Taking Catholics For Fools

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Although we are still nine days away from what promises to be a celebration of conciliarism in England and Scotland as Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI commences his four day visit there on Thursday, September 16, 2010, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI continues to take Catholics for fools as he attempt to make our true popes witnesses in behalf of conciliarism, extracting false, perjured testimony from them as he has done with the likes of Saint Paul and Saint Augustine. The man is shameless, truly shameless in these efforts.

Ratzinger/Benedict has stooped to a new level even for him as he seeks to make Pope Leo XIII, who was committed to the restoration of Catholicism as the one and only foundation of personal and social order, a precursor of conciliarism. This is of the devil himself. It has no other source:

VATICAN CITY, 5 SEP 2010 (VIS) - This morning Benedict XVI made a pastoral visit to Carpineto Romano, a small town located eighty kilometres north of Rome, to mark the bicentenary of the birth of Vincenzo Gioacchino Pecci, a native of Carpineto who later became Pope Leo XIII.

The Holy Father celebrated Mass in the town's main square in the presence of several thousand faithful. In his homily he commented on today's Gospel readings, which concern the primacy of God and of Christ. In this context he noted that Leo XIII "was a man of great faith and profound devotion. This remains the basis of everything, for all Christians including the Pope", he said, "without prayer; that is, without the inner union with God, we can do nothing, as Jesus made clear to His disciples during the Last Supper".

"Absolutely nothing comes before the love of God and of Christ. And Vincenzo Gioacchino Pecci absorbed this primary and principal quality here, in his hometown, from his parents and from his parish", said the Pope.

He then highlighted "another aspect deriving from the primacy of God and Christ, which is to be found in the public activity of all pastors of the Church particularly the Supreme Pontiff, each with the characteristics specific to his own personality. ... All pastors are called to transmit to the People of God not abstract truths but a 'wisdom'; in other words, a message that unites faith and life, truth and tangible reality. Pope Leo XIII, with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, was able to do this in one of the most difficult historical periods for the Church, remaining faithful to tradition while, at the same time, measuring himself against the great questions of his day".

Leo XIII's social Magisterium was made famous "by his 1891 Encyclical 'Rerum novarum', but it was also rich in many other contributions which together make an organic corpus, the first nucleus of Church social doctrine", said Pope Benedict.

In this context he also mentioned the 1890 Encyclical "Catholicae Ecclesiae" on the subject of slavery. "The new Christian fraternity overcame the separation between slaves and freemen, introducing into history the principle of human promotion which would lead to the abolition of slavery, but also to overcoming barriers that still exist today".

On the subject of the "human promotion which Christianity brought to the progress of civilisation", the Pope highlighted how "Christians, acting as individual citizens or in associations, represent a beneficial and peaceful force for profound change, favouring the development of potentials inherent to reality itself. This is the form of presence and activity in the world suggested by Church social doctrine which always aims at maturity of conscience as a condition for valid and lasting transformation".

"During a period of harsh anticlericalism and virulent demonstrations against the Pope, Leo XIII was able to guide and support Catholics along the path of constructive participation, rich in content, firm in its principles yet capable of openness. The immediate wake of the publication of 'Rerum novarum' was followed, in Italy and other countries, by a veritable explosion of initiatives: associations, savings societies for rural workers and artisans, newspapers, etc. ... Thus, a very old but wise and farsighted Pope was able to steer a rejuvenated Church into the twentieth century, with an attitude appropriate to facing new challenges. He was a Pope still politically and physically 'prisoner' of the Vatican but in reality, with his Magisterium, he represented a Church capable of facing, without too many complexes, the great questions of the modern age".

The Holy Father concluded by expressing "the old but ever new commandment to love one another as Christ lived us, and with this love to be salt and light of the world. Thus will you be faithful to the heritage of your great and venerated fellow citizen, Pope Leo XIII. And thus may it be for the whole the Church!" (BENEDICT XVI RECALLS LEO XIII ON BICENTENARY OF HIS BIRTH .)

 

This is a reprehensible, selective, intellectually dishonest reading and misrepresentation of the work of Pope Leo XIII. It is villainous.

Pope Leo certainly did make concessions to the reality of the the French Third Republic, for which some French monarchists and papal historians have faulted him, as he sought to encourage the participation of Catholics in its structures in the hope that they could recapture Holy Mother Church's elder daughter, France, for the Holy Faith while continuing to be stalwart in his promotion of the obligation of the civil state to recognize the Catholic Church as the true religion and to pursue the common temporal good in light of man's Last End. It is very interesting that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI made no mention of the fact that Pope Leo XIII forbade Catholics from participating in the parliamentary elections of the anticlerical, Masonic government of Italy.

Omitted from Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's perverse "celebration" of the two hundredth anniversary of the birth of Pope Leo XIII is the late pontiff's firm rejection of the signs of "respect" and "toleration" of false religions that have been the hallmark of the "magisterium" of the conciliar "pontificates," including those of the late Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II and of Ratzinger/Benedict's himself. Although the passage below from Custodi Di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892, has been quoted many times on this site, permit me to do so again in order to illustrate that Pope Leo XIII was the anti-Benedict XVI just as much as the latter is a prefiguring of Antichrist:

Everyone should avoid familiarity or friendship with anyone suspected of belonging to masonry or to affiliated groups. Know them by their fruits and avoid them. Every familiarity should be avoided, not only with those impious libertines who openly promote the character of the sect, but also with those who hide under the mask of universal tolerance, respect for all religions, and the craving to reconcile the maxims of the Gospel with those of the revolution. These men seek to reconcile Christ and Belial, the Church of God and the state without God. (Pope Leo XIII, Custodi di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892.)

