Rationalizing The Work of Rationalists

by Thomas A. Droleskey

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

The teaching that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity made Man in the Virginal and Immaculate Womb by the power of God the Holy Ghost, entrusted exclusively to His Catholic Church for Its eternal safekeeping and infallible explication is brought forth with "ease and security to the knowledge of men" while His holy doctrines remain "intact for ever." One of the essences of God is simplicity. His commands are simple: "Do this. Do not do that."

The simple commands of God have been violated repeatedly by the lords of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, starting with the conciliar "pontiffs" themselves," including Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. These Modernists have made what is simple and clear to be complex and obscure the minds of ordinary Catholics. These veritable figures of Antichrist have repeatedly planted doubt about the reliability of Sacred Scripture and of the Fathers and Doctors of Holy Church, using their philosophically absurd and dogmatically condemned "hermeneutic of continuity," as it is called these days, ton contradict the clear teaching and pastoral praxis of Holy Mother Church from time immemorial. And, as has been noted on this site frequently, the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service was used as the means to introduce and then institutionalize instability into the lives of ordinary Catholics so that they would accept doctrinal uncertainty as a natural and normal part of their lives.

Doubt replaced certainty. Ambiguity and contradiction replaced clarity and stability.

Countless have been the "homilies" given from lecterns in thousands of Catholic churches worldwide that are in the control of the conciliar revolutionaries that have made short work of almost every article of the Catholic Faith. Some priests and/or presbyters have reaffirmed sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance and have openly endorsed pro-abortion Catholics in public life. The words of Holy Writ, including the miracles of the Divine Redeemer Himself, have been explained away by one exercise in rationalism after another, especially by means of what is called the "historical' critical" method of Biblical "interpretation" and "scholarship."

It is no wonder, therefore, that hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of baptized Catholics have fled from this mockery of God in the conciliar structures, falling into the arms of various evangelical and fundamentalist Protestant sects, where the devil has fed their appetites for a semblance of what appears somewhat true, or into rank unbelief as infidels. Most Catholics who do remain in the conciliar structures know little about the authentic, immutable truths of the Catholic Faith and recoil in horror when such truths are presented for their consideration, having also almost no sense of the horror of personal sin, whether it be their own or of others, being completely indifferent about the spread of sin under cover of the civil law and in the midst of popular culture.

Thus it is that the whole of those who have risen to defend the "orthodoxy" of "Archbishop" Gerhard Ludwig Muller's attacks on the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, examined in Deft? Daft Is More Like It, part three and Does The Defense of Catholic Truth Matter To You?, is just another case of rationalizing the work of a rationalist.

Scrape away all of the convoluted language of men such as Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and Gerhard Ludwig Muller and will find nothing other than an effort to throw into confusion settled matters of the Catholic Faith and/or to raise matters that can do nothing except to implant doubt into the souls of Catholics about things they have believed are beyond being questioned as they have been revealed to us by  God Himself. And Ratzinger/Benedict counts on having an army of mindless, reflexive defenders in the ranks of "conservative" and "traditionally-minded" Catholics to reassure Catholics who might be alarmed at the state of things that the "pope" is so "brilliant" that there just has to be some way to find Catholicism in passages that are redolent with heresy and obscurity. In other words, Modernists such as Ratzinger/Benedict cloud their errors with such an opaqueness as to dumb the mind and get a lot of even highly intelligent people to say, "This is so profound that we will never be able to understand it. We're just not as intelligent as he is to understand him fully right now."

Truth be told you see, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has described himself as a "rationalist," that is, a person who believes that it is necessary to reason things out on his own in light of alleged new verities (new truths) that man encounters as "progress" takes him to newer visions of himself and the world around him over the course of time.

Rationalism is of the essence of the Protestant Revolution as it was only logical for men, having rejected the teaching authority of the true Church that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ founded upon the rock of Peter, the Pope, to trust in their own "abilities" to interpret Sacred Scripture by explaining it anew with "insights" of their very own.

Rationalism is, of course, at the very foundation of the so-called "Age of Reason" or "Enlightenment" that spawned so many variations of what are, when all of the complexities and intricacies are stripped away, the same naturalist theme: that God, if He exists at all, has revealed nothing definitively binding upon all men at all times and that it is therefore necessary for men to "rethink" basic presuppositions in order to "discover" the meaning of life and ways of improving man's lot here on earth.

