorations. Like us Christians, they know that in prayer it is possible to have a special experience of God and to draw from it effective incentives for dedication to the cause of peace.

However, here too, it is only right to avoid an inappropriate confusion. Therefore, even when we are gathered together to pray for peace, the prayer must follow the different uses proper to the various religions. This was the decision in 1986 and it continues to be valid also today. The convergence of differences must not convey an impression of surrendering to that relativism which denies the meaning of truth itself and the possibility of attaining it. (Message for the XXth anniversary of the first Assisi Meeting in 1986.)

 

Here are two "reality checks" for you:

For all the gods of the Gentiles are devils: but the Lord made the heavens. (Psalm 95: 5)

Q. What are the particular laws on this subject?

A. In the three general commands above mentioned, God Almighty speaks, by the mouth of His holy apostle, as Lord and Master, and lays His orders upon us absolutely. In what follows, He unites the merciful Savior to the Sovereign; and whilst He no less strictly commands us to avoid all religious communication with those who are separated from His holy Faith and Church, He at the same time condescends to engage our obedience, by showing us the strongest reasons for it.

(1) "Beware of false prophets", says our blessed Master, "who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves". (Mat. 7:5) Here Jesus Christ commands His followers to "beware of false prophets" — that is, to flee from them, to be on their guard against them; and He adds this powerful motive, "Lest ye be seduced and ruined by them"; for, whatever appearance of godliness they may put on, though they come to you in the clothing of sheep, yet within they are ravenous wolves, and seek only to slay and to destroy.

To the same purpose He says in another place, "Take heed that no man seduce you; for many will come in My name, saying, I am Christ, and they will seduce many." (Mat. 24:4) "And many false prophets shall arise and seduce many." (ver. 2) Here He foretells the cunning of false teachers, and the danger of being seduced by them, and commands us to take care of ourselves, that such be not our fate.

But how shall we escape from them? He afterwards tells us how: do not believe them, have nothing to do with them, have no communication, with them. "Then", He says, "if any man shall say, to you, Lo, here is Christ, or there, do not believe him. For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive even the elect. Behold. I have told it you beforehand. If therefore, they shall say to you, Behold he is in the desert, go ye not out; behold he is in the closet, believe it not." (Mat. 24:23)

Can there be a more powerful reason to enforce the observance of His command, or a stronger motive to induce His followers to have no religious communication with such false teachers? Many will be certainly seduced by them; and so will you, if you expose yourself to the danger.

(2) St. Peter, considering the great mercy bestowed upon us by the grace of our vocation to the true faith of Christ, says, that it is our duty to "declare the praises and virtues of Him who hath called us out of darkness into His admirable light". (1 Pet. 2:9) St. Paul also exhorts us to "give thanks to God the Father, who hath made us worthy to be partakers of the lot of the saints in light, who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of His beloved Son." (Col. 1:12) Where it is manifest that as the true Faith of Jesus Christ is the only light that conducts to salvation, and that it is only in His Kingdom — that is, in His Church — where that heavenly light is to be found, so all false religions are darkness; and that to be separated from the Kingdom of Christ is to be in darkness as to the great affair of eternity. And indeed what greater or more miserable darkness can a soul be in than to be led away by seducing spirits, and "departing from the faith of Christ, give heed to the doctrine of devils". (1 Tim. 4:1) St. Paul, deploring the state of such souls, says that they "have their understandings darkened, being alienated from the life of God, through the ignorance: that is in them, because of the blindness of their hearts". (Eph. 4:18)

On this account the same holy apostle exhorts us in the most pressing manner to take care not to be seduced from the light of our holy Faith by the vain words and seducing speeches of false teachers, by which we would certainly incur the anger of God; and, to prevent so great a misery, He not only exhorts us to walk as children of the light in the practice of all holy virtues, but expressly commands us to avoid all communication in religion with those who walk in the darkness of error. "Let no man deceive you with vain words, for because of these things cometh the anger of God upon the children of unbelief; be ye not, therefore, partakers with them. For ye were theretofore darkness; but now light in the Lord; walk ye as the children of the light,

. . . and have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness". (Eph. 5:6)

Here, then, we have an express command, not only not to partake with the unfruitful works of darkness — that is, not to join in any false religion, or partake of its rites or sacraments — but also, not to have any fellowship with its professors, not to be present at their meetings or sermons, or any other of their religious offices, lest we be deceived by them, and incur the anger of the Almighty, provoke Him to withdraw His assistance from us, and leave us to ourselves, in punishment of our disobedience.

(3) St. Paul, full of zeal for the good of souls, and solicitous to preserve us from all danger of losing our holy Faith, the groundwork of our salvation, renews the same command in his Epistle to the Romans, by way of entreaty, beseeching us to avoid all such communication with those of a false religion. He also shows us by what sign we should discover them, and points out the source of our danger from them: "Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who cause dissensions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and to avoid them; for they that are such serve not Our Lord Christ, but their own belly, and by pleasing speeches and good words seduce the hearts of the innocent". (Rom. 16:17)

See here whom we are to avoid — "those that cause dissensions contrary to the ancient doctrine"; all those who, hating, left the true Faith and doctrine which they had learned, and which has been handed down to us from the beginning by the Church of Christ, follow strange doctrines, and make divisions and dissensions in the Christian world. And why are we to avoid them? Because they are not servants of Christ, but slaves to their own belly, whose hearts are placed upon the enjoyments of this world, and who, by "pleasing speeches and good words, seduce the hearts of the innocent" — that is, do not bring good reasons or solid arguments to seduce people to their evil ways, so as to convince the understanding, for that is impossible; but practice upon their hearts and passions, relaxing the laws of the gospel, granting liberties to the inclinations of flesh and blood, laying aside the sacred rules of mortification of the passions and of self-denial, promising worldly wealth, and ease, and honors, and, by pleasing speeches of this kind, seducing the heart, and engaging people to their ways.

(4) The same argument and command the apostle repeats in his epistle to his beloved disciple Timothy, where he gives a sad picture, indeed, of all false teachers, telling us that they put on an outward show of piety the better to deceive, "having an appearance, indeed, of godliness, but denying the power thereof;" then he immediately gives this command: "Now these avoid: for of this sort are they that creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, who are led away with divers desires"; and adds this sign by which they may be known, that, not having the true Faith of Christ, and being out of His holy Church — the only sure rule for knowing the truth — they are never settled, but are always altering and changing their opinions, "ever learning, and never attaining to the knowledge of the truth"; because, as he adds, "they resist the truth, being corrupted in their mind, and reprobate concerning the Faith". (2 Tim. 3:5)

Here it is to be observed that, though the apostle says that silly weak people, and especially women, are most apt to be deceived by such false teachers, yet he gives the command of avoiding all communication with them in their evil ways, to all without exception, even to Timothy himself; for the epistle is directed particularly to him, and to him he says, as well as to all others, "Now these avoid", though he was a pastor of the church, and fully instructed by the apostle himself in all the truths of religion; because, besides the danger of seduction, which none can escape who voluntarily expose themselves to it, all such communication is evil in itself, and therefore to be avoided by all, and especially by pastors, whose example would be more prejudicial to others.

(5) Lastly, the beloved disciple St. John renews the same command in the strongest terms, and adds another reason, which regards all without exception, and especially those who are best instructed in their duty: "Look to yourselves", says he, "that ye lose not the things that ye have wrought, but that you may receive a full reward. 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 your house, nor say to him, God speed you: for he that saith to him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works". (2 John, ver. 8)

Here, then, it is manifest, that all fellowship with those who have not the doctrine of Jesus Christ, which is "a communication in their evil works" — that is, in their false tenets, or worship, or in any act of religion — is strictly forbidden, under pain of losing the "things we have wrought, the reward of our labors, the salvation of our souls". And if this holy apostle declares that the very saying God speed to such people is a communication with their wicked works, what would he have said of going to their places of worship, of hearing their sermons, joining in their prayers, or the like?

From this passage the learned translators of the Rheims New Testament, in their note, justly observe, "That, in matters of religion, in praying, hearing their sermons, presence at their service, partaking of their sacraments, and all other communicating with them in spiritual things, it is a great and damnable sin to deal with them." And if this be the case with all in general, how much more with those who are well instructed and better versed in their religion than others? For their doing any of these things must be a much greater crime than in ignorant people, because they know their duty better.

Q. These laws are very clear and strong; but has the Christian church always observed and enforced the observance of them?

A. The spirit of Christ, which dictated the Holy Scriptures, and the spirit which animates and guides the Church of Christ, and teaches her all truth, is the same; and therefore in all ages her conduct on this point has been uniformly the same as what the Holy Scripture teaches. She has constantly forbidden her children to hold any communication, in religious matters, with those who are separated from her communion; and this she has sometimes done under the most severe penalties. In the apostolical canons, which are of very ancient standing, and for the most part handed down from the apostolical age, it is thus decreed: "If any bishop, or priest, or deacon, shall join in prayers with heretics, let him be suspended from Communion". (Can. 44)

Also, "If any clergyman or laic shall go into the synagogue of the Jews, or the meetings of heretics, to join in prayer with them, let him be deposed, and deprived of communion". (Can. 63)

So also, in one of her most respected councils, held in the year 398, at which the great St. Augustine was present, she speaks thus: "None must either pray or sing psalms with heretics; and whosoever shall communicate with those who are cut off from the Communion of the Church, whether clergyman or laic, let him be excommunicated". (Coun. Carth. iv. 72 and 73)

The same is her language in all ages; and in this she shows herself to be the true mother, who will not suffer her children to be divided. She knows her heavenly spouse has declared that "no man can serve two masters; we cannot serve God and Mammon;" and therefore she must either have them to be hers entirely, or she cannot acknowledge them as such. She knows His holy apostle has protested that there can be no "participation, no fellowship, no concord, no pact, no agreement between the faithful and the unbeliever;" and therefore she never can allow any of her faithful children to have any religious communication with those of a false religion and corrupted Faith. (Bishop George Hay, (The Laws of God Forbidding All Communication in Religion With Those of a False Religion.)

 

This applies just as much to Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and his false church and his false, sacrilegious liturgical rites as it does to the leaders of the false religions he invited to participate in Assisi III yesterday.

More Than Indifferentism

Ratzinger/Benedict's address yesterday could have been given by Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II. Indeed, readers may read his speeches from October 27, 1986, and of January 24, 2002, to find the similarities. Yesterday's address was truly Boilerplate Ratzinger.

Only a few pertinent points need to be made before this impoverished writer (there's no loot in what one anti-sedevacantist author termed six years ago the "sedevacantist enterprise"!) gets some sleep:

Twenty-five years have passed since Blessed Pope John Paul II first invited representatives of the world’s religions to Assisi to pray for peace. What has happened in the meantime? What is the state of play with regard to peace today? At that time the great threat to world peace came from the division of the earth into two mutually opposed blocs. A conspicuous symbol of this division was the Berlin Wall which traced the border between two worlds right through the heart of the city. In 1989, three years after Assisi, the wall came down, without bloodshed. Suddenly the vast arsenals that stood behind the wall were no longer significant. They had lost their terror. The peoples’ will to freedom was stronger than the arsenals of violence. The question as to the causes of this dramatic change is complex and cannot be answered with simple formulae. But in addition to economic and political factors, the deepest reason for the event is a spiritual one: behind material might there were no longer any spiritual convictions. The will to freedom was ultimately stronger than the fear of violence, which now lacked any spiritual veneer. For this victory of freedom, which was also, above all, a victory of peace, we give thanks. What is more, this was not merely, nor even primarily, about the freedom to believe, although it did include this. To that extent we may in some way link all this to our prayer for peace. (Day of reflection, dialogue, and prayer for peace and justice in the world "Pilgrims of Truth, Pilgrims of Peace": Address of the Ratzinger/Benedict, Assisi, 27 October 2011.)

 

Thus it was yesterday that Ratzinger/Benedict, the supposed critic of "common prayer" with adherents of different "religious traditions," said that the common prayer at Assisi resulted in the tearing down of the Berlin Wall. There is a little problem with this in terms of logical consistency.

