Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us
May 23, 2009

"Thumbs Up" From A Communist For An Apostate

by Thomas A. Droleskey

MOSCOW. May 21 (Interfax) - Former USSR president Mikhail Gorbachev said he agrees that the former head of the Catholic Church John Paul II should be canonized.

"I think he should be. He was an amazing person. A humanist, I am ready to give him a thumbs up," Gorbachev told journalists on Thursday.

I spoke to John Paul II on several occasions and noticed that on many issues the Pope had his own point of view, which I thought was absolutely right, Gorbachev said.

In particular, John Paul II said that, "Europe must breathe with both lungs," he said. "That means that Europe's west and east must be its equal and valid parts. This is absolutely right," said the former USSR leader.

He also recalled what John Paul II said about the new world order. "He said that this order must be more stable, fair and humane. I must have repeated this quote about 100 times everywhere," Gorbachev said. (Interfax: Gorbachev agrees John Paul II should be declared as saint.)


It was--and will be again one day when the Church Militant on earth is restored--the case that the Promoter of the Faith, also known as "the devil's advocate," raised objections to the canonizations of a candidate to proposed of Holy Mother Church. Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II "reformed" the office of Promoter of the Faith in the counterfeit church of concilairism in 1983, thus permitting him to engage in the unprecedented crush of five hundred "canonizations" and over thirteen hundred "beatifications" during his false pontificate. (See Apostolic Constitution of John Paul II Divinus Perfectionis Magister, January 25, 1983, and New Laws For the Causes of Saints (February 7, 1983. For a list of the people "beatified" and "canonized by Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, click on this link on the Vatican website, which lists these people in the Italian language.)

The counterfeit church of conciliarism has gone from the practice of the Catholic Church, begun in the year 1587 under the pontificate of Pope Sixtus V, of taking evidence to prevent the canonization of unworthy candidates to a situation where real devils in public life, men with much innocent blood on their hands, including an unreconstructed Communist who calls himself a "humanist," feel free to give a "thumbs up" to the "canonization" of "pope" who believed in the same "new world order" as his successors, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, wants, one that is "more stable, fair and humane."

Even if the counterfeit church of conciliarism represented the Catholic Church on earth, which it does not, the presence of an unreformed office of the Promoter of the Faith in the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints would prevent the canonization of candidates who had written and spoken and acted in ways contrary to the Catholic Faith and/or who did not fulfill the duties of their states-in-life by being negligent about the protection of the souls entrusted to their care. As the counterfeit church of conciliarism is not the Catholic Church and as its conciliar "popes" and "bishops" have indeed written and spoken and acted in ways contrary to the Catholic Faith, it has been necessary for the "beatification" and "canonization" process to be "reformed" so as to make it possible to have "saints" possessed of the false, apostate spirit of concilairism raised to the "tables" of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service.

Although some objections have been raised by a few of the consulters to the conciliar Congregation for the Causes of the Saints about the "beatification" of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, the late conciliar "pontiff" would never be considered as a legitimate candidate for beatification or canonization in the Catholic Church. What I wrote thirteen and one-half months ago now is worth repeating again:

As has been noted on numerous occasions on this website, Holy Mother Church has always used great caution when proceeding with the cause for canonization of a pope or a bishop.

The standard of a true pope or a true bishop's Particular Judgment is higher than that of others. A pope, for example, has on his immortal soul the responsibility to see to it that the Church is governed well, that the bishops he appoints are men who will discharge their own duties in behalf of the salvation of souls well, and that he, the particular pope, has done everything imaginable to spread the Catholic Faith as one and only foundation of personal and social order. A bishop, especially one who has been a diocesan ordinary, has the solemn responsibility to supervise the priests and consecrated religious under care, making sure as well that the Gospel is preached to non-Catholics, that no effort be spared to win the conversion of non-Catholics to the Faith.

To this end, of course, a true pope or a true bishop must foster personal holiness in his own life and to encourage that holiness among the clergy and the consecrated religious and the lay faithful. Holiness of life is more than a matter of saying one's prayers with promptness and participating in public acts of piety and devotion. Holiness of life involves a deep and dread detestation of the horror of sin, which was responsible for causing the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity made Man in Our Lady's Virginal and Immaculate Womb by the power of God the Holy Ghost to suffer unspeakable horrors during His Passion and Death and caused His Most Blessed Mother to have Seven Swords of Sorrow thrust through and through her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart.

It is one thing to sin and to be sorry, seeking out the Mercy of the Divine Redeemer in the Sacrament of Penance. It is one thing to have genuine compassion on a fellow erring sinner, understanding the weaknesses to which our fallen natures subject us and the degree to which Our Lord desires to manifest forth His ineffable Mercy upon us sinful creatures. It is quite another to persist in sin unrepentantly in one's own life and/or to reaffirm, either by acts of omission or commission, others in lives of unrepentant sins, far worse yet to look the other way as sinful actions are justified and glorified.

No pope and no bishop has discharged his responsibilities before God well if he countenances the commission of grave sins, no less continues to be complicit in their commission by continuing to appoint and/or promote those who are guilty of them or who are, at the very least, indifferent to their public promotion by those in official ecclesiastical positions. No deceased pope or bishop who is indifferent to or in the least supportive of the horror of sins of one kind or another is a worthy candidate for canonization. Indeed, such a pope or a bishop would be in need of many prayers for the repose of his immortal soul. He would not be held up as a "model" for the faithful to imitate, no less one who has gone to Heaven and can be invoked with confidence as an intercessor before the very throne of the Most Blessed Trinity.