 

Who has exalted the state without God? Come on, are you serious? You know. Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI:

What matters is the value attributed to the problem of meaning and its implication in public life. By separating Church and State, the Republican revolution which took place 100 years ago in Portugal, opened up a new area of freedom for the Church, to which the two concordats of 1940 and 2004 would give shape, in cultural settings and ecclesial perspectives profoundly marked by rapid change. For the most part, the sufferings caused by these transformations have been faced with courage. Living amid a plurality of value systems and ethical outlooks requires a journey to the core of one’s being and to the nucleus of Christianity so as to reinforce the quality of one’s witness to the point of sanctity, and to find mission paths that lead even to the radical choice of martyrdom. (Official Reception at Lisbon Portela International Airport, Tuesday, May 11, 2010; see also Mocking Pope Saint Pius X and Our Lady of Fatima and Mocking Pope Saint Pius X and Our Lady of Fatima.)

 

Ratzinger/Benedict contemptible disregard of truth is contradicted by Pope Leo XIII's consistent reiteration of the unchanging and unchangeable Social Teaching of the Catholic Church that he has rejected while defending his apostasy as in keeping with Catholic Tradition according to his philosophically absurd and dogmatically condemned "hermeneutic of continuity and discontinuity (see Witness Against Benedict XVI: The Oath Against Modernism). Pope Leo XIII reiterated the Catholic Church's consistent condemnation of the thesis termed absolutely false by his immediate successor on the Throne of Saint Peter, Pope Saint Pius X, the separation of Church and State, in the very encyclical letter, Au Milieu Des Sollicitudes, in which he urged French Catholics to join together despite their dissensions to try to make the French Third Republic one which would not be hostile to the truths of the Faith:

We shall not hold to the same language on another point, concerning the principle of the separation of the State and Church, which is equivalent to the separation of human legislation from Christian and divine legislation. We do not care to interrupt Ourselves here in order to demonstrate the absurdity of such a separation; each one will understand for himself. As soon as the State refuses to give to God what belongs to God, by a necessary consequence it refuses to give to citizens that to which, as men, they have a right; as, whether agreeable or not to accept, it cannot be denied that man's rights spring from his duty toward God. Whence if follows that the State, by missing in this connection the principal object of its institution, finally becomes false to itself by denying that which is the reason of its own existence. These superior truths are so clearly proclaimed by the voice of even natural reason, that they force themselves upon all who are not blinded by the violence of passion; therefore Catholics cannot be too careful in defending themselves against such a separation. In fact, to wish that the State would separate itself from the Church would be to wish, by a logical sequence, that the Church be reduced to the liberty of living according to the law common to all citizens....It is true that in certain countries this state of affairs exists. It is a condition which, if it have numerous and serious inconveniences, also offers some advantages -- above all when, by a fortunate inconsistency, the legislator is inspired by Christian principles -- and, though these advantages cannot justify the false principle of separation nor authorize its defense, they nevertheless render worthy of toleration a situation which, practically, might be worse.

But in France, a nation Catholic in her traditions and by the present faith of the great majority of her sons, the Church should not be placed in the precarious position to which she must submit among other peoples; and the better that Catholics understand the aim of the enemies who desire this separation, the less will they favor it. To these enemies, and they say it clearly enough, this separation means that political legislation be entirely independent of religious legislation; nay, more, that Power be absolutely indifferent to the interests of Christian society, that is to say, of the Church; in fact, that it deny her very existence. But they make a reservation formulated thus: As soon as the Church, utilizing the resources which common law accords to the least among Frenchmen, will, by redoubling her native activity, cause her work to prosper, then the State intervening, can and will put French Catholics outside the common law itself. . . In a word: the ideal of these men would be a return to paganism: the State would recognize the Church only when it would be pleased to persecute her.

 

Note the fact while that Pope Leo XIII explained the Holy Mother Church will tolerate the separation of Church and State when it is necessary to do so to permit her children to practice the Faith and to provide them with the teaching and the supernatural helps necessary to limit various evils as far as is possible. Holy Mother Church does not, however, concede anything about the binding nature of her teaching on this matter, something that he went to great lengths to stress when addressing the American bishops in Longiqua Oceani, January 6, 1895:

Yet, though all this is true, it would be very erroneous to draw the conclusion that in America is to be sought the type of the most desirable status of the Church, or that it would be universally lawful or expedient for State and Church to be, as in America, dissevered and divorced. The fact that Catholicity with you is in good condition, nay, is even enjoying a prosperous growth, is by all means to be attributed to the fecundity with which God has endowed His Church, in virtue of which unless men or circumstances interfere, she spontaneously expands and propagates herself; but she would bring forth more abundant fruits if, in addition to liberty, she enjoyed the favor of the laws and the patronage of the public authority.

 

Pope Saint Pius X went to great lengths to remind French Catholics, for example, that his predecessor's accommodation to the realities of the French Third Republic in no way lessened the Church's unwavering commitment to uphold the immutable teaching of the civil state's obligation to recognize her as the true religion as the common temporal good is pursued in light of man's Last End, the possession of the Beatific Vision of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost for all eternity in Heaven. He made this point abundantly clear in Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906, and Une Fois Encore, January 6, 1907, where he explained the true purposes of the doctrine of separation of Church and State that had been made law in France in 1905 that was praised in the name of "Pope" John Paul II shortly before his death (see Forgotten Popes, Redefined Doctrines, which was published on February 12, 2005, just about fifteen months before I began signaling that I was open to accepting that sedevacantism is indeed a canonical doctrine of the Catholic Church and that the conciliar "popes" expelled themselves from her maternal bosom long before their apparent "election" to the Throne of Saint Peter):

17. The vague and ambiguous-wording of some of its articles places the end pursued by our enemies in a new light. Their object is, as we have already pointed out, the destruction of the Church and the dechristianization of France, but without people's attending to it or even noticing it. If their enterprise had been really popular, as they pretend it to be, they would not have hesitated to pursue it with visor raised and to take the whole responsibility. But instead of assuming that responsibility, they try to clear themselves of it and deny it, and in order to succeed the better, fling it upon the Church their victim. This is the most striking of all the proofs that their evil work does not respond to the wishes of the country.

18. It is in vain that after driving Us to the cruel necessity of rejecting the laws that have been made -- seeing the evils they have drawn down upon the country, and feeling the universal reprobation which, like a slow tide, is rising round them -- they seek to lead public opinion astray and to make the responsibility for these evils fall upon Us. Their attempt will not succeed.

19. As for Ourselves, We have accomplished Our duty, as every other Roman Pontiff would have done. The high charge with which it has pleased Heaven to invest Us, in spite of Our unworthiness, as also the Christian faith itself, which you profess with Us, dictated to Us Our conduct. We could not have acted otherwise without trampling under foot Our conscience, without being false to the oath which We took on mounting the chair of Peter, and without violating the Catholic hierarchy, the foundation given to the Church by our Savior Jesus Christ.

We await, then, without fear, the verdict of history. History will tell how We, with Our eyes fixed immutably upon the defense of the higher rights of God, have neither wished to humiliate the civil power, nor to combat a form of government, but to safeguard the inviolable work of Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ. It will say that We have defended you, Our beloved sons, with all the strength of Our great love; that what We have demanded and now demand for the Church, of which the French Church is the elder daughter and an integral part, is respect for its hierarchy and inviolability of its property and liberty; that if Our demand had been granted religious peace would not have been troubled in France, and that, the day it is listened to that peace so much desired will be restored in the country.

20. And, lastly, history will say, that if, sure beforehand of your magnanimous generosity. We have not hesitated to tell you that the hour for sacrifice had struck, it is to remind the world, in the name of the Master of all things, that men here below should feed their minds upon thoughts of a higher sort than those of the perishable contingencies of life, and that the supreme and intangible joy of the human soul on earth is that of duty supernaturally carried out, cost what it may and so God honored, served and loved, in spite of all.

21. Confident that the Immaculate Virgin, Daughter of the Father, Mother of the Word, and Spouse of the Holy Ghost, will obtain for you from the most holy and adorable Trinity better days, and as a token of the calm which We firmly hope will follow the storm, it is from the depths of Our heart that We impart Our Apostolic Blessing to you, Venerable Brethren, as well as to your clergy and the whole French people.

 

Only those intent on squaring the circle, that is, those who are intellectually dishonest, can contend that the language of Pope Leo XIII in Au Milieu Sollicitudes and that of Pope Saint Pius X in Vehementer Nos and Une Fois Encore, language that expressed the consistent, immutable teaching of the Catholic Church that was entrusted to her eternal safekeeping and infallible explication by her Divine Founder and Invisible Head, Christ the King, can be reconciled with the conciliar "popes'" rejection of the confessionally Catholic civil state in favor of "healthy secularity" or "healthy laicism."

Moreover, of course, Pope Leo XIII made it clear in Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900, that the world near the beginning of the Twentieth Century was suffering terrible consequences as a result of the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King, something he made clear also in his seventh encyclical letter, Diuturnum, June 29, 1881, and in Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885:

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

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

 

This is quite unlike Ratzinger/Benedict's apostate belief that it is "good enough" for what he thinks is the Catholic Church to have a "place" in the public square with other "religions" to fight irreligion in the world. A just social order cannot be built on the false premises of political and/or theological ecumenism. Pope Leo XIII explained in A Review of His Pontificate, that men and their nations must return not to a generic brand of Christianity but to Catholicism, which is perhaps why Ratzinger/Benedict did not make reference to Pope Leo XIII's summary of his pontificate as it is necessary for the Modernist from Bavaria to create a "memory" of Pope Leo that is partly true and mostly false. To Pope Leo XIII's A Review of His Pontificate:

Just as Christianity cannot penetrate into the soul without making it better, so it cannot enter into public life without establishing order. With the idea of a God Who governs all, Who is infinitely wise, good, and just, the idea of duty seizes upon the consciences of men.  It assuages sorrow, it calms hatred, it engenders heroes. If it has transformed pagan society--and that transformation was a veritable resurrection--for barbarism disappeared in proportion as Christianity extended its sway, so, after the terrible shocks which unbelief has given to the world in our days, it will be able to put that world again on the true road, and bring back to order the states and peoples of modern times. But the return of Christianity will not be efficacious and complete if it does not restore the world to a sincere love of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. In the Catholic Church Christianity is Incarnate. It identifies itself with that perfect, spiritual, and, in its own order, sovereign society, which is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ and which has for Its visible head the Roman Pontiff, successor of the Prince of the Apostles. It is the continuation of the mission of the Savior, the daughter and the heiress of His Redemption.  It has preached the Gospel, and has defended it at the price of its blood, and strong in the Divine assistance and of that immortality which has been promised it, it makes no terms with error but remains faithful to the commands which It has received, to carry the doctrine of Jesus Christ to the uttermost limits of the world and to the end of time, and to protect it in its inviolable integrity. Legitimate dispenser of the teachings of the Gospel It does not reveal itself only as the consoler and Redeemer of souls, but It is still more the internal source of justice and charity, and the propagator as well as the guardian of true liberty, and of that equality which alone is possible here below. In applying the doctrine of its Divine Founder, It maintains a wise equilibrium and marks the true limits between the rights and privileges of society. The equality which it proclaims does not destroy the distinction between the different social classes  It keeps them intact, as nature itself demands, in order to oppose the anarchy of reason emancipated from Faith, and abandoned to its own devices. The liberty which it gives in no wise conflicts with the rights of truth, because those rights are superior to the demands of liberty.  Not does it infringe upon the rights of justice, because those rights are superior to the claims of mere numbers or power. Nor does it assail the rights of God because they are superior to the rights of humanity. (Pope Leo XIII, A Review of His Pontificate, March 19, 1902.)

 

Anyone who thinks that Ratzinger/Benedict has maintained the "inviolate integrity" of the Social Teaching of the Catholic Church, no less of her very own Divine Constitution that Pope Leo XIII noted in Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896, does not admit of concilairism's belief that the "Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church, is indolently ignorant or engaging in the worst form of self-deception, if not outright intellectual dishonesty.

Indeed, Ratzinger/Benedict, who does not believe that it is a binding obligation from God Himself for the civil state to recognize the true religion and to aid man in the pursuit of his Last End (see the appendix below), has stated repeatedly that it is "enough" for men to have the Natural Law as the foundation of a just social ethic, consigning the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity made Man in Our Lady's Virginal and Immaculate Womb by the power of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, to the realm of private, personal belief that ought not to be a factor in social discourse or the administration of public policy. Pope Leo XIII explained otherwise in the aforementioned Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900:

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

 

Although an exhaustive comparison of the divergences in belief that exist between a true pope, Pope Leo XIII, and false claimant to the Throne of Saint Peter, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, would take a book length manuscript to explore, there are three other areas that I want to examine briefly for the sake of this brief (well, relatively, shall we say) article.

The first area concerns Ratzinger/Benedict's repeated belief, expressed in The Ravenna Document that he has praised very publicly, and also in his 1982 book, Principles of Catholic Theology, that a way to "communion" with the Orthodox can be found based upon his falsehood that Papal Primacy was exercised and understood differently in the First Millennium than it came to be exercised in the Second Millennium (see Anti-Apostles All). Pope Leo XIII has left us a papal statement that provides us with the true history of Papal Primacy in the First Millennium as he exhorted the Orthodox to return to the Catholic Church:

First of all, then, We cast an affectionate look upon the East, from whence in the beginning came forth the salvation of the world.  Yes, and the yearning desire of Our heart bids us conceive and hope that the day is not far distant when the Eastern Churches, so illustrious in their ancient faith and glorious past, will return to the fold they have abandoned.  We hope it all the more, that the distance separating them from Us is not so great: nay, with some few exceptions, we agree so entirely on other heads that, in defense of the Catholic Faith, we often have recourse to reasons and testimony borrowed from the teaching, the Rites, and Customs of the East.

The Principal subject of contention is the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff.  But let them look back to the early years of their existence, let them consider the sentiments entertained by their forefathers, and examine what the oldest Traditions testify, and it will, indeed, become evident to them that Christ's Divine Utterance, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, has undoubtedly been realized in the Roman Pontiffs.  Many of these latter in the first gates of the Church were chosen from the East, and foremost among them Anacletus, Evaristus, Anicetus, Eleutherius, Zosimus, and Agatho; and of these a great number, after Governing the Church in Wisdom and Sanctity, Consecrated their Ministry with the shedding of their blood.  The time, the reasons, the promoters of the unfortunate division, are well known.  Before the day when man separated what God had joined together, the name of the Apostolic See was held in Reverence by all the nations of the Christian world: and the East, like the West, agreed without hesitation in its obedience to the Pontiff of Rome, as the Legitimate Successor of St. Peter, and, therefore, the Vicar of Christ here on earth.

And, accordingly, if we refer to the beginning of the dissension, we shall see that Photius himself was careful to send his advocates to Rome on the matters that concerned him; and Pope Nicholas I sent his Legates to Constantinople from the Eternal City, without the slightest opposition, "in order to examine the case of Ignatius the Patriarch with all diligence, and to bring back to the Apostolic See a full and accurate report"; so that the history of the whole negotiation is a manifest Confirmation of the Primacy of the Roman See with which the dissension then began.  Finally, in two great Councils, the second of Lyons and that of Florence, Latins and Greeks, as is notorious, easily agreed, and all unanimously proclaimed as Dogma the Supreme Power of the Roman Pontiffs.

We have recalled those things intentionally, for they constitute an invitation to peace and reconciliation; and with all the more reason that in Our own days it would seem as if there were a more conciliatory spirit towards Catholics on the part of the Eastern Churches, and even some degree of kindly feeling.  To mention an instance, those sentiments were lately made manifest when some of Our faithful travelled to the East on a Holy Enterprise, and received so many proofs of courtesy and good-will.

Therefore, Our mouth is open to you, to you all of Greek or other Oriental Rites who are separated from the Catholic Church, We earnestly desire that each and every one of you should meditate upon the words, so full of gravity and love, addressed by Bessarion to your forefathers: "What answer shall we give to God when He comes to ask why we have separated from our Brethren: to Him Who, to unite us and bring us into One Fold, came down from Heaven, was Incarnate, and was Crucified?  What will our defense be in the  eyes of posterity?  Oh, my Venerable Fathers, we must not suffer this to be, we must not entertain this thought, we must not thus so ill provide for ourselves and for our Brethren."

Weigh carefully in your minds and before God the nature of Our request.  It is not for any human motive, but impelled by Divine Charity and a desire for the salvation of all, that We advise the reconciliation and union with the Church of Rome; and We mean a perfect and complete union, such as could not subsist in any way if nothing else was brought about but a certain kind of agreement in the Tenets of Belief and an intercourse of Fraternal love.  The True Union between Christians is that which Jesus Christ, the Author of the Church, instituted and desired, and which consists in a Unity of Faith and Unity of Government.

Nor is there any reason for you to fear on that account that We or any of Our Successors will ever diminish your rights, the privileges of your Patriarchs, or the established Ritual of any one of your Churches.  It has been and always will be the intent and Tradition of the Apostolic See, to make a large allowance, in all that is right and good, for the primitive Traditions and special customs of every nation.  On the contrary, if you re-establish Union with Us, you will see how, by God's bounty, the glory and dignity of your Churches will be remarkably increased. 

May God, then, in His goodness, hear the Prayer that you yourselves address to Him: "Make the schisms of the Churches cease," and "Assemble those who are dispersed, bring back those who err, and unite them to Thy Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church."  May you thus return to that one Holy Faith which has been handed down both to Us and to you from time immemorial; which your forefathers preserved untainted, and which was enhanced by the rival splendor of the Virtues, the great genius, and the sublime learning of St. Athanasius and St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nazianzum and St. John Chrysostom, the two Saints who bore the name of Cyril, and so many other great men whose glory belongs as a common inheritance to the East and to the West. (Pope Leo XIII, Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae, June 20, 1884; see also the excellent discussion of the the history of what led up to the Greek Schism that is contained in Fathers Francisco and Dominic Radecki's Tumultuous Times.)

 

Who is the better historian, Ratzinger/Benedict or Pope Leo XIII? Truth is on the side of the defender of the Social Reign of Christ the King, not on the side of the man who does believe in the Social Kingship of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Pope Leo XIII also made it clear in Apostolicae Curae, September 15, 1896, that the heretical and schismatic Anglicans do not have valid ordination rites (sound familiar?) and that they had lost Apostolic Succession long ago. And even though those "Anglo-Catholic" "bishops" and "priests" who are shifting their headquarters from the the Anglican deck of the One World Ecumenical Ship to that of the counterfeit church conciliarism have to be "ordained" with the sacramentally worthless rite of the conciliar church, there have been several occasions in the past decade when the former president of the "Pontifical" Council for Promoting Christian Unity, Walter "Cardinal" Kasper, stated very publicly that a way "around" Apostolicae Curae might be found after all (see Sanctioning Apostasy With Sanctimony). Nothing happened to Walter Kasper uttered this rumination when Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II was alive, and nothing happened to him under Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI as he, Kasper, was allowed to retire in perfectly "good standing" several months ago.

Contrary to the games played by the conciliarists with the Anglicans, who do not have any kind of a "church" whatsoever, Pope Leo XIII made it clear that no one was to put into question the invalidity of Anglican orders at any time for any reason:

Wherefore, strictly adhering, in this matter, to the decrees of the pontiffs, our predecessors, and confirming them most fully, and, as it were, renewing them by our authority, of our own initiative and certain knowledge, we pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void. . . .

We decree that these letters and all things contained therein shall not be liable at any time to be impugned or objected to by reason of fault or any other defect whatsoever of subreption or obreption of our intention, but are and shall be always valid and in force and shall be inviolably observed both juridically and otherwise, by all of whatsoever degree and preeminence, declaring null and void anything which, in these matters, may happen to be contrariwise attempted, whether wittingly or unwittingly, by any person whatsoever, by whatsoever authority or pretext, all things to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

Truth should matter to Catholics, my good and very few readers. Truth, not strategy. Truth, not deception. Truth, not wishful thinking. Truth. Nothing else. Truth.

Ultimately, however, one, such as Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who rejects the Scholasticism of Saint Thomas Aquinas is unable to recognize and to adhere to truth clearly as his mind becomes enveloped in a fog of ambiguity, contradiction and paradox. Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has told us that he rejects Scholasticism, finding it to be "too crystal clear," "too turned in on itself" (see Ratzinger's War Against Catholicism). This is what Pope Leo XIII had to say about those who reject the Scholasticism of Saint Thomas Aquinas:

But, furthermore, Our predecessors in the Roman pontificate have celebrated the wisdom of Thomas Aquinas by exceptional tributes of praise and the most ample testimonials. Clement VI in the bull "In Ordine;" Nicholas V in his brief to the friars of the Order of Preachers, 1451; Benedict XIII in the bull "Pretiosus," and others bear witness that the universal Church borrows luster from his admirable teaching; while St. Pius V declares in the bull "Mirabilis" that heresies, confounded and convicted by the same teaching, were dissipated, and the whole world daily freed from fatal errors; others, such as Clement XII in the bull "Verbo Dei," affirm that most fruitful blessings have spread abroad from his writings over the whole Church, and that he is worthy of the honor which is bestowed on the greatest Doctors of the Church, on Gregory and Ambrose, Augustine and Jerome; while others have not hesitated to propose St. Thomas for the exemplar and master of the universities and great centers of learning whom they may follow with unfaltering feet. On which point the words of Blessed Urban V to the University of Toulouse are worthy of recall: "It is our will, which We hereby enjoin upon you, that ye follow the teaching of Blessed Thomas as the true and Catholic doctrine and that ye labor with all your force to profit by the same."[35] Innocent XII, followed the example of Urban in the case of the University of Louvain, in the letter in the form of a brief addressed to that university on February 6, 1694, and Benedict XIV in the letter in the form of a brief addressed on August 26, 1752, to the Dionysian College in Granada; while to these judgments of great Pontiffs on Thomas Aquinas comes the crowning testimony of Innocent VI: "His teaching above that of others, the canonical writings alone excepted, enjoys such a precision of language, an order of matters, a truth of conclusions, that those who hold to it are never found swerving from the path of truth, and he who dare assail it will always be suspected of error."[36]

22. The ecumenical councils, also, where blossoms the flower of all earthly wisdom, have always been careful to hold Thomas Aquinas in singular honor. In the Councils of Lyons, Vienna, Florence, and the Vatican one might almost say that Thomas took part and presided over the deliberations and decrees of the Fathers, contending against the errors of the Greeks, of heretics and rationalists, with invincible force and with the happiest results. But the chief and special glory of Thomas, one which he has shared with none of the Catholic Doctors, is that the Fathers of Trent made it part of the order of conclave to lay upon the altar, together with sacred Scripture and the decrees of the supreme Pontiffs, the "Summa" of Thomas Aquinas, whence to seek counsel, reason, and inspiration.

23. A last triumph was reserved for this incomparable man -- namely, to compel the homage, praise, and admiration of even the very enemies of the Catholic name. For it has come to light that there were not lacking among the leaders of heretical sects some who openly declared that, if the teaching of Thomas Aquinas were only taken away, they could easily battle with all Catholic teachers, gain the victory, and abolish the Church.[37] A vain hope, indeed, but no vain testimony. (Pope Leo XIII, Aeterni Patris, August 4, 1879.)

 

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI favors the ambiguity and uncertainty of of the "New Theology" that he learned from the likes of the late Father Hans Urs von Balthasar and the late Father Henri de Lubac, among others. Only a mind twisted and bent out of all recognizable shape by that "new theology," which was condemned by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis, August 12, 1950, could develop and propagate the philosophically absurd and dogmatically condemned idea behind the "hermeneutic of continuity and discontinuity" that Ratzinger/Benedict is employing at the moment to convince wary traditionally-minded Catholics who are as of yet attached to his counterfeit church of conciliarism that a "way can be found" to reconcile "apparent" contradictions between Catholic Tradition of the "Second" Vatican Council and the "magisterium" of the conciliar "popes." Dream on, dream on.

As even a broken clock is correct twice a day, Ratzinger/Benedict's Angelus address of two days ago, Sunday, September 5, 2010, included, quite correctly, a favorable reference to Pope Leo XIII's encyclical letter, Catholicae Ecclesiae, November 20, 1890, condemning chattel slavery in missions, and a favorable reference to the encyclical letter of the late pontiff that is still held in some esteem in conciliar circles no matter the distortions that occur therein, Rerum Novarum, May 15, 1891. Ratzinger/Benedict, however, once again distorted history by referring to Rerum Novarum as the "nucleus" of the Catholic Church's social doctrine as Pope Leo XIII had already issued a number of encyclical letters prior that time (Diuturnum, Immortale Dei, Libertas, June 20, 1888, and Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890) that are indeed part and parcel of the Catholic Church's Social Teaching that every Catholic must accept without any dissent whatsoever. And quite unlike Ratzinger/Benedict's promotion of the "coexistence of religions" as the foundation of world peace, Pope Leo XIII made it clear that Catholic workingmen had to stay clear of non-Catholic associations, a point that was reiterated by Pope Saint Pius X in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910, an encyclical letter that condemned The Sillon's misguided efforts to implement Rerum Novarum:

Associations of every kind, and especially those of working men, are now far more common than heretofore. As regards many of these there is no need at present to inquire whence they spring, what are their objects, or what the means they imply. Now, there is a good deal of evidence in favor of the opinion that many of these societies are in the hands of secret leaders, and are managed on principles ill-according with Christianity and the public well-being; and that they do their utmost to get within their grasp the whole field of labor, and force working men either to join them or to starve. Under these circumstances Christian working men must do one of two things: either join associations in which their religion will be exposed to peril, or form associations among themselves and unite their forces so as to shake off courageously the yoke of so unrighteous and intolerable an oppression. No one who does not wish to expose man's chief good to extreme risk will for a moment hesitate to say that the second alternative should by all means be adopted. (Pope Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum, May 15, 1891.)

Here we have, founded by Catholics, an inter-denominational association that is to work for the reform of civilization, an undertaking which is above all religious in character; for there is no true civilization without a moral civilization, and no true moral civilization without the true religion: it is a proven truth, a historical fact. The new Sillonists cannot pretend that they are merely working on “the ground of practical realities” where differences of belief do not matter. Their leader is so conscious of the influence which the convictions of the mind have upon the result of the action, that he invites them, whatever religion they may belong to, “to provide on the ground of practical realities, the proof of the excellence of their personal convictions.” And with good reason: indeed, all practical results reflect the nature of one’s religious convictions, just as the limbs of a man down to his finger-tips, owe their very shape to the principle of life that dwells in his body.

This being said, what must be thought of the promiscuity in which young Catholics will be caught up with heterodox and unbelieving folk in a work of this nature? Is it not a thousand-fold more dangerous for them than a neutral association? What are we to think of this appeal to all the heterodox, and to all the unbelievers, to prove the excellence of their convictions in the social sphere in a sort of apologetic contest? Has not this contest lasted for nineteen centuries in conditions less dangerous for the faith of Catholics? And was it not all to the credit of the Catholic Church? What are we to think of this respect for all errors, and of this strange invitation made by a Catholic to all the dissidents to strengthen their convictions through study so that they may have more and more abundant sources of fresh forces? What are we to think of an association in which all religions and even Free-Thought may express themselves openly and in complete freedom? For the Sillonists who, in public lectures and elsewhere, proudly proclaim their personal faith, certainly do not intend to silence others nor do they intend to prevent a Protestant from asserting his Protestantism, and the skeptic from affirming his skepticism. Finally, what are we to think of a Catholic who, on entering his study group, leaves his Catholicism outside the door so as not to alarm his comrades who, “dreaming of disinterested social action, are not inclined to make it serve the triumph of interests, coteries and even convictions whatever they may be”? Such is the profession of faith of the New Democratic Committee for Social Action which has taken over the main objective of the previous organization and which, they say, “breaking the double meaning which surround the Greater Sillon both in reactionary and anti-clerical circles”, is now open to all men “who respect moral and religious forces and who are convinced that no genuine social emancipation is possible without the leaven of generous idealism.” (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)

 

One will notice that Ratzinger/Benedict did not make any mention of Pope Leo XIII's Humanum Genus, April 20, 1884, which condemned the naturalistic spirit of Freemasonry upon which the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service and thus conciliarism's "relationship with the world," are founded, or to Pope Leo XIII's Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896, which, as mentioned earlier, explained the Divine Constitution of the Catholic Church and made it clear that anyone who dissents from a single teaching of the Catholic Church has expelled himself from her maternal bosom:

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. . . .

Nay more: they likewise required their successors to choose fitting men, to endow them with like authority, and to confide to them the office and mission of teaching. "Thou, therefore, my son, be strong in the grace which is in Christ Jesus: and the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same command to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others also" (2 Tim. ii., 1-2). Wherefore, as Christ was sent by God and the Apostles by Christ, so the Bishops and those who succeeded them were sent by the Apostles. "The Apostles were appointed by Christ to preach the Gospel to us. Jesus Christ was sent by God. Christ is therefore from God, and the Apostles from Christ, and both according to the will of God....Preaching therefore the word through the countries and cities, when they had proved in the Spirit the first - fruits of their teaching they appointed bishops and deacons for the faithful....They appointed them and then ordained them, so that when they themselves had passed away other tried men should carry on their ministry" (S. Clemens Rom. Epist. I ad Corinth. capp. 42, 44). On the one hand, therefore, it is necessary that the mission of teaching whatever Christ had taught should remain perpetual and immutable, and on the other that the duty of accepting and professing all their doctrine should likewise be perpetual and immutable. "Our Lord Jesus Christ, when in His Gospel He testifies that those who not are with Him are His enemies, does not designate any special form of heresy, but declares that all heretics who are not with Him and do not gather with Him, scatter His flock and are His adversaries: He that is not with Me is against Me, and he that gathereth not with Me scattereth" (S. Cyprianus, Ep. lxix., ad Magnum, n. I).

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).

 

Case closed. Those who want to say "but, but, but" will never be convinced. It takes a love of truth and the willingness to suffer for it for one to be open to cooperate with the graces sent to them by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the loving hands of His Most Blessed Mother, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces, to recognize concilairism as apostasy and to flee from its wolves in pseudo-shepherds' clothing.

What do we turn? We do what Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has admitted he does not do every day, that is, to pray Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary. We take our lead from a true pope, Pope Leo XIII, who recommended Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary to Catholics in Italy as they were still being besieged by the anticlerical Freemasons of the Kingdom of Italy:

You know how We place amid present dangers Our confidence in the Glorious Virgin of the Holy Rosary, for the safety and prosperity of Christendom and the peace and tranquillity of the Church. Mindful that in moments of great trial, pastors and people have ever had recourse with entire confidence to the august Mother of God, in whose hands are all graces, certain too, that devotion to Our Lady of the Rosary is most opportune for the needs of these times, We have desired to revive everywhere this devotion, and to spread it far and wide among the faithful of the world. Oftentimes already We, in recommending the pious practice of devoting October to honoring Our Lady, have pointed out Our reasons and hope for so doing, and the forms to be observed; and the entire Church, docile to Our desires, has ever replied by special manifestations of devotion; and now is making ready to pay to Mary, during a whole month, a daily tribute of the devotion so dear to it. In such pious rivalry Italy has not been behind-hand, for devotion to Our Lady is deeply and widely rooted in this land; and We doubt not that this year too, Italy will set a glorious example of love for the august Mother of God, and will give Us fresh reasons for consolation and hope. Nevertheless We cannot do less than address to you, Venerable Brethren, a few words of exhortation, so that with particular and renewed zeal the month dedicated to the Most Holy Virgin of the Rosary may be sanctified in every diocese of Italy. (Pope Leo XIII, Vi E Ben Noto, September 20, 1887.)

 

This exhortation applies to us now in our own troubling times, does it not?

So, go ahead, pray a Rosary now and flee from wolf who is Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI once and for all if you have not already done so while we pray for his conversion back to the true Faith before he dies. Don't let Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI take you for a fool. I was one for far too long as it pertains to conciliarism. Ask Our Lady to help you to see the truth, and praying her Most Holy Rosary is the sure means for this prayer to be answered.

 

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.

 

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

 

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior and Balthasar, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints

Appendix

From The Biography of Marcel Lefebvre describing a meeting between the Archbishop and Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger in Rome, July 14, 1987

Under pressure, Rome gave in. On July 14, Cardinal Ratzinger received Archbishop Lefebvre at the Holy Office. At first the Cardinal persisted in arguing that "the State is competent in religious matters."

"But the State must have an ultimate and eternal end," replied the Archbishop.

"Your Grace, that is the case for the Church, not the State. By itself the State does not know."

Archbishop Lefebvre was distraught: a Cardinal and Prefect of the Holy Office wanted to show him that the State can have no religion and cannot prevent the spread of error. However, before talking about concessions, the Cardinal made a threat: the consequence of an illicit episcopal consecration would be "schism and excommunication."

"Schism?" retorted the Archbishop. "If there is a schism, it is because of what the Vatican did at Assisi and how you replied to our Dubiae: the Church is breaking with the traditional Magisterium. But the Church against her past and her Tradition is not the Catholic Church; this is why being excommunicated by a liberal, ecumenical, and revolutionary Church is a matter of indifference to us."

As this tirade ended, Joseph Ratzinger gave in: "Let us find a practical solution. Make a moderate declaration on the Council and the new missal a bit like the one that Jean Guitton has suggested to you. Then, we would give you a bishop for ordinations, we could work out an arrangement with the diocesan bishops, and you could continue as you are doing. As for a Cardinal Protector, and make your suggestions."

How did Marcel Lefebvre not jump for joy? Rome was giving in! But his penetrating faith went to the very heart of the Cardinal's rejection of doctrine. He said to himself: "So, must Jesus no longer reign? Is Jesus no longer God? Rome has lost the Faith. Rome is in apostasy. We can no longer trust this lot!" To the Cardinal, he said:

"Eminence, even if you give us everything--a bishop, some autonomy from the bishops, the 1962 liturgy, allow us to continue our seminaries--we cannot work together because we are going in different directions. You are working to dechristianize society and the Church, and we are working to Christianize them.

"For us, our Lord Jesus Christ is everything. He is our life. The Church is our Lord Jesus Christ; the priest is another Christ; the Mass is the triumph of Jesus Christ on the cross; in our seminaries everything tends towards the reign of our Lord Jesus Christ. But you! You are doing the opposite: you have just wanted to prove to me that our Lord Jesus Christ cannot, and must not, reign over society.

Recounting this incident, the Archbishop described the Cardinal's attitude:

"Motionless, he looked at me, his eyes expressionless, as if I had just suggested something incomprehensible or unheard of." Then Ratzinger tried to argue that "the Church can still say whatever she wants to the State," while Lefebvre, the intuitive master of Catholic metaphysics, did not lose sight of the true end of human societies: the Reign of Christ." Fr. de Tinguy hit the nail on the head when he said of Marcel Lefebvre: "His faith defies those who love theological quibbles." (His Excellency Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, The Biography of Marcel Lefebvre, Kansas City, Missouri: Angelus Press, 2004, pp. 547-548.)