Seriously, the tearing down of the Berlin Wall in no way can be attributed to the Assisi I event. It is insane to insist that this is so. It is further madness to trumpet the collapse of the Berlin Wall as a "victory for freedom" as true freedom can be found only the Cross of the Divine Redeemer, Christ the King, and no nation is truly free unless it yokes itself under His Social Kingship as It must be exercised by the Catholic Church, something that Ratzinger/Benedict rejects entirely. 

Ratzinger went on to note that the collapse of the Berlin Wall did not bring about "peace" in the wake of what he called a "directionless" freedom:

But what happened next? Unfortunately, we cannot say that freedom and peace have characterized the situation ever since. Even if there is no threat of a great war hanging over us at present, nevertheless the world is unfortunately full of discord. It is not only that sporadic wars are continually being fought – violence as such is potentially ever present and it is a characteristic feature of our world. Freedom is a great good. But the world of freedom has proved to be largely directionless, and not a few have misinterpreted freedom as somehow including freedom for violence. Discord has taken on new and frightening guises, and the struggle for freedom must engage us all in a new way.

Let us try to identify the new faces of violence and discord more closely. It seems to me that, in broad strokes, we may distinguish two types of the new forms of violence, which are the very antithesis of each other in terms of their motivation and manifest a number of differences in detail. Firstly there is terrorism, for which in place of a great war there are targeted attacks intended to strike the opponent destructively at key points, with no regard for the lives of innocent human beings, who are cruelly killed or wounded in the process. In the eyes of the perpetrators, the overriding goal of damage to the enemy justifies any form of cruelty. Everything that had been commonly recognized and sanctioned in international law as the limit of violence is overruled. We know that terrorism is often religiously motivated and that the specifically religious character of the attacks is proposed as a justification for the reckless cruelty that considers itself entitled to discard the rules of morality for the sake of the intended “good”. In this case, religion does not serve peace, but is used as justification for violence. (Day of reflection, dialogue, and prayer for peace and justice in the world "Pilgrims of Truth, Pilgrims of Peace": Address of the Ratzinger/Benedict, Assisi, 27 October 2011.)

 

Lost on this poor, poor apostate is the simple fact that violations of the First and Second Commandments such as have been committed by the conciliar "popes" and their "bishops" repeatedly in the past forty years so, including at each of the three Assisi events, must be punished by God with war and violence of one sort or another as it is impossible to make war upon the binding precepts of His Commandments without incurring His wrath in numerous ways.

The conciliar "popes" have denied and deconstructed the nature of dogmatic truth.

The conciliar "popes" have endorsed the anathematized proposition of "religious heresy" and endorsed what Pope Saint Pius X, summarizing the consistent teaching of his predecessors, called a "thesis absolutely false," the separation of Church and State.

The conciliar "popes" have engaged in a false ecumenism that has convinced Catholics and non-Catholics alike that it really does not make much difference what you believe as long as you believe in a "God" of one sort or another.

The conciliar "popes" have denied Holy Mother Church's very Divine Constitution by means of the "new ecclesiology," seeking "reconciliation" with Protestants and the Orthodox and even the Red Chinese on this false foundation (see Red China: Workshop for the New Ecclesiology).

The conciliar "popes" and their "bishops" have engaged in one endless parade of "interreligious prayer" services and meetings that offend the honor and majesty and glory of the Most Blessed Trinity and have reaffirmed adherents of false religions in beliefs that had no capacity to sanctify or to save their immortal souls, thus further imperiling the salvation of their souls in the process.

God cannot help but punish such apostasy, and punish such apostasy He continues to do.

Ratzinger/Benedict, who has attempted to deconstruct the history of the Church as to make various of her Fathers, Doctors and Saints as "witnesses" in behalf of conciliarism, then proceeded in his address yesterday to blaspheme God by deconstructing the times during which He called upon Catholics to use force to defend the Faith and to defend justice in this passing, mortal vale of tears:

The post-Enlightenment critique of religion has repeatedly maintained that religion is a cause of violence and in this way it has fuelled hostility towards religions. The fact that, in the case we are considering here, religion really does motivate violence should be profoundly disturbing to us as religious persons. In a way that is more subtle but no less cruel, we also see religion as the cause of violence when force is used by the defenders of one religion against others. The religious delegates who were assembled in Assisi in 1986 wanted to say, and we now repeat it emphatically and firmly: this is not the true nature of religion. It is the antithesis of religion and contributes to its destruction. In response, an objection is raised: how do you know what the true nature of religion is? Does your assertion not derive from the fact that your religion has become a spent force? Others in their turn will object: is there such a thing as a common nature of religion that finds expression in all religions and is therefore applicable to them all? We must ask ourselves these questions, if we wish to argue realistically and credibly against religiously motivated violence. Herein lies a fundamental task for interreligious dialogue – an exercise which is to receive renewed emphasis through this meeting. As a Christian I want to say at this point: yes, it is true, in the course of history, force has also been used in the name of the Christian faith. We acknowledge it with great shame. But it is utterly clear that this was an abuse of the Christian faith, one that evidently contradicts its true nature. The God in whom we Christians believe is the Creator and Father of all, and from him all people are brothers and sisters and form one single family. For us the Cross of Christ is the sign of the God who put “suffering-with” (compassion) and “loving-with” in place of force. His name is “God of love and peace” (2 Cor 13:11). It is the task of all who bear responsibility for the Christian faith to purify the religion of Christians again and again from its very heart, so that it truly serves as an instrument of God’s peace in the world, despite the fallibility of humans. ((Day of reflection, dialogue, and prayer for peace and justice in the world "Pilgrims of Truth, Pilgrims of Peace": Address of the Ratzinger/Benedict, Assisi, 27 October 2011.)

 

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is mad. He is a lunatic. He belongs in the rubber room of conciliarism.

