Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us

May 10, 2010

To A Dead End On The Wrong Path

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is an apostate. He is a betrayer of Christ the King and the Catholic Faith. He is a mortal enemy of the souls redeemed by the shedding of the Most Precious Blood of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. How any Catholic can at this late date consider this man a member of the Catholic Church who is faithful to the Deposit of Faith that Our Lord has entrusted exclusively to His Mystical Bride without any shadow of change or obscurity is a great mystery.

Yes, of course, I have written this several times in recent articles. Thanks for noticing--and remembering.

It is important, as I see it to keep emphasizing this point as so many traditionally-minded Catholics who are as of yet attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism (as I was for decades) want to bury their heads in the sand and/or engage in gross acts of intellectual dishonesty, sometimes contradicting previous, critical writings about Ratzinger/Benedict that have been suppressed or removed from public view, even though the false "pontiff" continues to deny the Catholic Faith (see Ratzinger's War Against Catholicism and Apologizing to Everyone Save For God Himself). Examples of this willful blindness or intellectual dishonesty abound (see

For the sake of those who are new to the site or don't know where to find specific references, perhaps it is useful once more to quote from Pope Leo XIII's Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896, to demonstrate that one who knowingly defects from the Faith on even one point is no longer a member of the Catholic Church in good standing:

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).

It is my conviction that the case against the orthodoxy Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI  and his conciliar predecessors has been made abundantly clear.

Here are just a few quick reminders.

The Nature of Dogmatic Truth

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI believes in a concept of dogmatic truth that has, at long last (!), been "discovered" after being in hiding for nearly two millennia, namely, 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. He has held this dogmatically condemned and philosophically absurd belief throughout the course of his nearly fifty-nine years as a priest. The man fell from the Faith long, long ago, decades before his apparent 'election" on April 20, 2005:

Father Joseph Ratzinger, 1971: "In theses 10-12, the difficult problem of the relationship between language and thought is debated, which in post-conciliar discussions was the immediate departure point of the dispute.

The identity of the Christian substance as such, the Christian 'thing' was not directly ... censured, but it was pointed out that no formula, no matter how valid and indispensable it may have been in its time, can fully express the thought mentioned in it and declare it unequivocally forever, since language is constantly in movement and the content of its meaning changes. (Fr. Ratzinger: Dogmatic formulas must always change.)

Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger, 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.)

"Pope" Benedict XVI"It is precisely in this combination of continuity and discontinuity at different levels that the very nature of true reform consists. In this process of innovation in continuity we must learn to understand more practically than before that the Church's decisions on contingent matters - for example, certain practical forms of liberalism or a free interpretation of the Bible - should necessarily be contingent themselves, precisely because they refer to a specific reality that is changeable in itself. It was necessary to learn to recognize that in these decisions it is only the principles that express the permanent aspect, since they remain as an undercurrent, motivating decisions from within.

"On the other hand, not so permanent are the practical forms that depend on the historical situation and are therefore subject to change. (Christmas greetings to the Members of the Roman Curia and Prelature, December 22, 2005.)


All I try to do on this site is to use simple logic and clear-headed, Scholastic reasoning point out things that are otherwise pretty obvious. In this instance, of course, for Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI to be correct it would be necessary for the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, to have "hidden" the "knowledge" that earlier papal teachings and magisterial pronouncements contain "contingent elements" that can be changed according to the different historical circumstances in which men find themselves at different times. This is blasphemy as it has been precisely God the Holy Ghost Who has directed our true popes and the Fathers of our dogmatic councils to make dogmatic pronouncements with in the manner that He has directed them to use.

One has to stand on his head and whistle Dixie backwards to try to make Ratzinger/Benedict's conform to any semblance of the Catholic teaching below that exposes him as one who has indeed defected from the Catholic Faith on this single point alone:

  • For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward
    • not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence,
    • but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.
  • Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.

God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever be in opposition to truth.

The appearance of this kind of specious contradiction is chiefly due to the fact that either: the dogmas of faith are not understood and explained in accordance with the mind of the church, or unsound views are mistaken for the conclusions of reason.

