From what I was told by those who saw the coverage live as I attended to some domestic errands, including checking the post office box, black smoke billowed out of the chimney of the Sistine Chapel for a good ten minutes yesterday afternoon at 2:41 p.m., Eastern Daylight Saving Time. It is probably going to be the case that black smoke will continue to billow twice more tomorrow as the search for a new universal public face of apostasy continues to its conclusion.
Yesterday's proceedings began with a Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service staged by the dean of the conciliar college of apostate "cardinals," Angelo "Cardinal" Sodano, the ultimate conciliar "insider" whose thuggish ways reigned supreme in the final years of the false "pontificate" of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II when he wielded near-total control as the Occupy Vatican Movement's Secretary of State. Sodano, who does not want to see any "reforms" undertaken to alter the massive network of the often dirty, incestuous financial manipulations of the Modernist infrastructure that has maintained "tradition" in only one way: the insatiable desire to exploit unsuspecting Catholics for their loot in order to live "large" and to enjoy La Dolce Vita.
Sodano's appeal against the reform-minded apostates yesterday, Tuesday, March 12, 2013, the Feast of Pope Saint Gregory the Great, was crafted as follows:
The second reading is taken from the letter to the Ephesians, written by the Apostle Paul in this very city of Rome during his first imprisonment (62-63 A.D.)
It is a sublime letter in which Paul presents the mystery of Christ and his Church. While the first part is doctrinal (ch.1-3), the second part, from which today’s reading is taken, has a much more pastoral tone (ch. 4-6). In this part Paul teaches the practical consequences of the doctrine that was previously presented and begins with a strong appeal for church unity: "As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. (Eph 4,1-3).
St. Paul then explains that in the unity of the Church, there is a diversity of gifts, according to the manifold grace of Christ, but this diversity is in function of the building up of the one body of Christ. "So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up (Eph 4:11-12).
It is for the very unity of His mystical body that Christ then has sent His Holy Spirit and, at the same time, He has established His apostles and among them Peter, who takes the lead as the visible foundation of the unity of the Church.
In our text, St. Paul teaches that each of us must work to build up the unity of the Church, so that "From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work (Eph 4:16). Each of us is therefore called to cooperate with the Successor of Peter, the visible foundation of such an ecclesial unity. (Apostate Sodano: Don't Change a Thing. Let's Be United in Apostasy.)
"In other words," Sodano was saying, don't break "unity" by seeking to change anything that the curia does. Everything is working just fine, thank you very much.
Ironically, this is almost exactly what Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II said to an Italian journalist who was interviewing him in 2002. When asked if there had been any problems with the "Second" Vatican Council or its afternoon, the fourth in the line of conciliar antipopes pounded his first on a table and shouted, "No! Everything is just fine!"
Positivism (the belief that something is so because it has been asserted as such) certainly does away with a lot of soul-searching, doesn't it?
Obviously, the "battle" between the Vatican "outsider, reformist" apostate non-cardinals and the "curia hard-liners" is over power and turf, over the management of the conciliar church and its public image. It has nothing to do with the Catholic Faith, which none of them hold--that's right, not a single one of them--as It has been passed down to us from time immemorial by Holy Mother Church under the infallible guidance of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost.
Pope Leo XIII explained that there can only be true unity on the basis of a total assent of the mind and will to everything that is taught by the Catholic Church without any exception or deviation whatsoever:
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.
7. The heavenly doctrine of Christ, although for the most part committed to
writing by divine inspiration, could not unite the minds of men if left to the
human intellect alone. It would, for this very reason, be subject to various and
contradictory interpretations. This is so, not only because of the nature of the
doctrine itself and of the mysteries it involves, but also because of the
divergencies of the human mind and of the disturbing element of conflicting
passions. From a variety of interpretations a variety of beliefs is necessarily
begotten; hence come controversies, dissensions and wranglings such as have
arisen in the past, even in the first ages of the Church. Irenaeus writes of
heretics as follows: "Admitting the sacred Scriptures they distort the
interpretations" (Lib. iii., cap. 12, n. 12). And Augustine: "Heresies have
arisen, and certain perverse views ensnaring souls and precipitating them into
the abyss only when the Scriptures, good in themselves, are not properly
understood" (In Evang. Joan., tract xviii., cap. 5, n. 1). Besides Holy
Writ it was absolutely necessary to insure this union of men's minds - to effect
and preserve unity of ideas - that there should be another principle. This the
wisdom of God requires: for He could not have willed that the faith should be
one if He did not provide means sufficient for the preservation of this unity;
and this Holy Writ clearly sets forth as We shall presently point out. Assuredly
the infinite power of God is not bound by anything, all things obey it as so
many passive instruments. In regard to this external principle, therefore, we
must inquire which one of all the means in His power Christ did actually adopt.
For this purpose it is necessary to recall in thought the institution of
Christianity. . . .
9. The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has
done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding
the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the
ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different
from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the
Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only
a certain portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared
heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were
condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages.
"There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the
whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect
the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic
tradition" (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos).
The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the
unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic
communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree
from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius,
Augustine, Theodore :, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St.
Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which,
should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic
unity. "No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that
reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may
arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if
any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic" (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88). (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896.)
The conciliar "cardinals" are men who are alien to the Catholic Faith. Alien. Simply holding to an "irreducible minima" of Catholic doctrine, as some in the "recognize but resist" movement contend, does not make one a member of the Catholic Church. Indeed, there is not a shred of Patristic evidence to support such a patently absurd claim. As Pope Leo XIII noted nearly one hundred seventeen years ago, one falls from the Faith by defecting from even one of Its articles. Just one. That is all. Just one. The conciliar revolutionaries believe in one condemned, anathematized proposition after another, and many plainly do not even believe in the miraculous as they are rationalists.
As has been noted in many articles on this site, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, the man whose "luminous" false pontificate was praised yesterday by Angelo Sodano, one of the chief conspirators against Our Lady's Fatima Message (along with Tarcisio Bertone and Ratzinger himself), does not really believe in God as He has revealed Himself to us exclusively through His true Church. His "hermeneutic of continuity" is nothing other than of the condemned Modernist principle of the "evolution of dogma," something that has permitted him throughout the entirety of his priestly life to project onto God whatever beliefs springs from his inner "religious sense" (see Proud Of His Blasphemy And Of His Blaspheming Mentor).
One of the "cardinals" who was praised on November 19, 2007, on a website of the Society of Saint Pius X as adhering to His Apostateness, Benedict XVI, Antipope Emeritus's "hermeneutic of continuity" is the conciliar "archbishop" of Colombo, Sri Lanka, Albert Malcolm Ranjith, who some believe is a viable candidate to be a possible "Benedict XVII" if the ongoing conclave becomes deadlocked:
Already on November 16, Archbishop Ranjith, who belongs to the conservative tendency at the Vatican, had granted a long interview to Fides Agency, in which he also denounced the “crisis of obedience” of certain bishops towards Benedict XVI after the Motu Proprio. According to the prelate, “in some countries or dioceses, “rules which practically make void or twist the pope’s intention” have been published. For this reason the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei is planning to publish a note concerning the application of the Motu Proprio.
We give here below this interview in which the Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship makes his own the “hermeneutic of continuity” advocated by Benedict XVI, and inscribing the Conciliar Constitution on the liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, in the continuity of the bimillennial Tradition, and condemning the misguided ways of the post-conciliar liturgical reform as abuses, and not as effects, of the Second Vatican Council.
It is worth noting that the Roman prelate uses this hermeneutic especially to rehabilitate the development of Tradition in the second millennium of Church history, against a “liturgical archeologism” already denounced by Pius XII, an “idolatry”, as it were, of the Church of the first Christians. He sees in the Motu Proprio an element for a “necessary correction of orientation”, and also as a means to recover elements of the liturgy which were blurred by the post-conciliar reforms.
This explanation of the deep meaning of the Motu Proprio given by someone who is close to the pope is of particular significance. Does Archbishop Ranjith suggest here how the reform desired by Benedict XVI should be worked out? (Interview of Albert Malcolm Ranjith.)
The interview cited on the Society of Saint Pius X website was published in L'Osservatore Romano when Ranjith was the conciliar church's Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship. Ranjith made clear his commitment to Ratzinger's altered view of the conciliar liturgical revolution as not representing a rupture without seeming to realize that Ratzinger had said precisely that as late as 1999:
Q. After the publication of Summorum Pontificum, the debate between so-called traditionalists and innovators has re-ignited. Is there a sense to this?
A. Absolutely not. There was not and there is no break between the before and after, there is a continuous line.
With respect to the traditional Mass, there had been a growing demand
for it over time, which also became more organized little by little. At
the same time, faithfulness to the standards of celebrating the
sacraments was falling. The more such faithfulness diminished, along
with the beauty and wonder of liturgy, the more some Catholics looked
back to the traditional Mass.
So in fact, who have been asking for the traditional Mass to be made
more easily available? Not just the organized groups, but even those who
have lost respect for Masses that are not performed with appropriate
respect for the actual norms of the Novus Ordo.
For years, the liturgy has undergone so many abuses, and so many
bishops have simply ignored them. Pope John Paul II made a heartfelt
appeal in Ecclesia Dei afflicta, which called on the Church to be more serious about the liturgy. And he did it again in the Instruction Redemptionis sacramentum. But many liturgists and diocesan offices of liturgy criticized the Papal documents.
The problem then is not so much about the traditional Mass, but an
almost unlimited abuse of the nobility and dignity of the Eucharistic
celebration. And this was something about which Pope Benedict could not
be silent, as we saw in his explanatory letter to the bishops and in his
many speeches. He feels a great sense of pastoral responsibility.
Therefore, this document, beyond being an attempt to bring back the
Society of Saint Pius X into the Church is also a gesture, a strong call
from the universal Pastor for a sense of seriousness about the liturgy. (Interview of Albert Malcolm Ranjith.)
The prohibition of the missal that was now
decreed, a missal that had known continuous growth over the centuries,
starting with the sacramentaries of the ancient Church, introduced a
breach into the history of the liturgy whose consequences could only be
tragic. It was reasonable and right of the Council to order a
revision of the missal such as had often taken place before and which
this time had to be more thorough than before, above all because of the introduction of the vernacular.
But more than this now happened: the old
building was demolished, and another was built, to be sure largely using
materials from the previous one and even using the old building plans.
There is no doubt that this new missal in many respects brought with it
a real improvement and enrichment; but setting it as a new construction
over against what had grown historically, forbidding the results of
this historical growth. thereby makes the liturgy appear to be no longer
living development but the produce of erudite work and juridical
authority; this has caused an enormous harm. For then the
impression had to emerge that liturgy is something "made", not something
given in advance but something lying without our own power of decision. (Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger, Milestones.)
Yes, yes, yes. Albert Malcolm Ranjith, who is not a priest as he was installed to the conciliar presbyterate by none other than Paul The Sick on June 29, 1975, the same day that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre ordained true priests in Econe, Switzerland, including Father Donald J. Sanborn, is more than a worthy contender to be a possible "Benedict XVI." His adherence to the absurdity that is the "hermeneutic of continuity" ignores all evidence that contradicts it, including the " 'pope' emeritus's'" own self-contradictory statements on the conciliar liturgy as a rupture and the actual statements of those who planned the conciliar revolution:
We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the
Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block
for our separated brethren that is for the Protestants." (Annibale
Bugnini, L'Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965.)
Let it be candidly said: the Roman Rite which we
have known hitherto no longer exists. It is destroyed. (Father Joseph
Gelineau, who worked with Annibale Bugnini's Consilium, Quoted and
footnoted in the work of a Father John Mole, who believed that the Mass
of the Roman Rite had been "truncated," not destroyed. Assault on the Roman Rite)
Certainly we will preserve the basic elements, the
bread, the wine, but all else will be changed according to local
tradition: words, gestures, colors, vestments, chants, architecture,
decor. The problem of liturgical reform is immense. (Archbishop Karol
Wojtyla, 1965, Quoted and footnoted in Assault on the Roman Rite.
This has also been noted on this site in the past, having been provided
me by a reader who had access to the 1980 French book in which the
quote is found.)
"[T]he intention of Pope Paul VI with regard to
what is commonly called the Mass, was to reform the Catholic liturgy in
such a way that it should coincide with the Protestant liturgy....
[T]here was with Pope Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or at
least to correct, or at least to relax, what was too Catholic in the
traditional sense, in the Mass, and I, repeat, to get the Catholic Mass
closer to the Calvinist mass" (Dec. 19, 1993), Apropos, #17, pp. 8f; quoted in Christian Order, October, 1994. (Jean Guitton, a close friend of Giovanni Montini/Paul VI.)
Actually, you see Albert Malcolm Ranjith would give false hope to those in the "recognize but resist" movement who are attached to the conciliar structures as he ended the distribution of what purports to be Holy Communion in the hand and standing for the reception of the purported Communion in the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service soon after his arrival as the conciliar "archbishop" of Colombo, Sri Lanka. Ranjith also desires a "reverent" and "devout staging of the Novus Ordo service with presbyters facing the altar as though such reforms could make that which is abominable to God and continues to be what it has been from its outset, a vessel designed with its altered prayers and multiplicity of "Eucharistic Prayers" and other rituals to communicate that everything about the Faith can change as long as we use a slogan, such as "living tradition" or the "hermeneutic of continuity" as a justification.
"Cardinal" Ranjith's election would even give hope to "conservatives" attached to the conciliar structures, believing that their "battle in the trenches" to "restore the Church from within" has paid off with a man who will be more of a "traditionalist pope" than was the arch-Modernist disciple of the New Theology, His Apostateness, Benedict XVI, Antipope Emeritus." And Bishop Bernard Fellay, who still needs help to find his own hermeneutic of continuity, would be able to take what is left of the Society of Saint Pius X into "full communion" with the One World Ecumenical Church of Conciliarism.
Alas, I present to you one little piece of evidence that might communicate the simple fact that Albert Malcolm Ranjith may not be as knowledgeable about tradition as he thinks he is:
Albert Malcolm "Cardinal" Ranjith in supposed Corpus Christi Procession.
Isnt't that "host" a little large, "Cardinal" Ranjith? This is your commitment to tradition?
One can never make apostasy "dignified" or "reverent."
Make no mistake about it: apostasy was on full display in Angelo Sodano's "homily" in the Basilica of Saint Peter yesterday as he expressed his solidarity with Judeo-Masonry's "world order," although he omitted the word "new." The man is a dyed-in-wool supporter of the Judeo-Masonic agenda against the Catholic Faith. It is very telling that the devious Sodano did not include the words "world order" in the written text of his "homily" that was released to the press. Alas, Ratzinger/Benedict was much more forthcoming in calling for that "global structure" to govern the finances of nations (see All Signs Point To Antichrist). What Sodano uttered yesterday was unsurprising and totally in character for the entirety of the conciliar ethos, starting with Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII himself in Pacem in Terris, April 11, 1963.
The farce will continue. It will end when it ends as commentators make such silly comments as the American "cardinals" are not Americanists or Modernists (see Why odds are against an American pope; the author of this silliness should be sent From John Carroll To James Gibbons To Timothy Dolan) and Dr. Robert Moynihan's incessant elegies of praise in behalf of "reformer" named Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI continue ad nauseam, ad infinitum and while the Occupy Vatican Movement reels yet again from the revelation that its financial wizards have purchased a twenty-three million Euro share in an apartment block that contains a notorious Roman sauna that is patronized exclusively by practitioners of perversity (see As cardinals gather to elect Pope, Catholic officials break into a sweat over news that priests share €23m building with sauna for practitioners of perverse sins in violation of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments.)