God has specifically enjoined that certain wars be undertaken in His behalf. His Vicar on earth, Pope Urban II, preached the First Crusade in 1095 at the Council of Clermont. Pope Eugene III preached the Second Crusade in 1145. And, among many other notable examples, God instructed Saint Joan of Arc to take up arms to seek to expel the English from France and to urge the Dauphin, the future King Charles VII, to be crowned the King of France. And it was the case during the Christendom of the Middle Ages that kings undertook wars and military ventures in just causes. The fact that abuses took place in wars sanctioned by Holy Mother Church and/or the kings of Christendom is in no way attributable to the Faith but to the sins of the individual men who committed those abuses. Catholics are not pacifists. They are called to take up arms when called to do so by legitimate authority, and it was the case in the past that the highest authority on the face of this earth, Holy Mother Church, instructed them to do so.

A second point to be made about this passage is that one finds Ratzinger/Benedict referring to "Christian" beliefs, meaning that he aims to speak for the Protestants and the Orthodox assembled in Assisi yesterday. He did not use the word "Catholic," except at the end of his address to reassure everyone that what he thinks, albeit falsely, is the Catholic Church will work hard against all forms of violence when his own false church commits violence every day against the Most Blessed Trinity, starting with the hideous liturgical service that is the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service.

Related to this second point, it should be noted that no distinction was made in the program yesterday between Catholics and Protestants, who were, in an exercise of rank religious indifferentism, lumped together in one category as "Christians." Ratzinger went to great lengths to avoid the use of the word "Catholic" in order to convey to the leaders of "other religions" that his conciliar band of revolutionaries and the Protestants and Orthodox, despite their "official differences," truly "one" in "witnessing" to the "Christian faith." This is not fabricated on my part as Ratzinger/Benedict has said as much when addressed Lutherans and the Orthodox and the Anglicans and all manner of other Protestant sects in the past six and one-half years now.

Let me reprise Pope Leo XIII's observation about such madness:

Agreement and union of minds is the necessary foundation of this perfect concord amongst men, from which concurrence of wills and similarity of action are the natural results. Wherefore, in His divine wisdom, He ordained in His Church Unity of Faith; a virtue which is the first of those bonds which unite man to God, and whence we receive the name of the faithful - "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Eph. iv., 5). That is, as there is one Lord and one baptism, so should all Christians, without exception, have but one faith. And so the Apostle St. Paul not merely begs, but entreats and implores Christians to be all of the same mind, and to avoid difference of opinions: "I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms amongst you, and that you be perfect in the same mind and in the same judgment" (I Cor. i., 10). Such passages certainly need no interpreter; they speak clearly enough for themselves. Besides, all who profess Christianity allow that there can be but one faith. It is of the greatest importance and indeed of absolute necessity, as to which many are deceived, that the nature and character of this unity should be recognized. And, as We have already stated, this is not to be ascertained by conjecture, but by the certain knowledge of what was done; that is by seeking for and ascertaining what kind of unity in faith has been commanded by Jesus Christ. (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896.)

Third, Ratzinger/Benedict tipped his Modernist hand when he said the following: "It is the task of all who bear responsibility for the Christian faith to purify the religion of Christians." The "religion of Christians" is Catholicism. Nothing else, and it is never in need of "purification." Her individual children are in need of Absolution in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance. The again, there must be a different theology for the different religion that is conciliarism, which is why he is really correct to use the generic term of "Christianity" as he is shaped by the errors of Protestantism and Modernity.

The next passage deals with Ratzinger/Benedict's reference to the "enemies of religion:"

If one basic type of violence today is religiously motivated and thus confronts religions with the question as to their true nature and obliges all of us to undergo purification, a second complex type of violence is motivated in precisely the opposite way: as a result of God’s absence, his denial and the loss of humanity which goes hand in hand with it. The enemies of religion – as we said earlier – see in religion one of the principal sources of violence in the history of humanity and thus they demand that it disappear. But the denial of God has led to much cruelty and to a degree of violence that knows no bounds, which only becomes possible when man no longer recognizes any criterion or any judge above himself, now having only himself to take as a criterion. The horrors of the concentration camps reveal with utter clarity the consequences of God’s absence. (Day of reflection, dialogue, and prayer for peace and justice in the world "Pilgrims of Truth, Pilgrims of Peace": Address of the Ratzinger/Benedict, Assisi, 27 October 2011.)

Enemies of religion? What religion? There is only one true religion. Catholicism. Nothing else.  Each false religion is an enemy of God and hence of the one and only true religion, Catholicism. Ratzinger/Benedict lives in a fantasy world in which he thinks he is remaining faithful to the Catholic Church while at the same time denying her very Divine Constitution without knowing that he is doing so. In doing this, of course, he just happens to reaffirm infidels and heretics and schismatics in their own falsehoods, convincing them that they have a mission from God to serve Him in their false religions as servants of justice and peace. He is an enemy of the true religion, Catholicism.

This is beyond religious indifferentism. Yes, it is that. It is also apostasy.

To the next passage:

Yet I do not intend to speak further here about state-imposed atheism, but rather about the decline of man, which is accompanied by a change in the spiritual climate that occurs imperceptibly and hence is all the more dangerous. The worship of mammon, possessions and power is proving to be a counter-religion, in which it is no longer man who counts but only personal advantage. The desire for happiness degenerates, for example, into an unbridled, inhuman craving, such as appears in the different forms of drug dependency. There are the powerful who trade in drugs and then the many who are seduced and destroyed by them, physically and spiritually. Force comes to be taken for granted and in parts of the world it threatens to destroy our young people. Because force is taken for granted, peace is destroyed and man destroys himself in this peace vacuum.

The absence of God leads to the decline of man and of humanity. But where is God? Do we know him, and can we show him anew to humanity, in order to build true peace? Let us first briefly summarize our considerations thus far. I said that there is a way of understanding and using religion so that it becomes a source of violence, while the rightly lived relationship of man to God is a force for peace. In this context I referred to the need for dialogue and I spoke of the constant need for purification of lived religion. On the other hand I said that the denial of God corrupts man, robs him of his criteria and leads him to violence. ((Day of reflection, dialogue, and prayer for peace and justice in the world "Pilgrims of Truth, Pilgrims of Peace": Address of the Ratzinger/Benedict, Assisi, 27 October 2011.)

Blasphemy. The Catholic Church has never been and can never be an instrument of violence. She has called for the use for legitimate force, which is not violence. And while her children have sinned, she is the spotless mystical bride of her Divine Spouse and Invisible Head, Christ the King. Violence and terrorism and other crimes have spread in the world because men persist in their sins unrepentantly and because they see no need to seek sacramental absolution for them at the hands of a true priest. Ratzinger/Benedict himself sins in the objective order of things every time he refuses to exhort men to convert unconditionally to the true Church, which is the only means of human salvation and hence of true social order and international peace.

The rise of violence in the world in recent times is attributable to the triumph of the diabolical forces that were unleashed as a result of the Protestant Revolution's overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King and the subsequent rise of the combined forces of naturalism that can be termed as Judeo-Masonry. These forces have been given greater impetus in the past four decades as the barren liturgical rites of the counterfeit church of conciliarism have robbed the world of the Sanctifying and Actual Graces that it needs to avoid sin and thus to scale the heights of personal sanctity, which is a fundamental precondition for social order.

Pope Leo XIII explained the consequences wrought by the revolution against the Social Kingship of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ:

From this it may clearly be seen what consequences are to be expected from that false pride which, rejecting our Saviour's Kingship, places man at the summit of all things and declares that human nature must rule supreme. And yet, this supreme rule can neither be attained nor even defined. The rule of Jesus Christ derives its form and its power from Divine Love: a holy and orderly charity is both its foundation and its crown. Its necessary consequences are the strict fulfilment of duty, respect of mutual rights, the estimation of the things of heaven above those of earth, the preference of the love of God to all things. But this supremacy of man, which openly rejects Christ, or at least ignores Him, is entirely founded upon selfishness, knowing neither charity nor selfdevotion. Man may indeed be king, through Jesus Christ: but only on condition that he first of all obey God, and diligently seek his rule of life in God's law. By the law of Christ we mean not only the natural precepts of morality and the Ancient Law, all of which Jesus Christ has perfected and crowned by His declaration, explanation and sanction; but also the rest of His doctrine and His own peculiar institutions. Of these the chief is His Church. Indeed whatsoever things Christ has instituted are most fully contained in His Church. Moreover, He willed to perpetuate the office assigned to Him by His Father by means of the ministry of the Church so gloriously founded by Himself. On the one hand He confided to her all the means of men's salvation, on the other He most solemnly commanded men to be subject to her and to obey her diligently, and to follow her even as Himself: "He that heareth you, heareth Me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth Me" (Luke x, 16). Wherefore the law of Christ must be sought in the Church. Christ is man's "Way"; the Church also is his "Way"-Christ of Himself and by His very nature, the Church by His commission and the communication of His power. Hence all who would find salvation apart from the Church, are led astray and strive in vain.

As with individuals, so with nations. These, too, must necessarily tend to ruin if they go astray from "The Way." The Son of God, the Creator and Redeemer of mankind, is King and Lord of the earth, and holds supreme dominion over men, both individually and collectively. "And He gave Him power, and glory, and a kingdom: and all peoples, tribes, and tongues shall serve Him" (Daniel vii., 14). "I am appointed King by Him . . . I will give Thee the Gentiles for Thy inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for Thy possession" (Psalm ii., 6, 8). Therefore the law of Christ ought to prevail in human society and be the guide and teacher of public as well as of private life. Since this is so by divine decree, and no man may with impunity contravene it, it is an evil thing for the common weal wherever Christianity does not hold the place that belongs to it. When Jesus Christ is absent, human reason fails, being bereft of its chief protection and light, and the very end is lost sight of, for which, under God's providence, human society has been built up. This end is the obtaining by the members of society of natural good through the aid of civil unity, though always in harmony with the perfect and eternal good which is above nature. But when men's minds are clouded, both rulers and ruled go astray, for they have no safe line to follow nor end to aim at. . . .

This generative and conservative power of the virtues that make for salvation is therefore lost, whenever morality is dissociated from divine faith. A system of morality based exclusively on human reason robs man of his highest dignity and lowers him from the supernatural to the merely natural life. Not but that man is able by the right use of reason to know and to obey certain principles of the natural law. But though he should know them all and keep them inviolate through life-and even this is impossible without the aid of the grace of our Redeemer-still it is vain for anyone without faith to promise himself eternal salvation. "If anyone abide not in Me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall wither, and they shall gather him up and cast him into the fire, and he burneth" john xv., 6). "He that believeth not shall be condemned" (Mark xvi., 16). We have but too much evidence of the value and result of a morality divorced from divine faith. How is it that, in spite of all the zeal for the welfare of the masses, nations are in such straits and even distress, and that the evil is daily on the increase? We are told that society is quite able to help itself; that it can flourish without the assistance of Christianity, and attain its end by its own unaided efforts. Public administrators prefer a purely secular system of government. All traces of the religion of our forefathers are daily disappearing from political life and administration. What blindness! Once the idea of the authority of God as the Judge of right and wrong is forgotten, law must necessarily lose its primary authority and justice must perish: and these are the two most powerful and most necessary bonds of society. Similarly, once the hope and expectation of eternal happiness is taken away, temporal goods will be greedily sought after. Every man will strive to secure the largest share for himself. Hence arise envy, jealousy, hatred. The consequences are conspiracy, anarchy, nihilism. There is neither peace abroad nor security at home. Public life is stained with crime. (Pope Leo XIII, Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900.)

 

Anyone who is stupid enough to think that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI was championing the cause of truth yesterday ought to compare his own Masonic remarks with those of a true pope. The difference between Catholicism and conciliarism is always a matter of Night and Day.

Finally, Ratzinger/Benedict praised himself for including "unbelievers" in the Assisi III farce yesterday:

In addition to the two phenomena of religion and anti-religion, a further basic orientation is found in the growing world of agnosticism: people to whom the gift of faith has not been given, but who are nevertheless on the lookout for truth, searching for God. Such people do not simply assert: “There is no God”. They suffer from his absence and yet are inwardly making their way towards him, inasmuch as they seek truth and goodness. They are “pilgrims of truth, pilgrims of peace”. They ask questions of both sides. They take away from militant atheists the false certainty by which these claim to know that there is no God and they invite them to leave polemics aside and to become seekers who do not give up hope in the existence of truth and in the possibility and necessity of living by it. But they also challenge the followers of religions not to consider God as their own property, as if he belonged to them, in such a way that they feel vindicated in using force against others. These people are seeking the truth, they are seeking the true God, whose image is frequently concealed in the religions because of the ways in which they are often practised. Their inability to find God is partly the responsibility of believers with a limited or even falsified image of God. So all their struggling and questioning is in part an appeal to believers to purify their faith, so that God, the true God, becomes accessible. Therefore I have consciously invited delegates of this third group to our meeting in Assisi, which does not simply bring together representatives of religious institutions. Rather it is a case of being together on a journey towards truth, a case of taking a decisive stand for human dignity and a case of common engagement for peace against every form of destructive force. Finally I would like to assure you that the Catholic Church will not let up in her fight against violence, in her commitment for peace in the world. We are animated by the common desire to be “pilgrims of truth, pilgrims of peace”. (Day of reflection, dialogue, and prayer for peace and justice in the world "Pilgrims of Truth, Pilgrims of Peace": Address of the Ratzinger/Benedict, Assisi, 27 October 2011.)

Unbelievers can challenge "the followers of religion." There is nothing lack in the Divine Constitution of Holy Mother Church to instruct us on any point. Those who do not believe or who doubt in the existence of God are objects of prayer for their conversion. They make no contribution to the world other than add to the confusion prophesied by Popes Gregory XVI and Pius IX would be the case when men live in a world of unfettered "freedom of conscience" and "freedom of speech" and "freedom of the press" and "religious freedom:"

This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. "But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error," as Augustine was wont to say. When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly "the bottomless pit" is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws -- in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty. (Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832.)

For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of "naturalism," as they call it, dare to teach that "the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones." And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that "that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require." From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity," viz., that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way." But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;" and that "if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling."

And, since where religion has been removed from civil society, and the doctrine and authority of divine revelation repudiated, the genuine notion itself of justice and human right is darkened and lost, and the place of true justice and legitimate right is supplied by material force, thence it appears why it is that some, utterly neglecting and disregarding the surest principles of sound reason, dare to proclaim that "the people's will, manifested by what is called public opinion or in some other way, constitutes a supreme law, free from all divine and human control; and that in the political order accomplished facts, from the very circumstance that they are accomplished, have the force of right." But who, does not see and clearly perceive that human society, when set loose from the bonds of religion and true justice, can have, in truth, no other end than the purpose of obtaining and amassing wealth, and that (society under such circumstances) follows no other law in its actions, except the unchastened desire of ministering to its own pleasure and interests? (Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864.)

The madness represented by Ratzinger/Benedict's speech of yesterday is compounded when one considers the fact that he actually believes that he is "teaching" the "leaders of the world's religions," most of whom actually represent a very tiny sliver of people on the face of this earth as there is no central authority for any of the Eastern "religions" and Protestantism is divided into a welter of warring camps (as is Orthodoxy). Mohammedans have different branches. So do the Talmudists. Ratzinger/Benedict actually believes that his "teaching" will help the "leaders of the world's religions" to be better informed as to how to use their own false religions to prevent violence and thus to build up "peace," which he has defined on numerous occasions to be the "coexistence" of the "world's religions," ignoring the fact that false religions of their nature are violent assaults against the Most Blessed Trinity and the entirety of Divine Revelation.

Ratzinger/Benedict actually thinks that large numbers of people in the world are going to pay attention to the madness that took place yesterday when, for example, many citizens of the United States of America were focused on the sixth game of the 2011 World Series that was, from what I have read, tied at the end of both the ninth and tenth innings before a player for the St. Louis Cardinals hit a walk-off home run in the bottom of the eleventh inning against a pitcher for the Texas Rangers, who are owned in part by Lynn Nolan Ryan, who made his major league debut with the New York Mets on September 11, 1966 and won his only World Series ring with the Amazin's in 1969. Most people in the world are oblivious to Assisi III, and the little that they hear or see about it will be conveyed in photographs such as the ones published above.

It is, of course, nothing other than scandalous for our beloved Saint Francis of Assisi to be used as a false witness in behalf of these acts of betrayal of the Catholic Faith as he hated heresy and falsehood of any kind, being willing to give his life as a martyr to seek the conversion of the Muslims.

There was no call by the false "pontiff" for conversion yesterday. He is true to his Modernist self even as he approaches his eighty-fifth birthday in less than six months. He would never speak in the terms of our true popes about the necessity of non-Catholics to convert the Holy Faith:

 

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

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

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

 

For the false "pope," you see, these statements may have had validity in their time. They have become "obsolete" now. How anyone cannot see at this late date that Ratzinger/Benedict rejects the Catholic Faith is simply unfathomable.

Just consider two of the statements quoted above, one from Pope Pius IX's Iam Vos Omnes and the other from Pope Pius XI's Mortalium Animos:

. . . .the entire world in fact cannot enjoy true peace if it is not of one fold and one shepherd. (Pope Pius IX, Iam Vos Omnes.)

To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos.)

 

That's right. There cannot be true peace in the world unless everyone in it is of one one fold, that of the Catholic Church, and one shepherd, a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter, a qualification, it should be noted, that Pope Pius XI, mentioned very explicitly in Mortalium Animos. Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI does not believe this at all. He believes that peace consists in the "coexistence" of religions with each other (see RELIGIONS ARE A FORCE FOR PEACE AND RECONCILIATION for just one such statement on the part of the false "pontiff" prior to yesterday's celebration of Judeo-Masonry.

Outcome-based conciliar mathematics goes something like this: Assisi I plus Assisi II plus Assisi III equals A-P-O-S-T-A-S-Y.