Therefore we define that every assertion contrary to the truth of enlightened faith is totally false. . . .

3. If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.

And so in the performance of our supreme pastoral office, we beseech for the love of Jesus Christ and we command, by the authority of him who is also our God and saviour, all faithful Christians, especially those in authority or who have the duty of teaching, that they contribute their zeal and labour to the warding off and elimination of these errors from the church and to the spreading of the light of the pure faith.

But since it is not enough to avoid the contamination of heresy unless those errors are carefully shunned which approach it in greater or less degree, we warn all of their duty to observe the constitutions and decrees in which such wrong opinions, though not expressly mentioned in this document, have been banned and forbidden by this holy see. (Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session III, Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Chapter 4, On Faith and Reason, April 24, 1870. SESSION 3 : 24 April 1.)


It doesn't get any clearer. The contrast is stark. There is no need to try to "reconcile" the philosophical absurdity of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI with the Catholic Faith. It is impossible to do so.

False Ecumenism

One more example will suffice before I turn, if ever so briefly, to Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's latest elegy of praise for a lifelong adherent of the Talmud, who the false "pontiff" believes was led along the "right path" during the time of the Nazi persecution of the Jews in Rome during World War II, one other contrast between what is believed and proclaimed by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI  and the teaching of the Catholic Church:

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI: "We all know there are numerous models of unity and you know that the Catholic Church also has as her goal the full visible unity of the disciples of Christ, as defined by the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council in its various Documents (cf. Lumen Gentium, nn. 8, 13; Unitatis Redintegratio, nn. 2, 4, etc.). This unity, we are convinced, indeed subsists in the Catholic Church, without the possibility of ever being lost (cf. Unitatis Redintegratio, n. 4); the Church in fact has not totally disappeared from the world.

On the other hand, this unity does not mean what could be called ecumenism of the return:  that is, to deny and to reject one's own faith history. Absolutely not!

It does not mean uniformity in all expressions of theology and spirituality, in liturgical forms and in discipline. Unity in multiplicity, and multiplicity in unity:  in my Homily for the Solemnity of Sts Peter and Paul on 29 June last, I insisted that full unity and true catholicity in the original sense of the word go together. As a necessary condition for the achievement of this coexistence, the commitment to unity must be constantly purified and renewed; it must constantly grow and mature. (Ecumenical meeting at the Archbishopric of Cologne English)


This is, of course, not the teaching of the Catholic Church:

"It is for this reason that so many who do not share 'the communion and the truth of the Catholic Church' must make use of the occasion of the Council, by the means of the Catholic Church, which received in Her bosom their ancestors, proposes [further] demonstration of profound unity and of firm vital force; hear the requirements [demands] of her heart, they must engage themselves to leave this state that does not guarantee for them the security of salvation. She does not hesitate to raise to the Lord of mercy most fervent prayers to tear down of the walls of division, to dissipate the haze of errors, and lead them back within holy Mother Church, where their Ancestors found salutary pastures of life; where, in an exclusive way, is conserved and transmitted whole the doctrine of Jesus Christ and wherein is dispensed the mysteries of heavenly grace.

"It is therefore by force of the right of Our supreme Apostolic ministry, entrusted to us by the same Christ the Lord, which, having to carry out with [supreme] participation all the duties of the good Shepherd and to follow and embrace with paternal love all the men of the world, we send this Letter of Ours to all the Christians from whom We are separated, with which we exhort them warmly and beseech them with insistence to hasten to return to the one fold of Christ; we desire in fact from the depths of the heart their salvation in Christ Jesus, and we fear having to render an account one day to Him, Our Judge, if, through some possibility, we have not pointed out and prepared the way for them to attain eternal salvation. In all Our prayers and supplications, with thankfulness, day and night we never omit to ask for them, with humble insistence, from the eternal Shepherd of souls the abundance of goods and heavenly graces. And since, if also, we fulfill in the earth the office of vicar, with all our heart we await with open arms the return of the wayward sons to the Catholic Church, in order to receive them with infinite fondness into the house of the Heavenly Father and to enrich them with its inexhaustible treasures. By our greatest wish for the return to the truth and the communion with the Catholic Church, upon which depends not only the salvation of all of them, but above all also of the whole Christian society: the entire world in fact cannot enjoy true peace if it is not of one fold and one shepherd." (Pope Pius IX, Iam Vos Omnes, September 13, 1868.)

"So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it. . . .  Let, therefore, the separated children draw nigh to the Apostolic See, set up in the City which Peter and Paul, the Princes of the Apostles, consecrated by their blood; to that See, We repeat, which is 'the root and womb whence the Church of God springs,' not with the intention and the hope that 'the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth' will cast aside the integrity of the faith and tolerate their errors, but, on the contrary, that they themselves submit to its teaching and government. Would that it were Our happy lot to do that which so many of Our predecessors could not, to embrace with fatherly affection those children, whose unhappy separation from Us We now bewail. Would that God our Savior, "Who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth," would hear us when We humbly beg that He would deign to recall all who stray to the unity of the Church! In this most important undertaking We ask and wish that others should ask the prayers of Blessed Mary the Virgin, Mother of divine grace, victorious over all heresies and Help of Christians, that She may implore for Us the speedy coming of the much hoped-for day, when all men shall hear the voice of Her divine Son, and shall be 'careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.'" (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)


Not enough? How about testimony from the Mother of God herself?

"Do you think that I do not know that you are the heretic? Realize that your end is at hand. If you do not return to the True Faith, you will be cast into Hell! But if you change your beliefs, I shall protect you before God. Tell people to pray that they may gain the good graces which, God in His mercy has offered to them." (See: If You Do Not Return to the True Faith, You Will Be Cast Into Hell!)


Those who want to see the contrast between the Catholic Faith and conciliarism will do so. Others will not. I have provided abundant evidence that, apart from the two areas reviewed very briefly above, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's embrace and promotion of the "new ecclesiology," religious liberty and separation of Church and State, and his rejection of Scholasticism in favor of the "new theology," whose exponents he quotes in his "encyclical letters" place him well outside of the Catholic Church. All I can do on this site is to provide this information, letting readers judge for themselves so that they can come to the realization that it is impossible for a true Catholic pope to say and do the things that the conciliar "popes" and their "bishops" have said and done.

Refusing to Seek the Conversion of the Jews

It should come as no surprise, therefore, that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has sent a message of congratulations to the former rabbi of Rome, Italy, Elio Toaff, on the occasion of his ninety-fifth birthday without, of course, inviting him to convert to the true Faith before he dies. This means that Ratzinger/Benedict does not believe that Elio Toaff's souls is in any jeopardy at all of being lost for all eternity as the former rabbi persists in his rejection of the Sacred Divinity of the Divine Redeemer, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and is still part of a false religion based upon a document, the Talmud, that blasphemes Our Lord and Our Lady and Saint Joseph and maligns Christians in general:

VATICAN CITY, 4 MAY 2010 (VIS) - Benedict XVI has sent a message of congratulation to Elio Toaff, former rabbi of Rome, for his ninety-fifth birthday, which fell yesterday 3 May. The Message was read out by Msgr. Georg Gaenswein, personal secretary of the Pope, in the course of the inaugural ceremony of the Elio Toaff Foundation for Hebrew Culture.

"I think", the Holy Father writes, "using the expressions of the Psalm, how the Lord restored your soul, leading you along the right path, even through the darkest valley, at the time of the persecution and extermination of the Jewish People. The Lord, in His mysterious plans, wished you to have a unique experience of His salvation, becoming a sign of hope for the rebirth of many of your brothers and sisters.

"I am particularly happy to recall", the Pope adds, "your commitment to promoting fraternal relations between Catholics and Jews, and the sincere friendship that bound you to my venerated predecessor Pope John Paul II". (POPE CONGRATULATES RABBI EMERITUS ELIO TOAFF .)


Yes, I agree that too much can be read into part of this statement as Ratzinger/Benedict is not saying, at least not in so many words, that Elio Toaff has been led on the path of eternal salvation. It appears as though the false "pontiff" was congratulating Toaff and many of his people from being killed during the Nazi persecution of the Jews in Rome when he wrote that Toaff had had a "unique experience" of the "Lord's" "salvation," being careful not to mention the name of the one and only true Lord Who has won for us man's eternal salvation on the wood of the Holy Cross as He made atonement for each of our own sins by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Ratzinger/Benedict, however, does blaspheme God when He wrote that the "Lord restored your soul" as Elio Toaff's soul is in the grip of the devil by means of Original Sin and cannot be "restored" until and unless he consents to be baptized as a member of the Catholic Church.

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI does remind Elio Toaff of this, thereby showing himself, Ratzinger/Benedict, to be a false friend of the rabbi's. Why is the false "pontiff" a false "friend" of the former rabbi of Rome, Italy? It's very simple. Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI refuses to seek with urgency Elio Toaff's conversion to the true Faith, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order. The false "pontiff" is thus the worst kind of anti-Semite as he shows himself without true love for Elio Toaff's immortal soul, giving the rabbi every indication to believe that he is not only on the right path temporally but is on the way to Heaven itself. Those who are convinced of the "truth" of their false beliefs need to be challenged with an exhortation to convert. Ratzinger/Benedict has done no such thing with any Jew he has addressed during the sixty and one-half months of his false pontificate.

Then again, Ratzinger/Benedict believes that non-Catholics are not at all in jeopardy of losing their souls, having gone as far as placing his friend, the arch-ecumenist Protestant, "Brother" Roger Schutz, the founder of the Taize Ecumenical Movement whose "liturgy" was an important prototype that pointed the way to the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service, had attained "eternal joy" after he was murdered by a devoted follower in Taize, France, on Tuesday, August 16, 2005:

Founder "Has Attained Eternal Joy," Says Benedict XVI

CASTEL GANDOLFO, Italy, AUG. 17, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Benedict XVI expressed his sorrow at the murder of Brother Roger Schutz, saying the founder of the ecumenical Taizé Community is "in the hands of eternal goodness."

Brother Roger, 90, was stabbed to death by a woman Tuesday at an evening prayer service attended by 2,500 people in the Burgundy region in France, authorities said. A 36-year-old Romanian woman was detained by witnesses and turned over to police, authorities said.

The Pope showed emotion as he expressed his grief, at the end of today's general audience.

"This news has affected me even more because precisely yesterday I received a very moving, affectionate letter from Frère Roger," the Pope said, addressing the pilgrims gathered in the patio of the papal summer residence of Castel Gandolfo.

"In it he wrote that from the depth of his heart he wanted to tell me that 'we are in communion with you and with those who have gathered in Cologne,'" the Holy Father said.

Hopes for Cologne

Benedict XVI, as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, had known Brother Roger for a long time.

During Pope John Paul II's funeral, Cardinal Ratzinger, the then dean of the College of Cardinals, surprised observers when he went up to Brother Roger, who was in a wheelchair, to give him Communion. Brother Roger was not Catholic.

In his letter, the founder of the ecumenical community explained to the new Pope that "because of his state of health, unfortunately he would not be able to come personally to Cologne, but that he would be present spiritually with his brothers."

The letter, written in French, expressed Brother Roger's desire "to come as soon as possible to Rome to meet with me and to tell me that 'our Community of Taizé wants to go forward in communion with the Holy Father,'" according to Benedict XVI.

The letter ended with these words in Brother Roger's own handwriting: "Holy Father, I assure you of my sentiments of profound communion. Frère Roger of Taizé."

"At this moment of sadness," the Pope said, "we can only commend to the Lord's goodness the soul of this faithful servant of his."

"Frère Schutz is in the hands of eternal goodness, of eternal love; he has attained eternal joy," the Holy Father added. "He invites and exhorts us to be faithful laborers in the Lord's vineyard, also in sad situations, certain that the Lord accompanies us and gives us his joy." (Benedict Mourns Murder of Taizé's Brother Roger.)


How can a man who never converted to the Catholic Faith "exhort us to be faithful laborers in the Lord's vineyard"? