Shell Games With Souls

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Those associated in an official capacity with the counterfeit church of conciliarism are past masters of obfuscation and double-talk. It is with obfuscation and ambiguity that they teach a distorted and perverted version of the Catholic Faith that is nothing other than Modernism brought to life via the condemned propositions of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's "new theology." And it is with obfuscation and ambiguity that they shade the truth when they attempt to hold conferences featuring heterodox speakers from within the ranks of conciliarism and/or featuring non-Catholic speakers whose true religious affiliations are never identified publicly before such conferences. Once rather prominent priest who has suffered much in the conciliar structures, to which he remains attached, said to me in 2003 that trying to deal with these conciliar apparatchiks is like trying to "nail Jello-brand gelatin to the walls.

There are times, however, when it is possible to nail the conciliar apparatchiks to the walls as they are caught in their various lies and other acts of deception and misrepresentation. There are times, in other words, when one can win the "shell game" and guess which shell the conciliarists have hidden their poisoned pea.

There was the time in 1994 when the conciliar pastor of Saint Dominic's Church in Oyster Bay, New York, "Monsignor" Charles H. "Bud" Ribaudo, a true priest, was advertising a New Age conference. This is what I wrote about Ribaudo in 2004 (two years before I came to recognize that the conciliar officials held their offices illegitimately), shortly after he was removed by "Bishop" William Murphy following accusations, which Ribaudo denies to this day as being true, made by another conciliar "priest," Michael Hinds, that he had been abused by Ribaudo when he, Hinds, was a boy:

The appearance of Sri Sri Ravi Shankar at Saint Joseph’s Oratory [in Montreal, Candada] calls to mind an event that took place was just about ten years ago in Oyster Bay, New York. The [now] former pastor of Saint Dominic’s Church there, Monsignor Charles H. “Bud” Ribaudo, sponsored a day of “spirituality” in his parish that featured one New Age speaker after another. Ribaudo, who was removed as pastor in 2002 as a result of molestation allegations made by a priest, Father Michael Hinds (who became a molester himself), advertised himself in the flyer promoting the conference as a graduate of “est, Silva Mind Control, and Ira Progoff’s Intensive Journal Workshops.” In other words, Monsignor Bud Ribaudo was a practitioner of various “meditation” programs that were at odds with the entire patrimony of Divine Revelation and actually are tools of the devil to empty one’s mind so as to be open to one’s “inner self.” This prompted me to write a piece, “This Bud’s Not for You,” that was meant to get the attention of Roman authorities. Nothing happened. The then ordinary, the late Bishop John Raymond McGann, did nothing. Rome did nothing. In fact, Ribaudo would not have been removed as pastor in 2002 by Bishop William Murphy had it not been for the bad press generated by the allegations made by Father Hinds, something that Monsignor Frank Caldwell, then the director of priest personnel for the diocese, admitted before a grand jury in Suffolk County, New York. Bad press got rid of Monsignor Bud Ribaudo. The fact that he believed in New Age “spirituality” programs mattered not one little bit to Bishops John R. McGann or William Murphy. (ABC--Anything But Catholicism.)

 

One of the speakers at "Monsignor Bud's" 1994 conference was a woman who was listed as a member of a "parish" (I forget the name) in a New Jersey community. Well, I had an old "DOS" computer from which I could upload articles via an external phone modem link-up to send them to The Wanderer. However, I could not connect to the then nascent "world wide web," which did not have the sort of information that is readily available today. One had to have resource materials in one's possession or one had to go to that quaint place called the library to do old-fashioned research through books and journals and magazines and microfilm and microfiche files. It was in God's Providence that I had an copy of the P.J. Kenedy Official Catholic Directory that listed each of the parishes in the United States of America. There was no listing for the name of the "parish" in the New Jersey community that had been listed on "Monsignor Bud's" glossy flyer that advertised his New Age conference. There was a listing, however, in "directory assistance" for an Episcopalian "parish" in that New Jersey community. "Monsignor Bud" had been caught at the old conciliar shell game.

Something similar has happened in the Diocese of Joliet, Illinois, long a stronghold of Modernism and feminism, especially under the corrupt regime of the now retired conciliar "bishop" Joseph Imesch, out of whose corrupt ranks came the corrupt Daniel Leo Ryan, who made himself infamous as the corrupt conciliar "bishop" of the Diocese of Springfield in Illinois who was exposed by the courageous founder and president of Roman Catholic Faithful, Inc., Mr. Stephen G. Brady. Imesch, who was the conciliar "bishop" of Joliet from June 30, 1979, to May 16, 2006, was a product of the Modernist John "Cardinal" Dearden's factory of apostasy in the Archdiocese of Detroit, Michigan. "Conservative" Catholics breathed a sigh of relief in 2006 when James Sartain, formerly the conciliar "bishop" of Little Rock, Arkansas, was appointed by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI to replace Imesch, even more overjoyed when he, Sartain, permitted a modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition to be offered in what was called in Imesch's heyday "the People's Republic of Joliet.

Alas, "things" are no different in Joliet now than they were under Imesch. The old conciliar "shell game" continues to be played, aided and abetted by the silence of "conservative" and "traditionally-minded" Catholics who suffered battle fatigue from all of the warfare they fought with Imesch, who had the full support of the late Joseph "Cardinal" Bernardin to his north, and are now "grateful" to have a simulation of the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition. Thus it is that these "conservative" and "traditionally-minded" Catholics will have to keep their mouths shut as the conciliar shell game in Joliet, unmasked by a reader of this site who has chosen to remain anonymous, is played with the skill that we have come to expect from the conciliar revolutionaries:

Dr. Droleskey: Thought you might find this amusing:  everyone around the area feel that "Bishop Sartain" (because he brought in the Fraternity of St. Peter) is just an orthodox bishop, better than Imesch:  you might find this "Conference" of interest.

The Catholic faithful, if any are still to be found in the Joliet Diocese, (all are familiar with the infamous Joseph Imesch) should be scandalized beyond words that parish bulletins have announced that on March 28th a "Conference for Divorced and Widowed" will be sponsored by the St. Charles Pastoral Center in Romeoville.

"Father Richard Gilbert" is the advertised speaker  for the day of various workshops.  The day begins at 9 AM  and concludes at 4 PM with the Joliet Ordinary, Bishop Sartain presiding over what will probably be a very "joliet style" Novus Ordo Liturgy. The conference is going to "help participants come to a greater awareness that the death of a relationship is the death of a dream." Notice immediately here the flawed use of "relationship." The Catholic is married, they don't have "relationships." Keep reading, and perhaps you'll understand "relationship"  -which said word covers a multitude of sins today!

Father Richard Gilbert (as he is announced in many parish bulletins) will help you "transform through loss to become a new creation."  Again, more modernist lingo that says absolutely nothing, certainly nothing of any value for immortal souls.  We imagine this should make you feel all warm and glowing inside?   A yahoo or google search with his name reveals various Church bulletins of the diocese.

Who is Father Richard Gilbert?   The parish bulletins we read would have you possibly believe he was a Catholic priest, at least a "New Order" type. Only by going to the Joliet Diocese site do you come across the fact he happens to be an Anglican priest: http://www.dioceseofjoliet.org/familyministry  But alas, not just an ordinary Anglican priest.  Since the Anglican/Episcopal sect permits divorce and re-marriage (so-called) we might understand the New Church Joliet Diocese bringing this man in.  After all, they call "re-marriage" today as "annulment."

It gets better:  Father Richard Gilbert belongs to this denomination: http://eaca.org/wp/  If you click on the "Clergy" link you'll note that he and his "World Pastoral Care Center" are under the wing of the EACA.   The Evangelical Anglican Church In America is one that "provides a means by which and an ecclesial body in which sincere gay men, lesbians and bisexual persons, amongst others historically excluded, may answer Christ's call to the Church..."  In the article "The Evangelical Anglican Church in America  -an Introduction" it further tells us that "while
innumerable Church bodies continue to discourage many from full participation in worship, the life of the Church, based on sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, gender or social standing, EACA does not."

Of course they let you know they practice "unconditional love."  Beside offering "marriage" the EACA also mentions something along the line of "union" -which we leave to the Catholic mind to ponder what they might be talking about.

Just add this to the list of New Church decadence, which still calls itself as the "Catholic" Church.

 

Why should a Catholic have to go to such lengths to expose the shell games played by men who represent themselves to be, albeit falsely, officials of the Catholic Church? What precedent is there for this in the history of the Church?

I thank the unknown sender of this important and useful information for his diligent research, which demonstrates once again that mere fact that a conciliar "bishop" gives permission to a Motu community, such as the utterly-conciliar-compliant Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter, to simulate the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition in his diocese does not mean that a "restoration" of the Catholic Faith is underway. No, it is a true "synthesis" of elements of Catholicism with the entirety of conciliarism that is made more possible when a supposedly "conservative" or "traditionally-minded" conciliar "bishop" purchases the silence of would-be opponents of conciliar shell games by means of supposedly "generous" concessions to Catholics who are starved for any semblance of Catholicism after years of suffering under an open revolutionary.

Thus it is that Summorum Pontificum continues to serve its purpose as the diabolical trap that it was meant to be when it was issued on July 7, 2007. Just as many "conservative" Catholics have looked the other way over the past three decades or so at doctrinal and liturgical abuses in their dioceses because their local conciliar "bishop" prays at an abortuary once a month, so has it become increasingly the case that Catholics who used to howl and bay at the moon in face of these doctrinal and liturgical abuses (obviously, the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service is the liturgical abuse par excellence) have been rendered as mute as the Don Diego de la Vega's butler, Bernardo in the Zorro television series.

Having the "Mass" under any and all circumstances, including those wherein the Faith is perverted and distorted and when perversely sinful behavior is promoted under the aegis of diocesan conferences by means of the slogans of "diversity" and "tolerance" and "compassion," has become for many, although not all, traditionally-minded Catholics yet attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism as the "irreducible minimum of the Faith" that requires absolute and utter silence in the face of blasphemy, sacrilege, apostasy and the promotion of unrepentant, perversely sinful behavior in violation of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments.

These words of Pope Leo the Great apply to those who think that it is a "virtue" to remain silent in the face of offenses against the Faith in order to "maintain" a modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition that is offered, at least for the most part, by make-believe priests who are answerable to make-believe bishops:

But it is vain for them to adopt the name of catholic, as they do not oppose these blasphemies: they must believe them, if they can listen so patiently to such words. (Pope Saint Leo the Great, Epistle XIV, To Anastasius, Bishop of Thessalonica, St. Leo the Great | Letters 1-59 )

 

It has long been the goal of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI to purchase the silence of traditionally-minded Catholics in the conciliar structures concerning the apostasies and innovations and novelties of conciliarism, which include, of course, the actual daily practices and allocutions of the conciliar "pontiffs" and their conciliar "bishops" and their appointees. As I have noted in several recent commentaries, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI meant every word of the following passage from Principles of Catholic Theology when it was written, and he has been putting these words into practice ever since he became the conciliar church's "successor" to Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II on April 19, 2005:

Among the more obvious phenomena of the last years must be counted the increasing number of integralist groups in which the desire for piety, for the sense of mystery, is finding satisfaction. We must be on our guard against minimizing these movements. Without a doubt, they represent a sectarian zealotry that is the antithesis of Catholicity. We cannot resist them too firmly. (Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, pp. 389-390)

 

Those who desire to take refuge in the false, self-serving, positivist and delusional belief that Ratzinger/Benedict has changed must reckon with his, Ratzinger/Benedict's, own statement that he is the same now, at least substantially, as he has been always, which means that he is the same committed conciliar revolutionary now as he was when he served as a peritus ("expert") at the "Second" Vatican Council:

I've been taken apart various times: in my first phase as professor and in the intermediate phase, during my first phase as Cardinal and in the successive phase. Now comes a new division. Of course circumstances and situations and even people influence you because you take on different responsibilities. Let's say that my basic personality and even my basic vision have grown, but in everything that is essential I have remained identical. I'm happy that certain aspects that weren't noticed at first are now coming into the open. (Interview with Bayerische Rundfunk (ARD), ZDF, Deutsche Welle and Vatican Radio)

 

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is on a veritable "crusade" to institutionalize the errors of the "Second" Vatican Council by means of his insane, logically absurd and dogmatically condemned "hermeneutic of continuity and discontinuity." He is using the precepts of the condemned "new theology" as the means to "strip away" what he considers to be the "corrupting" "filter" provided by Saint Thomas Aquinas and Scholasticism so that he, Ratzinger/Benedict, can attempt to coerce perjury out of Saint Paul the Apostle and the Fathers of the Church to make them serve as "witnesses" in behalf of conciliarism's various apostasies (false ecumenism, inter-religious "prayer" services, the new ecclesiology, a Lutheran view of the Doctrine of Justification, religious liberty, separation of Church and State, episcopal collegiality). And Ratzinger/Benedict is, reports have it, on the verge of realizing his desire to effect the "reform of the reform" that will, in time, eclipse the "need" for the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition and thus consolidate the conciliar doctrinal revolution in a liturgical form that will be "acceptable" to large numbers of traditionally-minded Catholics who are so tired of fighting the Novus Ordo battles that they are willing to "settle" for the "reform of the reform" no matter the cost to the Faith itself.

Here is the report that indicates that Ratzinger/Benedict is about the give those attached to the counterfeit church of conciliarism a "Benedictine" "missal."

According to leads from sources close to Archbishop Burke, the Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, Pope Benedict XVI is set to abolish the Novus Ordo by introducing a New Missal of Benedict XVI. It is reported that the proceedings are being carried out behind closed doors but some leaks have come through of what it will entail:

• The Liturgy of the Eucharist will more closely reflect the Mass of the Faithful in the Missal of Pius V.
  
• The expanded lectionary will remain intact for the Liturgy of the Word.
  
• The "peace" will be moved away from the eucharistic prayers and more toward the beginning of the mass, or just after the creed.
  
• Various eucharistic prayers from the Missal of Paul VI (Novus Ordo) will be entirely suppressed. The calendars for both the Novus Ordo and Tridentine will be reconciled

 

It is also being said that the new 'Benedictine' Missal will contain rubrics for both the Ordinary and Extraordinary Mass, presumably in an attempt to mould the Ordinary Form into the dignified liturgy VII had intended.(Pope to abolish Novus Ordo; new Missal being planned)

 

If this report is true, then the following statements that have been reported in the past two years since the issuance of Summorum Pontificum take on additional significance:

Father Lombardi continued: "Neither the Missal of Pius V and John XXIII -- used by a small minority -- nor that of Paul VI -- used today with much spiritual fruit by the greatest majority -- will be the final 'law of prayer' of the Catholic Church. (Zenit, July 15, 2007.)

From this point of view, then, the new prayer for the Jews in the liturgy in the ancient rite does not weaken, but postulates an enrichment of the meaning of the prayer in use in the modern rite. Exactly like in other cases, it is the modern rite that postulates an enriching evolution of the ancient rite. In a liturgy that is perennially alive, as the Catholic liturgy is, this is the meaning of the coexistence between the two rites, ancient and modern, as intended by Benedict XVI with the motu proprio "Summorum Pontificum."