Although there are some in the "resist but recognize" movement who have been justly critical of Assisi III and what it represents, I must, in all charity, point out that none of this can come from the Catholic Church. The belief that we can have "sift" what a true pope says and does is nothing other than the Gallicanism that was condemned by Pope Pius VI in Auctorem Fidei, August 28, 1794, and that was summarized so well by Bishop Emile Bougaud in the Nineteenth Century:

The violent attacks of Protestantism against the Papacy, its calumnies and so manifest, the odious caricatures it scattered abroad, had undoubtedly inspired France with horror; nevertheless the sad impressions remained. In such accusations all, perhaps, was not false. Mistrust was excited., and instead of drawing closer to the insulted and outraged Papacy, France stood on her guard against it. In vain did Fenelon, who felt the danger, write in his treatise on the "Power of the Pope," and, to remind France of her sublime mission and true role in the world, compose his "History of Charlemagne." In vain did Bossuet majestically rise in the midst of that agitated assembly of 1682, convened to dictate laws to the Holy See, and there, in most touching accents, give vent to professions of fidelity and devotedness toward the Chair of St. Peter. We already notice in his discourse mention no longer made of the "Sovereign Pontiff." The "Holy See," the "Chair of St. Peter," the "Roman Church," were alone alluded to. First and alas! too manifest signs of coldness in the eyes of him who knew the nature and character of France! Others might obey through duty, might allow themselves to be governed by principle--France, never! She must be ruled by an individual, she must love him that governs her, else she can never obey.

These weaknesses should at least have been hidden in the shadow of the sanctuary, to await the time in which some sincere and honest solution of the misunderstanding could be given. But no! parliaments took hold of it, national vanity was identified with it. A strange spectacle was now seen. A people the most Catholic in the world; kings who called themselves the Eldest Sons of the Church and who were really such at heart; grave and profoundly Christian magistrates, bishops, and priests, though in the depths of their heart attached to Catholic unity,--all barricading themselves against the head of the Church; all digging trenches and building ramparts, that his words might not reach the Faithful before being handled and examined, and the laics convinced that they contained nothing false, hostile or dangerous. (Right Reverend Emile Bougaud, The Life of Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque. Published in 1890 by Benziger Brothers. Re-printed by TAN Books and Publishers, 1990, pp. 24-29.)

 

This is all a chastisement. It is a chastisement for the sins of the conciliar revolutionaries. It is a chastisement for our own sins.

How very tragic and very telling that it remains the case that the Uber Modernist from Germany, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, refuses even to invoke the Queen of Peace, the very Queen of Heaven and of Earth, the Mother of God, Our Lady, to those who are in desperate need of knowing that they have such a Blessed Mother, who wants them to be converted to the true Faith before they die. She has given us the very weapon to fight the falsehoods of the day with her Most Holy Rosary and her Fatima Message. Anyone who ignores the Holy Rosary and her Fatima Message, which the conciliarists have sought mightily to deconstruct and flush down the Orwellian memory hole, thus perpetuates the very violence in the world that he decries and seeks to stop with means that come from the devil and not from Heaven.

Pray your Rosaries. Keep making sacrifices to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary. Remember that that Immaculate Heart of Mary will indeed triumph in the end.

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.

 

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 John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior and Balthasar, pray for us.

Saints Simon and Jude, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints

Appendix A

Material from The Great Facade on the 1986 Assisi World Day of Peace and Assisi 2002

No doubt the height of the fever engendered by the virus of dialogue was the World Day of Peace at Assisi in October 1986. In the plaza outside the Basilica of Saint Francis of Assisi, the "representatives of the world's great religions" stepped forward one by one to offer their prayers for peace. These "prayers" included the chanting of American Indian shamans. The Pope was photographed standing in a line of "religious leaders," including rabbis, muftis, Buddhist monks, and assorted Protestant ministers, all of them holding potted olive plants. The official Vatican publication on the World Day of Prayer for Peace at Assisi, entitled "World Day of Pray for Peace," pays tribute to the "world's great religions by setting forth their prayers, including an Animist prayer to the Great Thumb. The world's great religions" are honored by the Vatican in alphabetical order: the Buddhist prayer for peace; the Hindu prayer for peace; the Jainist prayer for peace; the Muslim prayer for peace; the Shinto prayer for peace; the Sikh prayer for peace; the Traditionalist African prayer for peace (to "The Great Thumb"); the Traditionalist Amerindian prayer for peace; the Zoroastrian prayer for peace. In a glaring symptom of the end result of ecumenism. and dialogue in the Church, the only prayer not included in the official book is a Catholic prayer for peace. There is only a Christian prayer for peace, which appears after the prayers of the "world's great religions"--and after the Jewish prayer. Catholicism has been subsumed into a generic Christianity.

At the beginning of the list of prayers of the world's religions, there is an amazing statement by Cardinal Roger Etchergary, president of the Pontifical Council on Interreligious Dialogue. According to Etchergary, "Each of the religions we profess has inner peace, and peace among individuals and nations, as one of its aims. Each one pursues this aim in its own distinctive and irreplaceable way." The notion that there is anything "irreplaceable" about the false religions of the world seems difficult to square with the de fide Catholic teaching that God's revelation to His Church is complete and all-sufficient for the spiritual needs of men. Our Lord came among us--so Catholics were always taught--precisely to replace false religions with His religion, with even the Old Covenant undergoing this divinely appointed substitution. Yet the members of all "the world's great religions" were invited to Assisi and asked for their "irreplaceable" prayers for world peace--the "irreplaceable" prayers of false shepherds who preach abortion, contraception, divorce, polygamy, the treatment of women like dogs, the reincarnation of human beings as animals, a holy war against infidel Christians and countless other lies, superstitions and abominations in the sight of God. . . .

[Italian journalist Vittorio] Messori was merely observing the obvious when he stated that the Assisi 2002 implied that the doctrine of every religion is acceptable to God. For example, the invited representative of Voodoo (spelled Vodou by its native practitioners), Chief Amadou Gasseto from Benin, was allowed to sermonize on world peace from a wooden pulpit suitable for a cathedral set up in the lower plaza outside the Basilica of Saint Francis. The Chief declared to the Vicar of Christ and the assembled cardinals and Catholic guests: "The invocation to take prayer in the Prayer for Peace at Assisi is a great honour for me, and it is an honour for all the followers of Avelekete Vodou whose high priest I am." The high priest of Avelekete Vodou then give the Pope and all the Catholic faithful the Vodou prescription for world peace, which included, "asking forgiveness of the protecting spirits of regions affected by violence" and "carrying out sacrifices of reparation and purification, and thus restoring peace." This would involve slitting the throats of goats, chickens, doves, and pigeons and draining their blood from the carotid arteries according to a precise ritual prescription. In other words, the Pope invited a witch doctor to give a sermon to Catholics on world peace. [Thomas A. Droleskey interjection to Bishop Fellay: This was better than Assisi I?]

Among other "representatives of the various religions" who came to the pulpit was one Didi Talwakar, the representative of Hinduism. Talwakar declared that the "divinization of human beings gives us a sense of the worth of life. Not only am I divine in essence, but also everyone else is equally divine in essence...." Talwakar went on to exclaim: "My divine brothers and sisters, from whom much above the station of life where I am, I dare to appeal to humanity, from this august forum, in the blessed presence of His Holiness the Pope...." While Talwakar acknowledges that the Pope is a holy man, he is only one of many such holy men who lead the various religions. Didi prefers to follow another holy man: the Reverend Pandung Shastri Athawale, who heads something called the Swadyaya parivari, which teaches "the idea of acceptance of all religious traditions" and the need to "free the idea of religion from dogmatism, insularity and injunctions," Just the thing Catholics of the postconciliar period need to hear.

The spectacle of Assisi 2002 staggers the Catholic mind, and human language fails in its attempt to adequately describe the unparalleled ecclesial situation in which we now find ourselves--a situation even the Arian heretics of the fourth century would find incredible. Yet, true to form, the neo-Catholic press organs reported the event as if it were a triumph for the Catholic faith--while carefully avoiding any of the shocking images and words that would give scandal to any Catholic who has not been spiritually lobotomized by the postconciliar changes in the Church. (Christopher A. Ferrara and Thomas E. Woods, Jr., The Great Facade, Remnant Press, 2002, pp. 83-85; 213-215).

Appendix C

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre on Assisi I, 1986

And most recently, the Pope has been in the synagogue of the Jews in Rome. How can the Pope pray with the enemies of Jesus Christ? These Jews know and say and believe that they are the successors of the Jews that killed Jesus Christ, and they continue to fight against Jesus Christ everywhere in the world. At the end of the Pope's visit, the Jews sang a "hymn" that included the line "I believe with all my heart in the coming of the Messiah," meaning that they refuse Jesus as the Messiah, and the Pope had given permission for this denial of Christ be sung in his presence, and he listened, head bowed! And the Holy See announces that in the near future that he will visit Taize to pray with the Protestants, and he himself said in public at St. Paul Outside the Walls that later this year he will hold a ceremony gathering all of the religions of the world together to pray for peace at Assisi in Italy, on the occasion of the Feast of Peace proclaimed by the United Nations due to take place on October 24.

“Now all these facts are public, you have seen them in the newspapers and the media. What are we to think? What is the reaction of our Catholic Faith? That is what matters. It is not our personal feelings, a sort of impression or admission of some kind. It is a question of knowing what our Faith tells us, faced with these facts. Let me quote a few words - not my words - from Canon Naz’s Dictionary of Canon Law, a wholly official and approved commentary on what has been the Catholic Church’s body of law for nineteen centuries. On the subject of sharing in the worship of non-Catholics (after all, this is what we now see Pope and bishops doing), the Church says, in Canon 1258-1: ‘It is absolutely forbidden for Catholics to attend or take any active part in the worship of non-Catholics in any way whatsoever.’ On this Canon the quasi-official Naz Commentary says, and I quote, ‘A Catholic takes active part when he joins in heterodox; i.e., non-Catholic worship with the intention of honouring God by this means in the way non-Catholics do. It is forbidden to pray, to sing or to play the organ in a heretical or schismatic temple, in association with the people worshipping there, even if the words of the hymn or the song or the prayer are orthodox.’ The reason for this prohibition is that any participation in non-Catholic worship implies profession of a false religion and hence denial of the Catholic Faith. By such participation Catholics are presumed to be adhering to the beliefs of the non- Catholics, and that is why Canon 2316 declares them ‘suspect of heresy, and if they persevere, they are to be treated as being in reality heretics.’

 

“Now these recent acts of the Pope and bishops, with Protestants, animists and Jews, are they not an active participation in non-Catholic worship as explained by Canon Naz on Canon 1258-1? In which case, I cannot see how it is possible to say that the Pope is not suspect of heresy, and if he continues, he is a heretic, a public heretic. That is the teaching of the Church.

 

“Now I don’t know if the time has come to say that the Pope is a heretic; I don’t know if it is the time to say that. You know, for some time many people, the sedevacantists, have been saying ‘there is no more Pope,’ but I think that for me it was not yet the time to say that, because it was not sure, it was not evident, it was very difficult to say that the Pope is a heretic, the Pope is apostate. But I recognize that slowly, very slowly, by the deeds and acts of the Pope himself we begin to be very anxious. I am not inventing this situation; I do not want it. I would gladly give my life to bring it to an end, but this is the situation we face, unfolding before our eyes like a film in the cinema. I don’t think it has ever happened in the history of the Church, the man seated in the chair of Peter partaking in the worship of false gods.

 

“What conclusion must we draw in a few months if we are confronted by these repeated acts of partaking in false worship? I don’t know. I wonder. But I think the Pope can do nothing worse than call together a meeting of all religions, when we know there is only one true religion and all other religions belong to the devil. So perhaps after this famous meeting of Assisi, perhaps we must say that the Pope is a heretic, is apostate. Now I don’t wish yet to say it formally and solemnly, but it seems at first sight that it is impossible for a Pope to be publicly and formally heretical. Our Lord has promised to be with him, to keep his faith, to keep him in the Faith - how can he at the same time be a public heretic and virtually apostatise? So it is possible we may be obliged to believe this Pope is not Pope. (The Angelus, July 1986, transcripts of talks given by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre on March 30 and April 18, 1986.)