The horror of personal sin matters little to the scions of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, sad to say. None other than the then Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger said in a Zenit interview on October 1, 2001, that he had "nothing against" those who to go what purports to Mass in the conciliar structures but once a year:

I have nothing against people who, though they never enter a church during the year, go to Christmas midnight Mass, or go the occasion of some other celebration, because this is also a way of coming close to the light. Therefore, there must be different forms of involvement and participation. ("On the Future of Christianity," Zenit, October 1, 2001.)

There is not only no sense of horror of the objectively Mortal Sins committed by those who miss Mass deliberately on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation to be found in this statement of the then "Cardinal" Ratzinger. The then Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the [Conciliar] Faith demonstrated once again that he possessed no understanding of the honor and glory due to God Himself.

The worship of God is the chief duty of man. Even the pagans of antiquity understood this fact. Ratzinger, however, demonstrates himself to be quite sanguine about a violation of the Third Commandment and the first of the six precepts of the Catholic Church. This is, of course, quite consistent with his rejection of the immutable nature of dogmatic truth. His own very well-documented belief in an Hegelian notion of truth (that it is "anchored" in one place for a time prior to undergoing a transformation in light of the changing circumstances of "modern man," causing it to be "anchored" in another place for a time) demonstrates that he does not really believe in the very nature and essence of God as He has revealed Himself to men exclusively through His true Church. One who disbelieves in the immutability of doctrinal truths (that they must be understood in exactly the same way as they have been taught by Holy Mother Church without any shadow of change or contradiction) will not recoil at the thought of the horror of just one personal sin, such as the deliberate missing of Holy Mass by a baptized Catholic on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation.

This lack of understanding of the nature of God and the horror of personal sin is what makes it possible for a man who gave great offenses to God throughout his priesthood, including the twenty-five years of his false "pontificate," Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, to be considered as a "candidate" for "canonization" by the nonexistent authority of the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

Karol Wojtyla presided over numerous travesties (sacrilegious "Masses" with "rock" music and pagan rituals and overt immodesty and indecency) and abominations (inter-religious prayer meetings) that offended God greatly and scandalized the faithful considerably.

Wojtyla further countenanced the protection of "bishops" who promoted one abject evil after another in their dioceses, men who presided over the systematic corruption of the young by means of approving explicit classroom instruction in matters pertaining go the Sixth and Ninth Commandments and who went out of their way to protect "priests" whose lives of perversity victimized countless numbers of souls and drove countless numbers of Catholics into the waiting arms of various Protestant sects or into the world of abyss of agnosticism.

Who exactly promoted Bernard "Cardinal" Law, the discredited former "archbishop" of Boston, to be the Archpriest of the Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore? Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II. Who has kept Law in that position? Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI.

Who retained or appointed and/or promoted "bishops" known to be sympathetic to the agenda of perversity (Roger Mahony, George Niederauer, William Levada, Robert Brom, Theodore McCarrick, Joseph Bernardin, J. Keith Symons, Daniel Ryan, Joseph Imesch, Patrick Ziemann, Rembert G. Weakland, Howard Hubbard, Tod Brown, Lawrence Soens, Joseph Hart, Andrew O'Connell, Francis Mugavero, John Raymond McGann, Thomas Daily, William Murphy, Donald Wuerl, et al.)? Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II. Who has kept Mahony in power while promoting the likes of Levada and Niederauer and Wuerl? Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. And, mind you, this is is to say nothing about how Wojtyla's appointees as conciliar "ordinaries" permitted various apostasies, both those "approved" by conciliarism and those that exceed even those rather liberal bounds, to be taught in the "official" quarters of various Catholic institutions of education under conciliar control.

No, none of that means anything to an assessment of the life of the "servant of God John Paul II." The fact that he lived through the "terrible tragedies of the 20th century" and that he had "discovered" that these evils could be stopped by the "love of God" qualifies a Modernist and a blasphemer and an enabler of major crimes against souls to be considered as a serious candidate for "canonization" by the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

Never mind the fact that Wojtyla rejected the path to peace found in the Social Reign of Christ the King and that he did not believe that Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order. No, Karol Wojtyla is, according to his "successor" as the head of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, a "courageous servant" who has left behind an "inestimable spiritual heritage."

"The Servant of God John Paul II had known and personally lived the terrible tragedies of the 20th century, and he asked himself during a long time what could stop the advance of evil," the German Pontiff recalled. "The answer could only be found in the love of God. Only divine mercy, in fact, is capable of putting limits on evil; only the omnipotent love of God can topple the dominance of the evil ones and the destructive power of egotism and hate. For this reason, during his last visit to Poland, upon returning to his native land, he said, 'Apart from the mercy of God there is no other source of hope for mankind.'"

"Let us give thanks to God because he has given the Church this faithful and courageous servant," the Pope concluded. "And while we are offering for his chosen soul the redeeming Sacrifice, we ask him to continue interceding from heaven for each one of us, for me in a special way, who Providence has called to take up his inestimable spiritual heritage.

"May the Church, following his teaching and example, faithfully continue its evangelizing mission without compromises, spreading tirelessly the merciful love of Christ, fount of true peace for the entire world." Ratzinger/Benedict Recalls John Paul II's Testimony)


The teaching of Karol Wojtyla? How about his "teaching" on how false religions actually please God?

In Nostra Aetate, the Declaration on the Religion of the Church to Non-Christian Religions, the Second Vatican Council teaches that 'the Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions. She has a high regard for the manner of life and conduct, the precepts and doctrines which, although different in many ways from her own teaching, nevertheless often a ray of that truth that enlightens all men.'

...The 'seeds of truth' present and active in the various religious traditions are a reflection of the unique Word of God...

...It must be first kept in mind that every quest of the human spirit for truth and goodness, and in the last analysis for God, is inspired by the Holy Spirit. The various religions arose precisely from this primordial openness to God. At their origin we often find founders who, with the help of God's Spirit, achieved a deeper religious experience. Handed on to others, this experience took form in the doctrines, and rites and precepts of the various religions.

..The Holy Spirit is not only present in other religions through authentic expressions of prayer. 'The Spirit's presence and activity,' as I wrote in the encyclical letter Redemptoris Missio, 'affect no only individuals but also society and history, peoples, cultures and religions.'

..."May the Spirit of truth and love, in view of the third millennium now close at hand, guide us on the paths of the proclamation of Jesus Christ and of the dialogue of peace and brotherhood with the followers of all religions! (The Pope Speaks, May/June 1999, "'Seeds of Truth' in the World Religions," pp. 147-149, quoted in Fathers Francisco and Dominic Radecki, Tumultuous Times, p. 548.)

The example of Karol Wojtyla? How about his kissing the Koran? How about his praising the voodoo witch doctor?

"You have a strong attachment to the traditions handed on by your ancestors. It is legitimate to be grateful to your forbears who passed on this sense of the sacred, belief in a single God who is good, a sense of celebration, esteem for the moral life and for harmony in society." (quoted in John Kenneth Weitskittel's Voodoo You Trust?, an excellent and scholarly review of the false "pope's" trip to Benin in 1993--and Wojtyla's apostasies were defended by some traditionally-minded Catholics at the time!)

How about Assisi 1986 and Assisi 2002?

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

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

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

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

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

Ah, yes, the "teaching and the example" of John Paul II. Too bad for Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI that that teaching and example reaffirmed millions in false religions and helped to drive many millions more out of the Church as things that are repugnant to God and harmful to souls were promoted time and time again by Wojtyla himself and his thousands upon thousands of appointees (who suborned the same in their own hundreds of thousands of appointees and subordinates).

Who, for example, appointed Christoph Schonborn as the conciliar"archbishop" of Vienna, Austria, in September 14, 1995? Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II. Who is a close friend and mentor to Christoph Schonborn? Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who has said nothing as his protege, "Cardinal" Schonborn, remains silent in the face of this particular outrage to souls that is taking place on archdiocesan grounds in Vienna:

VIENNA, March 26, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Dommuseum in Vienna, the art gallery attached to the historic Catholic cathedral of St. Stephen, is running an exhibition of works by a self-avowed Marxist atheist, titled "Religion, Flesh and Power", that includes depictions of explicit [perverted actions] in "religious" themed art. Prominent among the works is a rendition of the Last Supper with Christ and His Apostles depicted as homosexuals engaged in an orgy. Another work depicts Christ on the cross without a face but with uncovered genitals. The Last Supper rendition is displayed in a prominent place near the entrance to the exhibition.

Vienna sculptor and painter Alfred Hrdlicka is said to be very pleased that his works are being displayed in a museum associated with the Church.

The director of the Dommuseum, Mr. Bernhard Böhler, said that visitors have asked "in a more or less emotional way," why the Apostles are depicted copulating. According to the director, the artist responded, "There were no women around".

Gloria Television made a short video of the works that shows Hrdlicka's depiction of the flagellation of Christ with a nude Roman soldier performing a lewd act on the Lord's body. The video relates that one visitor to the exhibition said, "Our country can do without scribblers and agitators like Hrdlicka."

Vienna's Cathedral and Diocesan Museum was founded in 1933, and describes itself as "one of the exquisite gems amongst the many museums in Vienna". It is located adjacent to the Archbishop's Palace of Christoph Cardinal Schönborn, O.P.

The church museum boasts on the website that it offers special tours for school children saying they "learned a lot" about the Cathedral patron St. Stephen and the Christian faith. Vienna cathedral museum exhibits lewd, blasphemous homosexual 'religious' art; Dommuseum Wien, official website of the Dommuseum. (Links found at Novus Ordo Watch: Exposing the new pseudo-Catholic Church of Vatican II.)

How can any legitimate Catholic "archbishop" sit by and let such a perverse exhibit be displayed within the confines of his own archdiocesan boundaries, no less than on the property of his own cathedral?

A truly Catholic archbishop or bishop would run the risk of arrest for leading acts of reparation on the grounds of any secular institution displaying such sacrilegious abominations. An "archbishop" of the counterfeit church of conciliarism permits such a display to take place on his own grounds, demonstrating an utter lack of understanding of the necessity of defending the honor and majesty of God and the necessity of shielding from the eyes of men anything that is gravely sinful in itself and an occasion of sin, if not an actual enticement to commit sin, for those who view such sinful displays under the aegis of what purports to be the Catholic Church.

It is this same lack of understanding of the honor due to God Himself and of the horror of sin that causes so many "Catholic" educational leaders to support, if not actually encourage, the presentation of various plays (a particular with a title so vulgar has been "performed" on numerous "Catholic" college campuses, including that of my own Master's alma mater, the University of Notre Dame) that are scatological and deal in lewd and profane performances and programs.

These are spiritual and moral crimes of monstrous proportions. And there will be not one word of criticism or concern from the man, Joseph Ratzinger, who is promoting the "canonization" of a man, Karol Wojtyla, guilty of grave spiritual and moral crimes against Catholics and non-Catholics alike. Gone from the consciousness of these apostates and perverts is this simple reiteration of Catholic truth about the fact that no one has the right to to bring sinful things before the eye of man as found in Pope Leo XIII's Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885:

So, too, the liberty of thinking, and of publishing, whatsoever each one likes, without any hindrance, is not in itself an advantage over which society can wisely rejoice. On the contrary, it is the fountain-head and origin of many evils. Liberty is a power perfecting man, and hence should have truth and goodness for its object. But the character of goodness and truth cannot be changed at option. These remain ever one and the same, and are no less unchangeable than nature itself. If the mind assents to false opinions, and the will chooses and follows after what is wrong, neither can attain its native fullness, but both must fall from their native dignity into an abyss of corruption. Whatever, therefore, is opposed to virtue and truth may not rightly be brought temptingly before the eye of man, much less sanctioned by the favor and protection of the law. A well-spent life is the only way to heaven, whither all are bound, and on this account the State is acting against the laws and dictates of nature whenever it permits the license of opinion and of action to lead minds astray from truth and souls away from the practice of virtue. To exclude the Church, founded by God Himself, from the business of life, from the making of laws, from the education of youth, from domestic society is a grave and fatal error. A State from which religion is banished can never be well regulated; and already perhaps more than is desirable is known of the nature and tendency of the so-called civil philosophy of life and morals. The Church of Christ is the true and sole teacher of virtue and guardian of morals. She it is who preserves in their purity the principles from which duties flow, and, by setting forth most urgent reasons for virtuous life, bids us not only to turn away from wicked deeds, but even to curb all movements of the mind that are opposed to reason, even though they be not carried out in action.


All of this, my friends, is demonstrative of an abject loss of the Catholic Faith. No one who thinks supernaturally can make the appointments that have been made by the conciliar "pontiffs" or participate in the spectacles of inter-religious prayer services (the subject of Always Defying God) or remain utterly diffident in the face of the promotion of evils by those who are the official representatives of the counterfeit church of conciliarism. And this is precisely the problem, you see: to deny the nature of truth, as Ratzinger and his fellow conciliarists do, is to attack the very nature of God. To attack the very nature of God means that one is thoroughly "open" to the "opinions" of others, leading to the primacy of subjectivism over the objective nature of God's Divine Revelation and the authority He has given to His Holy Catholic Church to "Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine" (2 Tim. 4: 2).


Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II specifically denied that Judaism had been superseded by Catholicism, stating publicly that the Old Covenant that God had made with Moses had never been revoked:

I. Religious Teaching and Judaism

1. In Nostra Aetate, 4, the Council speaks of the "spiritual bonds linking" Jews and Christians and of the "great spiritual patrimony" common to both and it further asserts that "the Church of Christ acknowledges that, according to the mystery of God's saving design, the beginning of her faith and her election are already found among the patriarchs, Moses and the prophets."

2. Because of the unique relations that exist between Christianity and Judaism "linked together at the very level of their identity" (John Paul II, 6th March, 1982)-relations "founded on the design of the God of the Covenant" (ibid.), the Jews and Judaism should not occupy an occasional and marginal place in catechesis: their presence there is essential and should be organically integrated.

3. This concern for Judaism in Catholic teaching has not merely a historical or archeological foundation. As the Holy Father said in the speech already quoted, after he had again mentioned the "common patrimony" of the Church and Judaism as "considerable:"

"To assess it carefully in itself and with due awareness of the faith and religious life of the Jewish people as they are professed and practiced still today, can greatly help us to understand better certain aspects of the life pastoral of the Church" (italics added). It is a question then of pastoral concern for a still living reality closely related to the Church.

The Holy Father has stated this permanent reality of the Jewish people in a remarkable theological formula, in his allocution to the Jewish community of West Germany at Mainz, on November 17th, 1980: "The people of God of the Old Covenant, which has never been revoked."

4. Here we should recall the passage in which the Guidelines and Suggestions (no. 1), tried to define the fundamental condition of dialogue: "respect for the other as he is," knowledge of the "basic components of the religious tradition of Judaism" and again learning "by what essential traits the Jews define themselves in the light of their own religion experience" (ibid., Introduction). (Notes on the Correct Way to Present the Jews and Judaism in Preaching and Catechesis in the Roman Catholic Church, June 24, 1985.)


This is quite a contrast to--and indeed contradiction of--Pope Eugene IV's Cantate Domino, issued during the Council of Florence on February 4, 1442:

The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, heretics, and schismatics can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire ‘which was prepared for the devil and his angels,’ (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with her; and that so important is the unity of this Ecclesiastical Body, that only those remaining within this unity can profit from the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and that they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, almsdeeds, and other works of Christian piety and duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.


Yes, indeed, revolutions must have their "saints," of course, as I have pointed out on many occasions on this site.

The Bolsheviks made "saints" of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels and Vladimir Lenin, going to great lengths to preserve the latter's body by a daily infusion of embalming fluids so that it would appear as "incorrupt" to the steady stream of visitors who "venerated" the man who gave the world concentration camps and mass executions and surgical abortion-on-demand under cover of the civil law.

The Red Chinese have Mao Tse-Tung and Chou-en-Lai.

The Communists of Vietnam have Ho Chi Minh. White supremacists and true anti-Semites have Adolf Hitler.

The Islamic Republic of Iran has Ayotollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

The former Communist Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia had Josep Broz Tito.

And the Protestants, of course, who eschew, at least for the most part, the veneration of Our Lady and the other saints, have their own "saints" (Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Wesley, Ulrich Zwingli, et al.).

Not to be outdone, of course, is the penchant for the "canonization" of the plaster "saints" of the American founding, men who had a founding hatred for Christ the King, some of whom are invoked with "reverence" and whose "wisdom," which included the belief that men could organize themselves individually and collectively without a due submission to the Deposit of Faith that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has entrusted exclusively to His Catholic Church for Its eternal safekeeping and infallible explication on all that pertains to personal and social order undertaken in light of the pursuit of man's Last End.

It is thus necessary for the conciliarists to "beatify" and "canonize" their own revolutionary figures.

As I have noted in the past, a careful distinction needs to be made before proceeding: there have been truly worthy candidates for" beatification" and "canonization" who have been advanced by the conciliarists.

The "wheat" of authentic sanctity (such as belonged to Jacinta and Francisco Marto, Father Junipero Serra, Father Miguel Augustin Pro, Venerable Anne Katherine Emmerich, Venerable Pauline Jaricot, Kateri Tekakwitha, Elizabeth Ann Seton, Bishop John Neumann, Venerable Juan Diego, Padre Pio, Father Maximilian Kolbe, who opposed all forms of naturalism, including both "national" socialism and "international" socialism, and false ecumenism) will have to be separated from the "chaff" of Modernism (Josemaria Escriva Balaguer y Albas, Mother Teresa, Karol Wojtyla, Angelo Roncalli, et al.) by a true pope when the conciliarists are removed by the very hand of God Himself as the fruit of the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. The inclusion of truly worthy candidates to be considered  for canonization has permitted the conciliarists to attempt to promote their own number (Escriva, Roncalli, Wojtyla) to the ranks of the "blessed."

In other words, you see, the inclusion of worthy candidates in the "saint factory" of conciliarism has provided a "cover," if you will, for the inclusion of the progenitors of the conciliar revolution in the "canonization" process. Although an indulterer at the time, even I knew that the "beatification" of Pope Pius IX and the decrepit Modernist named Angelo Roncalli, who had his corpulent corpus preserved artificially as the revolutionary Lenin himself so as to make it appear that it was "incorrupt" to those investigating his "cause" after his death, on the same day, September 3, 2000, was an exercise in Hegelianism. After all, how can one "reconcile" heralding Pope Pius IX and Angelo Roncalli on the same day when the former, Pope Pius IX, condemned the very propositions that were at the foundation of the life's work of the latter, Roncalli?

And I knew as well even then back in 2000 that I had a little problem on my hands: contrary to what is being contended by the "resist and recognize" movement, including the Society of Saint Pius X, then and now, the canonization of a saint is an infallible act of the Catholic Church, one that is not "limited" by any juridical process. A true pope can as a matter of papal fiat declare a person to be a canonized saint. A true pope can, as a matter of papal fiat, declare a person to be a canonized saint. One can no more "sift" a pope's canonization of saints than he can "sift" a pope's teachings. The "canonization" of one clearly unfit to be raised to the altars of the Catholic Church would be a sign, I knew, that the "pope" attempting such canonization was not a true Successor of Saint Peter. It was either one or the other. I knew that nine years ago. I just was not ready to face that reality square in the eye.

Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II approved of the then Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger's 2001 overturning of the 1887 condemnation of forty propositions of the work of the late Father Antonio Rosmini by Pope Leo XIII meaning of course, that Pope Leo XIII was wrong, a contention that was so revolutionary that even a progressivist "theologian" named Gregory Baum found remarkable in that it was a "recognition" that the magisterium of the Catholic Church can be "wrong" on matters of Faith and Morals, something that Catholics know is absolutely impossible but is at the heart of the Hegelian mindset of Ratzinger/Benedict:

Today the situation is different. First, according to Ratzinger, serious research has shown that if Rosmini's ambiguous and obscure passages are interpreted in the light of his own philosophical work, which is, of course, the only honest way of reading a philosophical text, then their meaning is not contrary to the Catholic tradition. Second, in his encyclical Faith and Reason of 1998, John Paul II has welcomed philosophical pluralism in the church and, in fact, mentioned with great respect Antonio Rosmini among several Catholic thinkers of the 19th century. That is why, at the present time, lifting the condemnations decreed in 1887 is justified.

The nota of July 2001 is an important ecclesiastical document because it applies the historical-critical method to the understanding of the magisterium. Yet has Ratzinger's "attentive reading" demonstrated that lifting the condemnation does not involve the magisterium in an internal contradiction? I do not think so.

He has shown that the condemnation of Rosmini's propositions in 1887 were justified in terms of the church's pastoral policy and hence could be lifted without inconsistency later. Yet he does not raise the truth question. The readers of the condemnation of 1886 were made to believe that these propositions were erroneous: They were not told that they were erroneous only when read from a neo-Thomist perspective and that their true meaning should not be pursued at that time because Pope Leo XIII wanted neo-Thomism to become the church's official philosophy.

The nota demonstrates that the condemnation of 1886 exercised a useful ecclesiastical function, not that it was true. Ratzinger's explanation reveals that the Holy Office showed no respect for the truth at all. Its intentions were tactical and political. The Holy Office at that time saw itself as a servant of the church's central government and judged ideas in terms of their ecclesiastical implications, not their truth.

Still, the nota is an important document since it is the first time an ecclesiastical statement wrestles with a question that has troubled Catholics for a long time. How are we to interpret apparent contradictions in the magisterium?

Here is a famous example. In the bull Unam Sanctam of 1302, Pope Boniface VIII wrote these words: "We declare, we set forth, we define that submission to the Roman pontiff is necessary for the salvation of any human creature." And the Council of Florence solemnly declared in 1442 that outside the Catholic church there is no salvation, neither for heretics nor schismatics, even if they should live holy lives or shed their blood in the name of Christ. Vatican Council II appeared to proclaim an entirely different doctrine. We read in Gaudium et Spes that since Christ has died for all humans and since the destiny of humanity is one, we are to hold that, in a manner known to God, participation in the mystery of redemption is offered to every human being.

We are bound to ask with Ratzinger whether there is an internal contradiction in the magisterium. Were the solemn declarations of Boniface VIII and the Council of Florence wrong? The words of Boniface were so emphatic, "we declare, we set forth, we define," that the reader may wonder whether Vatican Council II has made a mistake. At the same time, the declarations of Boniface and the cardinals in attendance at the Council of Florence were hard to reconcile with the teaching of the Church Fathers of the second and third centuries who believed that God's redemptive Word, incarnate in Christ, was operative wherever people sought the truth. There may have been good church-political reasons for Boniface and the cardinals of the Council of Florence to make these harsh declarations, yet -- I would argue -- these declarations were wrong. The magisterium has made mistakes. The church, guided by the Spirit, is forever learning.

Ratzinger's document has sent theologians off into a new area of research. (Ratzinger explains how condemnation was right then, wrong now)


"The magisterium has made made mistakes. The church, guided by the Spirit, is forever learning." This is part of the apostate legacy of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II that will make up his "feast day" when he "beatified" next year, 2010, a "feast day" that will be mandatory to be observed in the Motu communities and that the conciliar Vatican will make mandatory for use by the bishops and priests and presbyters of the Society of Saint Pius X once their "miraculous" "reconciliation" is effected and it is declared that Catholics can rest in peace knowing that a "solution" has been found to view all of this apostasy "in light of Tradition." Excuse me if I do not order any party hats or party favors for the "celebration" of such an apostate soul as Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, who, at the behest of the then Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger, approved a "Eucharistic Prayer" from the schismatic and heretical Assyrian Church that does not have any words of consecration (see Guidelines for Chaldean Catholics receiving the Eucharist in Assyrian Churches and my own Not Such a Triumph After All).


The anti-sedevacantist book The Great Facade, which, yes, I once praised for its documentation of the conciliar revolution (and is really a very useful tool, along with Fathers Francisco and Dominic Radecki's Tumultuous Times, against the "beatification" and "canonization" of Wojtyla/John Paul II), had this interesting commentary on the reversal of the Rosmini condemnation, which as we know, was a but a prelude to Rosmini's "beatification" on November 18, 2007, as reflective of Ratzinger's lifelong view on the "contingent" nature of doctrinal pronouncements, a view he expressed very clearly on June 27, 1990:

The text [of the document Instruction on the Theologian's Ecclesial Vocation] also presents the various types of bonds that rise from the different degrees of magisterial teaching. It affirms - perhaps for the first time with this clarity - that there are decisions of the magisterium that cannot be the last word on the matter as such, but are, in a substantial fixation of the problem, above all an expression of pastoral prudence, a kind of provisional disposition. The nucleus remains valid, but the particulars, which the circumstances of the times influenced, may need further correction.

In this regard, one may think of the declarations of Popes in the last century [19th century] about religious liberty, as well as the anti-Modernist decisions at the beginning of this century, above all, the decisions of the Biblical Commission of the time [on evolutionism]. As a cry of alarm in the face of hasty and superficial adaptations, they will remain fully justified. A personage such as Johann Baptist Metz said, for example, that the Church's anti-Modernist decisions render the great service of preserving her from falling into the liberal-bourgeois world. But in the details of the determinations they contain, they became obsolete after having fulfilled their pastoral mission at their proper time.

(Joseph Ratzinger, "Instruction on the Theologian's Ecclesial Vocation," published with the title "Rinnovato dialogo fra Magistero e Teologia," in L'Osservatore Romano, June 27, 1990, p. 6, Card. Ratzinger: The teachings of the Popes against Modernism are obsolete.)


Here is some of the material from The Great Facade on the overturning of the Rosmini declaration, a section that concludes with the proviso, one of many found in the book (and a method I used in my own writing until three years ago, as can be seen by reviewing the articles that I have left upon this site from my "resist and recognize" days), that readers should not be alarmed as the action, approved by "Cardinal" Ratzinger and Wojtyla/John Paul II, do not represent anything "binding" or "official," which is true only for the reason that nothing done by the counterfeit church of conciliarism, an ape of the Catholic Church, is binding upon the consciences of any member of the Catholic Church:

The Cardinal did not elaborate on the precise meaning of this elusive and rather strange remark [Card. Ratzinger: The teachings of the Popes against Modernism are obsolete], or explain how a statement's "core" can remain valid while its details pass away. How does His Eminence propose to disentangle what constitutes the "core" of the Syllabus, as opposed to its time-bound details, especially since Blessed Pius IX appeared to be defending universal principles, not bound by time and place. No answer is provided.

We are not told which particular aspects of these prior teachings are "temporary dispositions" and which still bind the faithful. No specific preconciliar papal document is labeled as "expired." The precise expiration date for the "temporary provisions" in major preconciliar encyclicals is likewise not provided. But at least as of 1990, according to Cardinal Ratzinger's non-binding opinion at a press conference, theologians are now free to disregard some or all--and who knows which? of the Syllabus of Blessed Pius IX, Pascendi by St. Pius X, along with the decisions of his Biblical Commission, and (it would appear) the anti-liberal encyclicals of Leo XIII, Gregory XVI and other other preconciliar Pope whose teaching does not comport well with the novel attitudes and programs of the conciliar aggiornamento.

An example of how such a principle may work in practice occurred in mid-2001 when the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith declared "superseded" the 1887 condemnations of the writings of Fr. Antonio Rosmini (1797-1855). The condemned statements of Rosmini, available at DZ 1891, certainly appear erroneous, including references to the "natural" state of the soul after death and a frankly apparent pantheism. But the CDF now claims that the intellectual milieu in which Rosmini's propositions had been condemned was one in which his arguments could not be properly understood. In other words, Pope Leo XIII and his Holy Office [of the Inquisition] got it wrong. "The adoption of Thomism," the CDF explains,"created the premises for a negative judgment of a philosophical and speculative position, like that of Rosmini, because it differed in its language and conceptual framework from the philosophical and theological elaboration of St. Thomas Aquinas." Conceding that Rosmini's system contained "concepts and expressions that are at times ambiguous and equivocal," the CDF document nevertheless explains away Pope Leo XIII's 1887 condemnation as the result of "historical-cultural and ecclesial factors of the time." Having argued that the prior Magisterium had misunderstood Rosmini, however, the CDF nowhere explains precisely how the interpretations of Rosmini held by Leo XIII's Holy Office were mistaken, or how Rosmini's system could be given a Catholic meaning. The document simply concludes by declaring that "the plausibility of the Rosminian system, of its speculative consistency and of the philosophical and theological theories and hypotheses expressed in it remain entrusted to the theoretical debate." [see the original document at Note on the Force of the Doctrinal Decrees Concerning the Thought and Work of Fr Antonio Rosmini Serbati, July 1, 2001.]

Liberal theologian Gregory Baum was delighted at the this development. "Never before," he wrote, has the Magisterium applied the historical-critical method to its own teaching." Ratzinger, according to Baum, "has shown that the condemnation of Rosmini's propositions in 1887 . . . [was] justified in terms of the Church's pastoral policy and hence could be lifted without inconsistency later. Yet he does not raise the truth question." That is, people who had read the condemnation "were made to believe that these propositions were erroneous: They were not told that there erroneous only when read from a neo-Thomist perspective. . . ."  [see Ratzinger explains how condemnation was right then, wrong now.]

But what, then, is a Catholic to do? How are Catholics to know which solemn pronouncements in papal encyclicals and other pronouncements were only "temporary dispositions" or "moorings in the problem," and which are still binding? How can one tell whether a given condemnation was based on "historical-cultural and ecclesial factors of the time," as opposed to an objective error in the proposition itself? Will there be periodic bulletins from the CDF on which condemned errors were not really errors at all, but only misunderstandings that can now be cleared up?

Further, if Pope Leo XIII and his Holy Office got it wrong because they viewed the Rosminian propositions from within a Thomistic "conceptual framework," then how do we know that Cardinal Ratzinger has gotten it right from within his non-Thomistic framework? And if papal condemnations of theological error are now to be judged according to the "conceptual framework" in which they were issued, how indeed will we ever get to what Baum calls the "truth question"--namely, whether a proposition is simply wrong, always and everywhere, regardless of the "framework" in which the proposition is judged? (Christopher A. Ferrara and Thomas E. Woods, Jr., The Great Facade, The Remnant Press, 2002, pp. 288-290; see also the analysis of the Rosmini scandal by another anti-sedevacantist author, Mr. James Larson, who is intellectually honest about the problems in Ratzinger/Benedict's theology, ROSMINI'S REHABILITATION AND THE RATZINGER AGENDA: When To Be Is Not To Be.)


We know, of course, that there is no "dilemma" posed by Ratzinger/Benedict's apostate view of dogmatic pronouncements made in the "past." There is no need to wonder which document of the Catholic Church is binding and which is not. We know that each pronouncement of the Catholic Church binds our consciences as she maintains the Deposit of Faith "without even a light tarnish of error" (Pope Gregory XVI, Singulari Nos, June 25, 1834) and that she brings forth her teaching "with ease and security to the knowledge of men" (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928). The Catholic Church does not leave her children scratching their heads about what she teaches in the Holy Name of her Divine Founder and Invisible Head, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

We know furthermore that although it is very true that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's apostate view of dogmatic pronouncements, a view was anathematized by the [First] Vatican Council and condemned vigorously by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907, and by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis, August 12, 1950, is not binding on any Catholic as by holding this anathematized and condemned view (among the many other condemned views that he holds privately and declares publicly) he has expelled himself from the bosom of the Catholic Church as one needs only to defect from the Faith in one thing to defect from It in Its entirety:

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).


As is demonstrated in today's companion article, Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II and Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI believe that one can, whether a Catholic or non-Catholic, adhere to various errors and yet remain "close to God," who they must "find" on their own, as the then Archbishop Wojtyla noted in an intervention at the "Second" Vatican Council:

His [Wojtyla's] stand on atheism puzzled many of the bishops, especially those from Communist countries. Archbishop Wojtyla believed that the human person should find the truth on their own and that conversion was unnecessary:

"Wojtyla was deeply convinced that personalist ethics--which stresses the uniqueness and inviolability of the human personality--would never allow the imposing of ideas on anyone. He took the same line when the council discussed the problems of atheism--a question that vexed the Council Fathers almost from the beginning to the end of Vatican II. 'It is not the Church's role to lecture unbelievers,' Wojtyla declared on taking the floor on October 21, 1964. 'We are involved a quest along with our fellow men. ...Let us avoid moralizing or suggesting that we have a monopoly on the truth.' ...Talk at the council of actual 'relations with atheism' meant dialogue with Marxists." (Carl Bernstein and Marco Politi, His Holiness, pp. 102-103, quoted in Tumultuous Times, p. 540.)

These were revolutionary ideas, especially at a time when the West braced for nuclear war and when much of the world was held captive under Communist tyranny. He further expressed his ecumenical and Modernist persuasions a week later.

"He began with several previously expressed comments on the Church and the world and the president of the session was on the point of stopping him, when he quickly and skillfully captivated his audience and silenced all the noise in the auditorium. In a loud and distinct voice, he clearly explained that the Church should no longer pose as the sole dispenser of Truth and Goodness... She should, he went on, be in the world but not above it. ...The Church must alter her teaching; she should encourage Revelation and no longer dictate it." (Catherine and Jacques Legrand, John Paul II, p. 68.)

"Although he was only forty-two when the council opened, Wojtyla made eight oral interventions in the council hall, a rather high number, and often spoke in the name of large groups of bishops from Eastern Europe. (Altogether he made 22 interventions, oral and written.) He was an unusually active member of various drafting groups for Gaudium et Spes, and even a chief author of what was called the 'Polish draft.' His voice as crucial to the passage of the document on religious liberty.''"(William Madges and Michael Daly, Vatican II: Forty Personal Stories, p. 33)

The Modernists Yves Congar, Henri de Lubac and Jean Danielou worked closely with Archbishop Wojtyla to draft the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World [Gaudium et Spes]. In his speeches of September 23 and 28, 1965, Wojtyla championed the heresy of religious liberty and encouraged dialogue with atheists.

"Archbishop Wojtyla then took up the question of atheism as a pastoral issue, as part of the Church's 'dialogue with everyone.' ...The Church's dialogue with atheism should begin not with arguments or proofs about the existence of God, but with a conversation about the human person's interior liberty." (Fathers Francisco and Dominic Radecki, CMRI, Tumultuous Times, pp. 540-541.)


Personal error abounded in the mind of Karol Wojtyla from the time that he was teenager (see "Connecting" with Betrayal). Respect for the errors of others abounded in the mind of Karol Wojtyla throughout his priesthood and his forty-six and one-half years as a bishop prior to his death on April 1 (or April 2), 2005.

None of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II's "pro-life" words can ever undo his anti-eternal life words and deeds and actions that reaffirmed Catholics and non-Catholics alike in various errors and as he committed grave sacrileges against the honor and glory and majesty of God on a regular basis. One does not maintain his membership in the Catholic Church on the basis of how "little" of the Faith he maintains or on the basis of how eloquently he may speak about it at some times before Catholics. One maintains his membership in the Catholic Church by adhering to each tenet of the Faith without fail. And one can never be considered as a worthy candidate for canonization who, apart from all other considerations, did not even discharge the duties required by his state-in-life by refusing to discipline, except on only very rare occasions, those who he had appointed or promoted or maintained as "bishops" who were menaces, both spiritual and physical, to the eternal and temporal welfare of Catholics of all ages.

Mikhail Gorbachev gives a "thumbs up" to his fellow believer in the "new world order" and a more "humane" world based on a "respect" for the contributions of "believers" (of all religions) or non-believers in a spirit of "human solidarity," which he also called "the civilization of love" on so many occasions, phrases that could be used by any grand master of any Masonic lodge.

God does not give a "thumbs up" to one who championed the heresies of the "new ecclesiology" and false ecumenism and the travesties of inter-religious "prayer" services and the "papal" liturgies that were designed to serve as the models for the "inculturation of the Gospel" at the local level, as a faithful acolyte of the liturgical revolutionary and penultimate ecumenist Annibale Bugnini, Piero Marini, admitted in an interview given on October 15, 2003. No man who denies the Social Reign of Christ the King by promoting"religious liberty" and the "separation of Church and State," no less a man who dared to tamper with Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary, would ever be raised to the altars of the Catholic Church.

Yet it is, of course, that, as noted before in this commentary, "Blessed 'Pope' John Paul the Great's" "feast day" will be an "obligatory memorial" in the Novus Ordo world, including the Motu communities (as part of the great "triumph" of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's Summorum Pontificum, July 7, 2007, was to "prepare" traditionally-minded Catholics yet attached to the conciliar structures for the "celebration" of the "new" "blesseds" and "saints" and for the use of some of the prefaces from the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service) and in the "miracle" of a "reconciled" Society of Saint Pius X that will be singing the old songs in a high church, low church ape of the schismatic and heretical Anglican sect.

As we continue Day 2 of our Novena to God the Holy Ghost, may we come to understand that God the Holy Ghost does not contradict Himself. No Catholic can go into a mosque or synagogue to pay "homage" to a false religion by praising such a place of false worship and the false beliefs held by those who worship their devils therein and come out as a member of the Catholic Church in good standing if he had not already fallen from the Faith for other reasons:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Karol Wojtyla can no more be elevated as a saint to the altars of the Catholic Church than he can be considered a true Successor of Saint Peter, and I was one of his chief "cheerleaders" and apologists for a long time. One does come to recognize, however, that it is evil to try to defend the indefensible and that it is irresponsible to avoid the canonical-doctrine of the Catholic Church concerning the fact that heretics cannot hold the papacy legitimately that was admitted as being part of Catholic doctrine by the late conciliar prefect of the Apostolic Signatura in conciliar captivity, Mario Francesco "Cardinal" Pompedda, in 2005:

It is true that the canonical doctrine states that the see would be vacant in the case of heresy. ... But in regard to all else, I think what is applicable is what judgment regulates human acts. And the act of will, namely a resignation or capacity to govern or not govern, is a human act. (Cardinal Says Pope Could Govern Even If Unable to Speak, Zenit, February 8, 2005.)


As we ask Our Lady, the Spouse of God the Holy Ghost and Queen of the Apostles, to prepare well for a good celebration of Pentecost Sunday, may we continue to pray as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit, considering to be our singular privilege to live penitentially and to offer up many prayers and mortifications and fastings and acts of reparation to the Most Sacred Heart of her Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, through her own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart in reparation for our sins and those of the whole world.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.


Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Our Lady, Queen of the Apostles, pray for us.

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.


Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.


Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints


© Copyright 2009, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.