This is a coexistence that is not destined to endure, but to fuse in the future "in a single Roman rite once again," taking the best from both of these. This is what then-cardinal Ratzinger wrote in 2003 – revealing a deeply held conviction – in a letter to an erudite representative of Lefebvrist traditionalism, the German philologist Heinz-Lothar Barth. (Sandro Magister, A Bishop and a Rabbi Defend the Prayer for the Salvation of the Jews.)

 

The details of the putative "Benedictine" "missal" may be years away from being made public. Ratzinger/Benedict may never live long enough to issue his "missal." It is nevertheless interesting, however, to note that Ratzinger/Benedict is demonstrating that he meant it in his "explanatory letter" to the conciliar "bishops" that accompanied the issuance of Summorum Pontificum when he wrote the following:

It is true that there have been exaggerations and at times social aspects unduly linked to the attitude of the faithful attached to the ancient Latin liturgical tradition. Your charity and pastoral prudence will be an incentive and guide for improving these. For that matter, the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching: new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal.  The “Ecclesia Dei” Commission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the usus antiquior, will study the practical possibilities in this regard. The celebration of the Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI will be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than has been the case hitherto, the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage.  The most sure guarantee that the Missal of Paul VI can unite parish communities and be loved by them consists in its being celebrated with great reverence in harmony with the liturgical directives. This will bring out the spiritual richness and the theological depth of this Missal. (Letter to the "Bishops" that accompanies the Motu Proprio Summorum)

 

That is, those Motu communities and venues using the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition will have to start "celebrating" the feasts of some of the "saints" "canonized" by the counterfeit church of conciliarism, including that of the soon-to-be "Blessed" "Pope John Paul the Great." This "feast" will not be an "optional memorial," to use the parlance of the Novus Ordo rubrics. Karol Wojtyla's "feast day" may be ranked as a "feast," which is a rank higher than that of a mandatory "memorial" in the new liturgical order of things in the conciliar world.

There are at least some traditionally-minded Catholics yet attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism who opposed Wojtyla/John Paul II with great intellectual vigor. Some of these people have clung to the 1984 and 1988 "indults" and now cling to Summorum Pontificum, which is, as Father Basil Meramo of the Society of Saint Pius X noted in December of 2007, nothing but a trap to purchase silence about conciliarism's multiple defections from the Catholic Faith. Having to assist at a quasi-traditional Mass, whether real or simulated, offered to celebrate the "feast" of the future "Saint John Paul the Great" will be a bitter pill for them to swallow.

Indeed, some of these people, including at least a few "priests" in the Motu communities, will have great qualms of conscience over the "beatification" and subsequent "canonization" of Karol Wojtyla as they know that a man who presided over blasphemous, sacrilegious liturgies and who denied articles contained in the Deposit of Faith and exposed souls to the spiritual and bodily dangers posed by predator "bishops" and "priests" is not a fit candidate for canonization. Some of these people will have a real choice to make at that time as they know that canonization is an infallible act of the Catholic Church. Decisions will have to be made to ignore such a travesty or to come to the realization, at long last, that such a canonization by the Catholic Church is impossible, that she would never "canonize" a man who defected from the Faith in multiple ways and who failed even to discharge the duties of the office he thought he held by indemnifying "bishops" who made war against God as they played shell games with the souls He redeemed by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross.

Remember, Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II protected the morally corrupt Father Marcial Maciel Degollado, the founder of the cash-crazy Legionaries of Christ and its satellites who molested his own seminarians and fathered a child during Wojtyla's false "pontificate" (Catholic Order Jolted by Reports That Its Founder Led a Double Life). Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II provided a safe haven for Bernard "Cardinal' Law, the former conciliar "archbishop" of Boston who presided over the systematic cover-up and protection of priest-molesters, including the founder, Father Paul Shanley, of an unspeakably pervere organization, by making him, Law, the "archpriest" of the Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore. Wojtyla/John Paull was a supporter of "Catholic Charismatic Renewal" and Foclorare and Cursillo and Communion and Liberation and other such "lay movements" whose beliefs and practices are at odds with the Catholic Faith. "Saint John Paul the Great"? Celebrate his "feast day" in the Motu communities?

No man who said and did these things, catalogued and published on the Traditio site, is a fit candidate for "canonization" by the Catholic Church:

1. On May 4, 1980, he presided from a straw hut over an ordination ceremony and native Mess of people undulating to the rhythm of tom-toms, accompanied by accordions and guitars.
2. In 1981, he sat on his throne while acrobatic performers, dressed in little more than a g-string, performed in the modernistic Hall of Paul VI at the Vatican.
3. In February 1982, he presided over a "dance" Mess in Libreville.
4. On December 11, 1983, he preached in a Lutheran church at Rome.
5. On May 8, 1984, he presided over a Mess in Papua-New Guinea at which male and female dancers, nude from the waist up, danced; an aboriginal woman, also nude from the waist up, read the Epistle.
6. In September 1984, he presided over a Mess at Yellow Knife, Canada, at which a pagan Indian chief invoked the Great Spirit and presented the pope at the Offertory with an eagle feather dipped in blood. The pope put aside his religious garb and dressed in an Indian costume.
7. In 1985, he told 50,000 Moslems in Morocco: "We and you believe in the same God, the one God and the only God."
8. In August 1985, he presided over "dance" Messes in Cameroon and Garoua.
9. On August 8, 1985, he visited Togo and prayed in a "Sacred Forest" consecrated to the worship of pagan gods and participated in a pagan initiation ritual in a grove sacred to the pagan animists.
10. In 1986, he presided over a Mess in Fiji at which the thurifer was an aboriginal dressed only in a loin-cloth; he is said to have witnessed there a pagan animal sacrifice.
11. In February 2, 1986, he was marked with cow dung, the "Tilac," the sign of the adorers of the pagan goddess Shiva, by a Hindu priestess at Bombay.
12. On June 24, 1986, he sat with Grand Rabbi Elio Toaff in the sanctuary of the Jewish synagogue at Rome while the Jewish hymn, Awaiting the Messias, was sung. He stood there while the Jews, by that hymn, implicitly denied that Christ was the Messias.
13. On October 27, 1986, he participated in an "oecumenical prayer meeting" at Assisi, Italy. At this meeting the Church of St. Peter was given to the Buddhists, who placed a golden statue of Buddha on top of the tabernacle on the main Novus Ordo "table" together with a banner displaying the words "I go in for Buddha's law." The Dalai Lama sat with his back to the Blessed Sacrament removed to the side, and a statue of Our Lady of Fatima was denied entrance to the church (Il Giorno of October 28, 1986). At this meeting the Church of San Giorgio was given to the American Indians, who proceeded to introduce witch-doctors "shaking their enormous feathered headcloth and invoking Manito, blessed men and women, by rubbing their heads and backs with a white-feathered fan," while Catholic religious and priests participated. (Il Messaggero of October 27, 1986)
14. In 1989, the Pope visited Norway and the Scandinavian nations and held an oecumenical service in the cathedral of Nidaros. (Vatican News Service VIS, of November 18, 2002)
15. On January 9-10, 1993, he brought together Christian, Muslim, and Jewish leaders for another "oecumenical prayer meeting" to pray for an end to the war with the Mohammedan Bosnians.
16. On February 4, 1993, he engaged in dialogues with the high priests and witch doctors of Voodoo.
17. In 1994, he smeared the pitch from a native tree on his face instead of incensing the Novus Ordo "table" during a beatification ceremony in Australia.
18. In 1995, he approved the building of the first Mohammedan minaret in Rome.
19. In 1995, he took part in the official Smoking Ceremony at Randwick Racecourse in Sydney, Australia.
20. In December 1996, when the Archbishop of Canterbury, then George Carey, and several of his brother Anglican bishops came to Rome, John Paul II gave Carey a gold pectoral cross, the same gift he offers to Catholic archbishops on their ad limina visits. He offered silver pectoral crosses to the other Anglicans. According to Catholic theology, Anglican bishops aren't really bishops at all, and hence have no business sporting the symbols of the bishop's office. Notre Dame theologian Fr. Richard McBrien has argued that John Paul II could thereby be guilty of the canonical offense of falsifying the sacrament of Holy Orders by complicity in the fiction that the Anglicans really are bishops, a potentially excommunicable offense by the pope.
21. September 27, 1997, on the occasion of the Eucharistic Congress in Bologna in preparation for the New Millennium, he had a special on-stage seat for a rock concert given before 250,000 spectators by rock star Bob Dylan. After he commented positively on the rock music and the junk culture represented by the concert.
22. On April 6, 1997, he omitted the Filioque from the Credo on the occasion of the 1700th anniversary of the Constantinople I Council and on oecumenical occasions. (Eastern Catholic Life)
23. In 1998, he gave communion, at a private Mess in the Vatican, to the late Rev. Sheila Brown, who had only shortly before been ordained an Anglican priestess and who, at that Mess, wore her "Roman" collar.
24. On November 23, 1998, he shared the Novus Ordo "table" of St. Peter's with bare-chested, bare-footed tribesmen from Oceania holding spears, "searching for new impulses." (Associated Press)
25. In 1999, he gave communion to several Lutheran bishops who were his guests during a Mess in the pope's private chapel in the Vatican. (London Tablet)
26. On June 1, 1999, at the end of an audience, he bowed to the Mohammedan holy book, the Koran, presented to him by the delegation, and he kissed it as a sign of respect. The photo of that gesture has been shown repeatedly on Iraqi television. (June 4, 1999, Fides - Vatican News Service of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples)
27. On January 18, 2000, he allowed Rev. George Carey, the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury and Eastern Orthodox Metropolitan Athanasius to participate in their official capacities at the opening of the Holy Door during the 2000 Holy Year.
28. On January 24, 2002, he hosted yet another "oecumenical prayer meeting" at Assisi for "peace." This time the leaders included not just the usual Eastern Orthodox, Protestants, and Jews, but also leaders of "Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, Jianism, Confucianism, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism, and followers of Tenrikyo and African tribal religions." (Associated Press)
29. In August 2002, during the "inculturated" liturgy at the beatification of Juan Bautista and Jacinto de los Angeles, the pope allowed an Indian woman to approach him in the sanctuary and rub him down with smoked herbs that are supposed to purify the subject and exorcise "evil spirits."
30. On October 6, 2002, schismatic Patriarch Teoctist of the Romanian Orthodox church arrived in Rome for the start of a weeklong visit. At a Novus Ordo service on that day, John Paul II embraced Teoctist in brotherly fashion before a crowd of 200,000 and ensured that Teoctist was seated in an exact duplicate of the papal throne. It was not the behavior of someone who believed in his own primacy. In fact, all the week's choreography seemed designed to make the two prelates seem like equally eminent heads of churches.
31. On February 23, 2002, he gave communion, at a private Mess in the Vatican, to the Protestant Anglican prime minister of Britain, Tony Blair. (Traditio Commentaries May 2008)

 

This is a stupefying list of offenses against God committed by man who will be, it appears, "beatified" by the counterfeit church of conciliarism next year, a man whose "feast," will, of course, be mandated in the "ordinary" and the "extraordinary" forms of the counterfeit church of conciliarism's "Roman Rite." And this list, as stupefying as it is, is only incomplete. It does not include the documetation of the way in which Wojtyla lost the faith as a teenager (see "Connecting" with Betrayal) or the fact that this false "pontiff" claimed the Old Covenant had never been revoked by God:

“The first dimension of this dialogue, that is, the meeting between the people of the Old Covenant, never revoked by God, and that of the New Covenant, is at the same time a dialogue within our Church, that is to say, between the first and second part of her Bible ... Jews and Christians, as children of Abraham, are called to be a blessing to the world. By committing themselves together for peace and justice among all men and peoples." Cited by John Vennari in Secret of John Paul II's Success. The full text is available on the Vatican website in Italian and German. Here are is the relevant passages in these two languages, including a paragraph not cited by Mr. Vennari:

Non si tratta soltanto della correzione di una falsa visuale religiosa del popolo ebraico, che nel corso della storia fu in parte concausa di misconoscimenti e persecuzioni, ma prima di tutto del dialogo tra le due religioni, che - con l’islam - poterono donare al mondo la fede nel Dio unico e ineffabile che ci parla, e lo vogliono servire a nome di tutto ii mondo.

La prima dimensione di questo dialogo, cioè l’incontro tra il popolo di Dio del Vecchio Testamento, da Dio mai denunziato (cf. Rm 11,29), e quello del Nuovo Testamento, è allo stesso tempo un dialogo all’interno della nostra Chiesa, per così dire tra la prima e la seconda parte della sua Bibbia. In proposito dicono le direttive per l’applicazione della dichiarazione conciliare “Nostra Aetate”: “Ci si sforzerà di comprendere meglio tutto ciò che nell’Antico Testamento conserva un valore proprio e perpetuo..., poiché questo valore non è stato obliterato dall’ulteriore interpretazione del Nuovo Testamento, la quale al contrario ha dato all’Antico il suo significato più compiuto, cosicché reciprocamente il Nuovo riceve dall’Antico luce e spiegazione” (Nostra Aetate, II) (Meeting with the representatives of the Hebrew community, Mainz, Germany, 17 November 1980, Italian)

Dabei geht es nicht nur um die Berichtigung einer falschen religiösen Sicht des Judenvolkes, welche die Verkennungen und Verfolgungen im Lauf der Geschichte zum Teil mitverursachte, sondern vor allem um den Dialog zwischen den zwei Religionen, die - mit dem Islam - der Welt den Glauben an den einen, unaussprechlichen, uns ansprechenden Gott schenken durften und stellvertretend für die ganze Welt ihm dienen wollen.

Die erste Dimension dieses Dialogs, nämlich die Begegnung zwischen dem Gottesvolk des von Gott nie gekündigten Alten Bundes, ist zugleich ein Dialog innerhalb unserer Kirche, gleichsam zwischen dem ersten und zweiten Teil ihrer Bibel. Hierzu sagen die Richtlinien für die Durchführung der Konzilserklärung ”Nostra aetate“: ”Man muß bemüht sein, besser zu verstehen, was im Alten Testament von eigenem und bleibendem Wert ist..., da dies durch die spätere Interpretation im Licht des Neuen Testaments, die ihm seinen vollen Sinn gibt, nicht entwertet wird, so daß sich vielmehr eine gegenseitige Beleuchtung und Ausdeutung ergibt“. (Meeting with the representatives of the Hebrew community, Mainz, Germany, 17 November 1980, German)

The Catholic Church could never honor a man who spoke in such apostate terms, no less to "beatify" and "canonize" such a man and then place his "feast day" on her universal calendar.

For those who want to live in blissful ignorance, however, such a "feast day" will be accepted without complaint. Changes to the 1961-1962 Missal of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII will be accepted without a peep. And if it turns out that the "Benedictine" "missal" does indeed become a reality, there will be few complaints in a decade or so when some future conciliar "pope," barring Divine intervention before that time to place a true Catholic on the Throne of Saint Peter once again, issues his own "missal" to institutionalize the "reform of the reform" once and for all as the vestigial shell of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition is consigned finally to a few odd nooks and crannies in the One World Ecumenical Church.

After all, one can get a pretty "reverent" simulation of the liturgy in an "Anglo-Catholic" setting in the "worldwide Anglican Communion" without having to subscribe to everything contained in the Deposit of Faith as It has been entrusted by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ exclusively to the Catholic Church for Its eternal safekeeping and infallible explication. The same is true now in the Motu world. It will be even truer if the "Benedictine" "missal" becomes a reality and all remaining voices of traditionally-minded Catholics who are attached to the counterfeit church of conciliarism are invited to accept this "missal" as they cease and desist from all opposition to the letter and the spirit of conciliarism.

This is what the Society of Saint Pius X will "get" for being "recognized" by the "pope" and the "bishops" they have "resisted" up until now. They will be as neutralized as every over indult/Motu community has been. The words of the then Father Daniel Dolan in 1983, quoted by His Excellency Bishop Donald A. Sanborn in his Logical Chickens Coming Home to Roost: A Commentary on Recent Events in SSPX, will have proved to be absolutely accurate and prophetic:

I remember standing in the porch of the Ridgefield seminary in April of 1983, not far away from Archbishop Lefebvre, the then-Fr. Williamson, and Fr. Roch. They were laughing about the accusation that the then-Fr. Dolan had made to the laity — that the Archbishop would one day lead traditionalists straight back to the Novus Ordo. Well, his SSPX is on Ratzinger’s front porch now — and there is nothing to laugh about any more. (Logical Chickens Coming Home to Roost: A Commentary on Recent Events in SSPX; a list of the major errors of the Society of Saint Pius X, compiled by Mr. Michael Creighton by way of discrediting an article that appeared on the Tradition in Action site last year, is appended at the end of this commentary.)

 

We fight for the Catholic Faith in Its entirety without any taint of corruption by or compromise with conciliarism. A "Mass" that is designed to institutionalize conciliarism in the name of an insane "hermeneutic of continuity and discontinuity" is nothing about which to celebrate or rejoice. Indeed, such a "reform of the reform" is merely another conciliar shell game designed to convince Catholics that there is some way of making "stable" and "permanent" doctrinal and liturgical revolutions whose antecedent roots were condemned by pope after pope prior to 1958 and which have shown themselves to be enemies of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and of the souls for whom He offered Himself up to His Co-Eternal and Co-Equal Father on the wood of the Holy Cross.

The Faith of our Fathers teaches us that the Catholic Church cannot give us defective liturgies that are offensive to God and that her true pontiffs cannot give us error on matters of Faith and morals. It is this Faith, the true Faith, that has been maintained in the Catholic catacombs by true bishops and true priests who have made no concessions to conciliarism or to the nonexistent "legitimacy" of its false shepherds.

Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ did not became Incarnate in Our Lady's Virginal and Immaculate Womb on this day so that we could live our Catholic lives in the midst of obfuscation and uncertainty about what is authentically Catholic and what is not. The Catholic Faith is meant to be clear and easy for the mind to grasp as we give the assent of the mind and the will to all that she teaches as her Divine Bridegroom, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, has revealed them, Who canst neither deceive nor be deceived.

Pope Pius XI made this point abundantly clear in Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928:

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.

 

Can it get any clearer? The Catholic Church never plays "shell games" with souls.

We pray to Our Lady on this day when she untied the knot of Eve's prideful disobedience by her perfect Fiat to the will of God the Father, the First Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, as she made Incarnate in her Virginal and Immaculate Womb God the Son, the Second Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, by the power of God the Holy Ghost, the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity. We pray to Our Lady always. We know that the Triumph of her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart will vanquish the foes of the Faith in the world and in the counterfeit church of conciliarism once and for all. Every Rosary we pray, offered to the Most Holy Trinity through that same Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, will plant a few seeds for this triumph, especially as we spend time in prayer before her Divine Son's Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament.

What are we waiting for?

A blessed Feast of the Annunciation of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to you all!

 

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.

 

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!

 

Saint Joseph, Patron of Departing Souls, 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.

See also: A Litany of Saints

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

 

A List of the Major Errors of the Society of Saint Pius X as Compiled by Mr. Michael Creignton (who has given permission for its use)

To briefly enumerate some of the problems in the SSPX, they are:

1  A rejection of the of the ordinary magisterium (Vatican I; Session III - Dz1792) which must be divinely revealed. For instance Paul VI claimed that the new mass and Vatican II were his “Supreme Ordinary Magisterium” and John Paul II promulgated his catechism which contains heresies and errors in Fide Depositum by his “apostolic authority” as “the sure norm of faith and doctrine” and bound everyone by saying who believes what was contained therein is in “ecclesial communion”, that is in the Church.

2  A rejection of the divinely revealed teaching expressed in Vatican I , Session IV, that the faith of Peter [the Pope] cannot fail. Three ancient councils are quoted to support this claim. (2nd Lyons, 4th Constantinople & Florence). Pope Paul IV’s bull Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio teaches the same in the negative sense of this definition.