Modernism has its proximate antecedent roots in the rationalism of the Protestant Revolution, replete with all of its own complex variations that mutations, and the rationalism of the "Enlightenment" that led to reign of the "rights of man" in the place of the the rights of the Social Reign of Christ the King.

Although not described by Pope Pius IX as Modernism, the rationalism he condemned in his first encyclical letter, Qui Pluribus, November 9, 1846, is one of the essential building-blocks of Modernism as defined, analyzed and condemned by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907:

5. In order to easily mislead the people into making errors, deceiving particularly the imprudent and the inexperienced, they pretend that they alone know the ways to prosperity. They claim for themselves without hesitation the name of "philosophers." They feel as if philosophy, which is wholly concerned with the search for truth in nature, ought to reject those truths which God Himself, the supreme and merciful creator of nature, has deigned to make plain to men as a special gift. With these truths, mankind can gain true happiness and salvation. So, by means of an obviously ridiculous and extremely specious kind of argumentation, these enemies never stop invoking the power and excellence of human reason; they raise it up against the most holy faith of Christ, and they blather with great foolhardiness that this faith is opposed to human reason.

6. Without doubt, nothing more insane than such a doctrine, nothing more impious or more opposed to reason itself could be devised. For although faith is above reason, no real disagreement or opposition can ever be found between them; this is because both of them come from the same greatest source of unchanging and eternal truth, God. They give such reciprocal help to each other that true reason shows, maintains and protects the truth of the faith, while faith frees reason from all errors and wondrously enlightens, strengthens and perfects reason with the knowledge of divine matters.

7. It is with no less deceit, venerable brothers, that other enemies of divine revelation, with reckless and sacrilegious effrontery, want to import the doctrine of human progress into the Catholic religion. They extol it with the highest praise, as if religion itself were not of God but the work of men, or a philosophical discovery which can be perfected by human means. The charge which Tertullian justly made against the philosophers of his own time "who brought forward a Stoic and a Platonic and a Dialectical Christianity"[2] can very aptly apply to those men who rave so pitiably. Our holy religion was not invented by human reason, but was most mercifully revealed by God; therefore, one can quite easily understand that religion itself acquires all its power from the authority of God who made the revelation, and that it can never be arrived at or perfected by human reason. In order not to be deceived and go astray in a matter of such great importance, human reason should indeed carefully investigate the fact of divine revelation. Having done this, one would be definitely convinced that God has spoken and therefore would show Him rational obedience, as the Apostle very wisely teaches.[3] For who can possibly not know that all faith should be given to the words of God and that it is in the fullest agreement with reason itself to accept and strongly support doctrines which it has determined to have been revealed by God, who can neither deceive nor be deceived?  (Pope Pius IX, Qui Pluribus, November 9, 1846.)

Rationalism is opposed to rationality. That is, rationalism, trusting in man's ability to "figure everything out for himself," leads to skepticism of the past and skepticism of most supernatural truths that rationalists believe can only be accepted if they are made "accessible" to "modern men" by adapting their expression to the exigencies of a given period in history.

We have been eyewitnesses to the endless, tireless, ceaseless efforts on the part of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI to do precisely this without almost every facet of the Holy Faith.

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, puffed up with overweening pride and oozing with hubris, believes that he knows better than the true popes of the Catholic Church.

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI knows better than anyone else how to re-read Sacred Scripture.

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has found the "true way" to re-read the Fathers of the Church.

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has twisted the words of various saints and doctors to attempt to make them witnesses in behalf of the apostasies, blasphemies and sacrileges of his false religion, conciliarism, rejecting entirely the official philosophy of the Catholic Church, Scholasticism, going so far as to refer the philosophy employed by Saint Thomas Aquinas and endorsed by numerous popes and the fathers of the Council of Trent as "the philosophical school" of the Angelic Doctor's time.

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI knows better than Pope Eugene IV and the fathers of the Council of Florence under whom Cantate Domino was issued on February 4, 1442.

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI knows better than Popes Benedict XIII and Saint Pius V and Clement XII and Blessed Urban V and Innocent VI and Leo XIII, each of whom endorsed the Scholasticism of Saint Thomas Aquinas as the true way by which Faith and reason work together as the creature uses the rational faculties God gave him to to see all things through the light of the Faith and to accept that we must accept that the supernatural truths revealed by Him and taught in His Holy Name by the Catholic Church can never be contradicted or understood in any other way.

The Modernist, inebriated by rationalism and the agnosticism that it breeds, stands the true use of human reason on its head, believing that contraries can be true, believing that God the Holy Ghost did not direct the work of the fathers of Holy Mother Church's twenty general councils and/or that the language employed in the decrees promulgated by those councils were but temporary dispositions of the truth as it was understood in the context of the particular age in which those councils meant, that it is possible and every necessary to revisit matters that have been considered closed. This is rationalism, and it was condemned by Pope Pius IX in The Syllabus of Errors, December 8, 1864:

II. MODERATE RATIONALISM

8. As human reason is placed on a level with religion itself, so theological must be treated in the same manner as philosophical sciences. -- Allocution "Singulari quadam," Dec. 9, 1854.

9. All the dogmas of the Christian religion are indiscriminately the object of natural science or philosophy, and human reason, enlightened solely in an historical way, is able, by its own natural strength and principles, to attain to the true science of even the most abstruse dogmas; provided only that such dogmas be proposed to reason itself as its object. -- Letters to the Archbishop of Munich, "Gravissimas inter," Dec. 11, 1862, and "Tuas libenter," Dec. 21, 1863.

10. As the philosopher is one thing, and philosophy another, so it is the right and duty of the philosopher to subject himself to the authority which he shall have proved to be true; but philosophy neither can nor ought to submit to any such authority. -- Ibid., Dec. 11, 1862.

11. The Church not only ought never to pass judgment on philosophy, but ought to tolerate the errors of philosophy, leaving it to correct itself. -- Ibid., Dec. 21, 1863.

12. The decrees of the Apostolic See and of the Roman congregations impede the true progress of science. -- Ibid.

13. The method and principles by which the old scholastic doctors cultivated theology are no longer suitable to the demands of our times and to the progress of the sciences. -- Ibid.

14. Philosophy is to be treated without taking any account of supernatural revelation. -- Ibid. (Pope Pius IX, The Syllabus of Errors, December 8, 1864.)

Propositions twelve and thirteen apply particularly to the lifelong work of the current head of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI

Modernism and its latter-day offshoot, the "new theology," are thus founded on the quicksand of the sophistries of rationalism, ever eager to subject every facet of the truths of the Faith to "new interpretations" that will "ring true in hearts of men," meaning that the immutable truths of the Catholic Faith cannot appeal to all men in every age, which is to make of Divine Revelation a most imperfect "work" whose expression needs to be refined over the course of time.

Pope Saint Pius X explained the methodology of agnosticism, which casts a skeptical eye on all that is miraculous, including Our Lord's Resurrection from the dead and the historicity of His other miracles and the human authorship of the Gospels:

35. The Modernist apologist depends in two ways on the philosopher. First, indirectly, inasmuch as his subject-matter is history -- history dictated, as we have seen, by the philosopher; and, secondly, directly, inasmuch as he takes both his doctrines and his conclusions from the philosopher. Hence that common axiom of the Modernist school that in the new apologetics controversies in religion must be determined by psychological and historical research. The Modernist apologists, then, enter the arena, proclaiming to the rationalists that, though they are defending religion, they have no intention of employing the data of the sacred books or the histories in current use in the Church, and written upon the old lines, but real history composed on modern principles and according to the modern method. In all this they assert that they are not using an argumentum ad hominem, because they are really of the opinion that the truth is to be found only in this kind of history. They feel that it is not necessary for them to make profession of their own sincerity in their writings. They are already known to and praised by the rationalists as fighting under the same banner, and they not only plume themselves on these encomiums, which would only provoke disgust in a real Catholic, but use them as a counter-compensation to the reprimands of the Church. Let us see how the Modernist conducts his apologetics. The aim he sets before himself is to make one who is still without faith attain that experience of the Catholic religion which, according to the system, is the sole basis of faith. There are two ways open to him, the objective and the subjective. The first of them starts from agnosticism. It tends to show that religion, and especially the Catholic religion, is endowed with such vitality as to compel every psychologist and historian of good faith to recognize that its history hides some element of the unknown. To this end it is necessary to prove that the Catholic religion, as it exists today, is that which was founded by Jesus Christ; that is to say, that it is nothing else than the progressive development of the germ which He brought into the world. Hence it is imperative first of all to establish what this germ was, and this the Modernist claims to he able to do by the following formula: Christ announced the coming of the kingdom of God, which was to be realized within a brief lapse of time and of which He was to become the Messias, the divinely-given founder and ruler. Then it must be shown how this germ, always immanent and permanent in the Catholic religion, has gone on slowly developing in the course of history, adapting itself successively to the different circumstances through which it has passed, borrowing from them by vital assimilation all the doctrinal, cultural, ecclesiastical forms that served its purpose; whilst, on the other hand, it surmounted all obstacles, vanquished all enemies, and survived all assaults and all combats. Anyone who well and duly considers this mass of obstacles, adversaries, attacks, combats, and the vitality and fecundity which the Church has shown throughout them all, must admit that if the laws of evolution are visible in her life they fail to explain the whole of her history -- the unknown rises forth from it and presents itself before Us. Thus do they argue, not perceiving that their determination of the primitive germ is only an a priori assumption of agnostic and evolutionist philosophy, and that the germ itself has been gratuitously defined so that it may fit in with their contention. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

The effort, therefore, of anyone, whether traditionally-minded or not, who seeks to defend "Archbishop" Gerhard Ludwig Muller, the newly appointed prefect of the counterfeit church of conciliarism's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, against his multiple defections from the Catholic Faith, which include a denial of the doctrine of Our Lady's Perpetual Virginity as taught by the Catholic Church, is truly reprehensible. It is impossible to turn Gerhard Ludwig Muller into a Catholic. Gerhard Ludwig Muller is much like his superior, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, a blaspheming Modernist to the core of his being.

Others have tried to advance the same sort of convoluted arguments as Muller.

Saint Jerome dealt with a certain Helvidius in his day in no uncertain terms, starting off by referring to Gerhard Ludwig Muller's ancestor in blasphemous heresy against the Mother of God as follows:

1. I was requested by certain of the brethren not long ago to reply to a pamphlet written by one Helvidius. I have deferred doing so, not because it is a difficult matter to maintain the truth and refute an ignorant boor who has scarce known the first glimmer of learning, but because I was afraid my reply might make him appear worth defeating. There was the further consideration that a turbulent fellow, the only individual in the world who thinks himself both priest and layman, one who,as has been said, thinks that eloquence consists in loquacity and considers speaking ill of anyone to be the witness of a good conscience, would begin to blaspheme worse than ever if opportunity of discussion were afforded him. He would stand as it were on a pedestal, and would publish his views far and wide. There was reason also to fear that when truth failed him he would assail his opponents with the weapon of abuse. But all these motives for silence, though just, have more justly ceased to influence me, because of the scandal caused to the brethren who were disgusted at his ravings. The axe of the Gospel must therefore be now laid to the root of the barren tree, and both it and its fruitless foliage cast into the fire, so that Helvidius who has never learnt to speak, may at length learn to hold his tongue.

2. I must call upon the Holy Spirit to express His meaning by my mouth and defend the virginity of the Blessed Mary. I must call upon the Lord Jesus to guard the sacred lodging of the womb in which He abode for ten months from all suspicion of sexual intercourse. And I must also entreat God the Father to show that the mother of His Son, who was a mother before she was a bride, continued a Virgin after her son was born. We have no desire to career over the fields of eloquence, we do not resort to the snares of the logicians or the thickets of Aristotle. We shall adduce the actual words of Scripture. Let him be refuted by the same proofs which he employed against us, so that he may see that it was possible for him to read what is written, and yet to be unable to discern the established conclusion of a sound faith. (see The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary.)

 

What applied to Helvidius applies as well in our own day to wordy conciliar revolutionaries like Muller and Ratzinger, men who write entire books to make that is clear seem obscure and very difficult to grasp.

Muller and Ratzinger, though, derive some of their own views about Catholic doctrine from an assortment of Protestant theologians, preferring their misreading of the writings of the Church Fathers to that provided us in their own words and as taught to us by Saint Thomas Aquinas. Saint Alphonsus de Ligouri, after summarizing the dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church and providing a list of Fathers, Doctors and Saints who defended the doctrine, proceeded to enumerate and then the principal Protestant authors who denied the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary:

The letter of Theodotus, of Ancira, was approved of by the General Council of Ephesus, in which, speaking of the Blessed Virgin, he says: the birth of Jesus Christ makes her a mother without injury to her virginity. The third canon of the Lateran Council, celebrated in the year 649, under Martin I., says : that he should be condemned, who does not confess that the Mother of God was always a virgin. A similar declaration was made in the Council of Trullus, in 692, and in the eleventh Council of Toledo, in 675 (6). He was also condemned by St. Gregory, of Nyssa, St. Isidore, Pelusiot, St. Proclus, St. John Chrysostom, St. John Damascenus, St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, St. Siricius, Pope, (who excommunicated him and his followers, in a synod held in Rome), St. Peter Chrysologus, St. Hilary, St. Prosper, St. Fulgentius, St. Eucherius, St. Paulinus, St. Anselm, St. Bernard, St. Peter Damian, and many others; and any one who wishes to see the opinions expressed by the fathers, has only to look to Petavius’s Theology (7). The text of Ezechiel : " This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened" (Ezechiel, xliv, 2), is generally understood to refer to the perpetual virginity of the Mother of God, and St. Leo (8), Pope Hormisdas, Pelagius I., and the Council of Chalcedon, in the discourse addressed to the Emperor Marcion, all understood it thus.

3. Let us now hear what Basnage, and the heretics who hold the contrary opinion, have to say. Their first argument is founded on that text of Isaias, " Behold a virgin shall conceive, and shall bring forth a son" (Isaias, vii, 14), which St. Matthew, speaking of the Incarnation of the Divine Word, quotes (Matthew, i, 13). Basnage then argues on this text : The prophet says, that Mary conceived as a virgin; but he does not say, that she brought forth her son as a virgin. But what sort of argument is this ? Because the text does not say that she was a virgin, in the birth of her son, therefore, it is a proof that she did not bring him forth a virgin; whereas, the universal tradition of the Church, as we have seen, explains the text in its true sense, that she conceived a virgin, and brought forth our Lord a virgin. (6) Col. Con. t. 1, col. 1. 10, col. 1151. (7) Petav. Theol. Dog. 6, l. 14, c. 3 (8) St. Leo, Epist.

Basnage brings forth another argument, which he deems unanswerable. We read in St. Luke, he says :" After the days of her purification, according to the law of Moses, were accomplished, they carried him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord : as it is written in the law of the Lord, every male opening the womb, shall be called holy to the Lord" (Luke, ii, 22). Now, says Basnage, (and it is worthy of remark, with what temerity he threw overboard the doctrine of the Fathers, as opposed to Scripture, and the opinion of the learned), the opinion of the perpetual virginity of the Mother of God is generally held, and still it is opposed, both to Scripture and the opinions of the ancients. The narrative of St. Luke is quite plain : " When the days of her purification, &c." Mary was then subjected to the usual law of women, after birth, not alone to avoid scandal, but as a matter of duty; and she was compelled, by the general discipline of the law, to offer a sacrifice for her purification. The days of her purification could not be accomplished if she had no necessity of purification. All his argument, then, is reduced to this, that Mary ought not to fulfil the days of her purification, if there was no necessity of purification; and, for all that, she was obliged (coacta sit) to fulfil the rite. This argument he took from Origen (9); but, as the Fathers of St. Maur say, truly, this was a blasphemy uttered by that Father (10); and, justly, for all the Fathers have said with St. Basil (11), this virgin never was obliged to the law of purification; and this is clear, says the Saint, from the Scriptures; for in Leviticus, xii, 2, it is clearly proved, that this law applies to ordinary mothers, but not to one who conceived by the Holy Ghost. "Scriptum est enim," says the holy Father,"mulier quæ conceperit semen, et peperit masculum, immunda erit septem diebus; hæc autem cum facta sit Emmanuelis Mater sine semine, pura, et intemerata est; imo postquam effecta est Matre, adhuc virgo permansit." (9) Origen, Hom. 14, in Luc. (10) Patres. S. Maur. apud S. Hieron. t. 7, p. 285. (11) St. Basil, in can. 1; Isa. n. 201.

Even Melancthon, Agricola, and the other Lutherans, as we read in Canisius (12), all say that Mary had no necessity of purification. St. Cyril of Alexandria, the same author states teaches that to assert the contrary is rank heresy. With all that, Basnage is not convinced, and he quotes a passage of St. Fulgentius, where he says : " Vulvam Matris Omnipotentia Filii nascentis aperuit." But we have another passage, in St. Fulgentius himself, in which he declares that the mother of Christ was the only one who remained immaculate, after giving birth to a son (13). But how are we then to understand " he opened the womb ?" this is to be understood, as St. Gregory of Nyssa explains it (14); " Solus ille haud ante patefactam virginalem aperuit vulvam ;" that he preserved the virginity of his holy mother. This is what St. Ambrose like wise says : " Hic (Christus) solus aperuit sibi vulvam (15)." And, treating of the Mysteries against Jovinian, he says: " Why do you seek the order of nature, in the body of Christ, when setting aside the order of nature, he was born of a virgin." Basnage lauds St. Jerome as being of his opinion; but the passage he adduces is not to be found in St. Jerome’s writings; besides, St. Jerome (16) says, in his Dialogues : " Christ alone opened the closed doors of the virginal womb, which, nevertheless, remained ever and always closed ;" so that the very Fathers Basnage quotes in his favour, most expressly condemn the impious error he attempts to defend. (The History of Heresies and Their Refutation by St Alphonsus Liguori.)