3  A distortion of canon law opposed to virtually all the canonists of the Church prior to Vatican II which tell us a heretical pope ipso facto loses his office by the operation of the law itself and without any declaration. This is expressed in Canon 188.4 which deals with the divine law and footnotes Pope Paul IV’s bull, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio. The SSPX pretends that sections of the code on penalties somehow apply to the pope which flatly contradicted by the law itself. The SSPX pretends that jurisdiction remains in force when the code clearly says jurisdiction is lost and only ‘acts’ of jurisdiction are declared valid until the person is found out (canons 2264-2265). This is simply to protect the faithful from invalid sacraments, not to help heretics retain office and destroy the Church. Charisms of the office, unlike indelible sacraments, require real jurisdiction. The SSPX pretends that penalties of the censure of ipso facto excommunication cannot apply to cardinals since it reserved to Holy See (canon 2227). This is another fabrication since the law does not refer to automatic (latae sententiae) penalties but only to penalties in which a competent judge is needed to inflict or declare penalties on offenders. Therefore it only refers to condemnatory and declaratory sentences but not automatic sentences. To say that ipso facto does not mean what it says is also condemned by Pope Pius VI in Auctorem Fide.

4  The SSPX holds a form of the Gallican heresy that falsely proposes a council can depose a true pope. This was already tried by the Council of Basle and just as history condemned those schismatics, so it will condemn your Lordship. This belief also denies canon 1556 “The First See is Judged by no one.” This of course means in a juridical sense of judgment, not remaining blind to apostasy, heresy and crime which automatically takes effect.

5  The SSPX denies the visible Church must manifest the Catholic faith. They claim that somehow these men who teach heresy can’t know truth. This is notion has been condemned by Vatican I, Session III, Chapter 2. It is also condemned by canon 16 of the 1917 code of canon law. Clearly LaSalette has been fulfilled. Rome is the seat of anti-Christ & the Church is eclipsed. Clearly, our Lords words to Sr. Lucy at Rianjo in 1931 have come to pass. His “Ministers [Popes] have followed the kings of France into misfortune”.

6  The SSPX reject every doctor of the Church and every Church father who are unanimous in stating a heretic ipso facto is outside the Church and therefore cannot possess jurisdiction & pretends that is only their opinion when St. Robert states “... it is proven, with arguments from authority and from reason, that the manifest heretic is ipso facto deposed.” The authority he refers to is the magisterium of the Church, not his own opinion.

7  Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis is misinterpreted by the SSPX to validly elect a heretic to office against the divine law. A public heretic cannot be a cardinal because he automatically loses his office. This decree only refers to cardinals and hence it does not apply to ex-cardinals who automatically lost their offices because they had publicly defected from the Catholic faith. The cardinals mentioned in this decree who have been excommunicated are still Catholic and still cardinals; hence their excommunication does not cause them to become non-Catholics and lose their offices, as does excommunication for heresy and public defection from the Catholic faith. This is what the Church used to call a minor excommunication. All post 1945 canonists concur that Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis does not remove ipso facto excommunication: Eduardus F. Regatillo (1956), Matthaeus Conte a Coronata (1950), Serapius Iragui (1959), A. Vermeersch - I. Creusen (1949), Udalricus Beste (1946) teach that a pope or cardinal or bishop who becomes a public heretic automatically loses his office and a public heretic cannot legally or validly obtain an office. Even supposing this papal statement could apply to non-Catholics (heretics), Pope Pius XII goes on to say “at other times they [the censures] are to remain in vigor” Does this mean the Pope intends that a notorious heretic will take office and then immediately lose his office? It is an absurd conclusion, hence we must respect the interpretation of the Church in her canonists.

Errors/Heresies typical of an SSPX chapel attendees & priests:

1)  We are free to reject rites promulgated by the Church. [Condemned by Trent Session VII, Canon XIII/Vatican I, Session II]

2)  The Pope can’t be trusted to make judgments on faith and morals. We have to sift what is Catholic. [Condemned by Vatican I, Session IV, Chapter III.]

3) We are free to reject or accept ordinary magisterial teachings from a pope since they can be in error. This rejection may include either the conciliar ‘popes’ when teach heresy or the pre-conciliar popes in order to justify the validity of the conciliar popes jurisdiction, sacraments, etc [Condemned by Vatican I (Dz1792)/Satis Cognitum #15 of Leo XIII]

4)  The Kantian doctrine of unknowability of reality. We can’t know what is heresy, therefore we can’t judge. [Condemned by Vatican I, Session III, Chapter 2: On Revelation, Jn7:24].

5)  The faith of the Pope can fail. Frequently this is expressed as “we work for” or “we pray for the Popes conversion to the Catholic faith”. [condemned by Vatican I and at least 3 earlier councils mentioned above].

6)  Universal salvation, ecumenism, religious liberty, validity of the Old Covenant, etc. can be interpreted in a Catholic sense. [Condemned by every saint, every doctor of the Church and every Pope who comments on such issues; for instance Pope Eugene IV (Cantate Domino – Council of Florence)]

7)  Contraries can be true. [Hegelian doctrine against Thomistic Philosophy]. If these positions appear to be contradictory, they are.

When I point out these positions are against the Faith, frequently the Hegelian doctrine is employed by those in attendance at the SSPX chapel.

(Thank you, Mr. Creighton.)