There is no ground upon which the likes of Gerhard Ludwig Muller or Joseph Ratzinger/XVI to stand in defense of their frequent distortion of the Fathers and Doctors and Saints to "prove" their blasphemous propositions that have been repeated by like heretics in the past. These men are not Catholic.

By the way, "Archbishop" Gerhard Ludwig Muller, are these canons from the Lateran Council of 649 binding upon your warped conscience?

Canon 2. If anyone does not properly and truly confess in accordance with the Holy Fathers that God the Word himself, one of the holy and consubstantial and venerable Trinity, descended from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and Mary ever Virgin, and was made man, was crucified in the flesh, voluntarily suffered for us and was buried, and arose again on the third day, and ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father, and will come again with paternal glory, with his flesh assumed by Him and intellectually animated, to judge the living and the dead, let him be condemned.

Canon 3. If anyone does not properly and truly confess in accord with the holy Fathers, that the holy Mother of God and ever Virgin and immaculate Mary in the earliest of the ages conceived of the Holy Spirit without seed, namely, God the Word Himself specifically and truly, who was born of God the Father before all ages, and that she incorruptibly bore [Him?], her virginity remaining indestructible even after His birth, let him be condemned. (Canons of the Lateran Council of 649; see also Henry Denzinger, Enchirdion Symbolorum, thirteenth edition, translated into English by Roy Deferrari and published in 1955 as The Sources of Catholic Dogma--referred to as "Denziger," by B. Herder Book Company of St. Louis, Missouri, and London, England, Nos. 255-256, p. 102.)

Perhaps you can find someone to define the word "condemned" to you, "Archbishop" Muller. You stand condemned before God and man by your blasphemous heresies, which you attempt to package with such obscurity as to make it appear that you really do adhere to the doctrine you deny, a device used also by the man who appointed you, your fellow countryman, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI.

Sign on the dotted line, Bishop Fellay?

Want more cheery news from the world of conciliarism. Hey, take a gander at this:

The Church must rethink its approach to remarried divorcees and gay relationships, the world's youngest cardinal has said.

Cardinal Rainer Maria Woelki, 55, made his comments in an interview with the German weekly Die Zeit and said that while the Orthodox Church considers only the first marriage sacramentally valid, divorce and a second marriage is tolerated. Asked whether this could be a model for the Catholic Church, he replied that the Church should talk about it.

Commenting on gay men in relationships he said he tried not to see them as just violating natural law but as people trying to take responsibility for each other in lasting partnerships. "We must find a way of allowing people to live without going against church teaching," he said. ('Rethink line on divorce and gays')

 

Who is Rainer "Cardinal" Maria Woelki? Oh, just the conciliar "cardinal archbishop" of Berlin, Germany, that's all. He was elevated to the conciliar church's college of non-cardinals sseven days ago now, that is, on Saturday, June 30, 2012, the Commemoration of Saint Paul within the Octave of Saints Peter and Paul, whose octave in the unreformed Roman Rite ended yesterday, Friday, July 6, 2012.

Gee, if only the "pope" knew, huh? (See Boy, If Only The "Pope" Knew and Boy, If Only The "Pope" Knew, partie deux.)

Wake up, my friends. He does know. These are the men he trusts and admires. How long will people in the Motu world continue to be silent in order to have a version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition that is about to be modernized even more than it was prior to its issuance in 1961/1962?

We need on the First Saturday in the month of July to make reparation to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary for our own many sins and for the sins of those, such as Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and his appointees, including freshly minted ones such as Gerhard Ludwig Muller and Rainer Maria Woelki, who deny Catholic teaching and dare to put into question settled dogmas concerning the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Remember, Our Lady asked us to do special reparations to her Immaculate Heart every First Saturday:

By 1925 Lucia, who was now 18, had become a postulant with the Sisters of St. Dorothy at Pontevedra in Spain, and on Thursday 10 December, the Blessed Virgin, accompanied by the Child Jesus on a little cloud, appeared to her in her cell. Lucia recounted that Mary rested her hand on her shoulder, while showing her a heart encircled by thorns in her other hand.

The Child Jesus spoke first: "Have pity on the Heart of your Most Holy Mother. It is covered with the thorns with which ungrateful men pierce it at every moment, and there is no one to remove them with an act of reparation."

Then Mary said:"My daughter, look at My Heart surrounded with thorns with which ungrateful men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, try to console me, and say that I promise to assist at the hour of death, with all the graces necessary for salvation, all those who, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months go to confession and receive Holy Communion, recite five decades of the Rosary and keep me company for a quarter of an hour while meditating on the mysteries of the Rosary, with the intention of making reparation to me."

The Child Jesus again appeared to Lucia in February 1926 to encourage her to propagate this devotion, and additionally on the night of 29-30 May 1930; as she was praying before the Blessed Sacrament, she received an interior locution explaining why it was necessary to have a communion of reparation on five Saturdays.

She explained later that she had been given to understand that this related to the five main types of blasphemies and offences committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary: that is against the Immaculate Conception; against Mary's Virginity; against her Divine Maternity and her spiritual motherhood of mankind; for the offences of those who encourage in the hearts of children indifference, contempt and even hatred of her, and finally as reparation for those who outrage her in her holy images.

On 13 June 1929 Lucia saw another important apparition involving Mary as she was making a Holy Hour in the convent chapel at Tuy in Spain, as was her custom on Thursday nights from eleven to twelve. She was alone, praying the prayers of the Angel in the dim light of the sanctuary lamp when,

"Suddenly the whole chapel was illumined by a supernatural light, and above the altar appeared a Cross of light, reaching to the ceiling. In a brighter light on the upper part of the Cross, could be seen the face of a man and his body as far as the waist; upon his breast was a dove of light; nailed to the Cross was the body of another man. A little below the waist, I could see a chalice and a large Host suspended in the air, onto which drops of blood were falling from the Face of Jesus Crucified and from the wound in His side.

These drops ran down onto the Host and fell into the chalice. Beneath the right arm of the Cross was Our Lady and in her hand was her Immaculate Heart. (It was Our Lady of Fatima, with her Immaculate Heart in her left hand, without sword or roses, but with a crown of thorns and flames). Under the left arm of the Cross, large letters, as if of crystal clear water which ran down upon the altar, formed these words: 'Grace and Mercy.' "

At this point Lucia explained that she understood the apparition was a representation of the Holy Trinity, as she heard Mary speak to her: "The moment has come in which God asks the Holy Father, in union with all the Bishops in the world, to make the consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart, promising to save it by this means. There are so many souls whom the Justice of God condemns for sins committed against me, that I have come to ask reparation: sacrifice yourself for this intention and pray."

Lucia told all this to her confessor who ordered her to write it down, and she also said that later on Jesus had spoken as follows to her: "They did not wish to heed My request. Like the king of France, they will repent and do it, but it will be late. Russia will have already spread her errors throughout the world, provoking wars and persecutions of the Church; the Holy Father will have much to suffer." (Mary's words at Fatima.)

Anyone, no matter who they are or how large their following may be in traditional circles, who dares to disparage Our Lady's Fatima Message and its direct relevance to our times blasphemes her just as surely as the likes of Gerhard Ludwig Muller. Why would the conciliar revolutionaries work overtime to deconstruct and reinvent Our Lady's Fatima Message (Ratzinger/Benedict has gone so far as to tell us he does not believe in the actual physical apparition of Our Lady at Fatima--or at Lourdes; see On Full Display: The Modernist Mind) if it did not mean their ultimate defeat as the result of the consecration of Russia to her Immaculate Heart by a true pope and the true bishops of the world? The devil, who inspires to the conciliar revolutionaries to have a hatred for Our Lady and her Fatima Message and her Most Holy Rosary, is ultimate rationalist of all, you see.

What did Pope Leo XIII recommend to combat the evils of society? Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary. The theological and philosophical underpinnings of the social evils one hundred nineteen years ago have become the very foundation of a "new theology" for a "new"--and very false religion. Our Lady's Rosary has defeated heresy in the past. It will do again, something that Pope Leo XIII noted in a very moving manner.

But men of carnal mind, who love nothing but themselves, allow their thoughts to grovel upon things of earth until they are unable to lift them to that which is higher. For, far from using the goods of time as a help towards securing those which are eternal, they lose sight altogether of the world which is to come, and sink to the lowest depths of degradation. We may doubt if God could inflict upon man a more terrible punishment than to allow him to waste his whole life in the pursuit of earthly pleasures, and in forgetfulness of the happiness which alone lasts for ever.

It is from this danger that they will be happily rescued, who, in the pious practice of the Rosary, are wont, by frequent and fervent prayer, to keep before their minds the glorious mysteries. These mysteries are the means by which in the soul of a Christian a most clear light is shed upon the good things, hidden to sense, but visible to faith, "which God has prepared for those who love Him." From them we learn that death is not an annihilation which ends all things, but merely a migration and passage from life to life. By them we are taught that the path to Heaven lies open to all men, and as we behold Christ ascending thither, we recall the sweet words of His promise, "I go to prepare a place for you." By them we are reminded that a time will come when "God will wipe away every tear from our eyes," and that "neither mourning, nor crying, nor sorrow, shall be any more," and that "We shall be always with the Lord," and "like to the Lord, for we shall see Him as He is," and "drink of the torrent of His delight," as "fellow-citizens of the saints," in the blessed companionship of our glorious Queen and Mother. Dwelling upon such a prospect, our hearts are kindled with desire, and we exclaim, in the words of a great saint, "How vile grows the earth when I look up to heaven!" Then, too, shall we feel the solace of the assurance "that which is at present momentary and light of our tribulation worketh for us above measure exceedingly an eternal weight of glory" (2 Cor. iv., 17).

Here alone we discover the true relation between time and eternity, between our life on earth and our life in heaven; and it is thus alone that are formed strong and noble characters. When such characters can be counted in large numbers, the dignity and well-being of society are assured. All that is beautiful, good, and true will flourish in the measure of its conformity to Him who is of all beauty, goodness, and truth the first Principle and the Eternal Source.

These considerations will explain what We have already laid down concerning the fruitful advantages which are to be derived from the use of the Rosary, and the healing power which this devotion possesses for the evils of the age and the fatal sores of society. These advantages, as we may readily conceive, will be secured in a higher and fuller measure by those who band themselves together in the sacred Confraternity of the Rosary, and who are thus more than others united by a special and brotherly bond of devotion to the Most Holy Virgin. In this Confraternity, approved by the Roman Pontiffs, and enriched by them with indulgences and privileges, they possess their own rule and government, hold their meetings at stated times, and are provided with ample means of leading a holy life and of laboring for the good of the community. They are, are so to speak, the battalions who fight the battle of Christ, armed with His Sacred Mysteries, and under the banner and guidance of the Heavenly Queen. How faithfully her intercession is exercised in response to their prayers, processions, and solemnities is written in the whole experience of the Church not less than in the splendor of the victory of Lepanto. (Pope Leo XIII, Laetitiae Sanctae, September 8, 1893.)

 

We are in a figurative Battle of Lepanto at present, dealing with preternatural forces that appear to vastly outnumber those who have chosen, despite their own sins and failings, to remain faithful to the authentic patrimony of the Catholic Church and have rejected such abominations as the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service and the "luminous mysteries." (how do the 150 Psalms fit into the the number 200?; what, as a reader reminded me, is "one third" of a Rosary consisting of 200 Hail Marys; Sixty-six point six; got it?) and the new ecclesiology and ecumenism and religious liberty and separation of Church and State. We are hated by our own former friends and colleagues and by many of members of our own families. None of this matters if we care to unite ourselves to the Mercies of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary, giving each Rosary we pray to the Sacred Heart through the Immaculate Heart of Mary as her consecrated slaves.

 

Although we should note with sadness the ceaseless (and ceaselessly clumsy and transparent) efforts of the conciliar revolutionaries to deconstruct Our Lady's Fatima Message, we must never be discouraged or disconsolate. Never. We are Catholics, not brooding or sappy sentimentalists. The final victory belongs to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. We can plant the seeds for this victory by our daily fidelity to Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary. And, my friends, praying the Rosary is not being inert or passive in the midst of our state of apostasy and betrayal!

We must make sure not to be in league with the Mayor of Ourem, Portugal, Artur de Oliveira Santos, who held the Fatima children captive in August of 1913, and those who are in league with him in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, who hold all truth captive, including that of the Fatima Message, in order to promote their lies. As we seek refuge from the conciliar revolutionaries in the catacombs with true bishops and true priests, may we always prove ourselves to belong to God by praying and propagating the Most Holy Rosary of His Most Blessed Mother.

Viva Cristo Rey!

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

 

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us!

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

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 Cyril and Methodius, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints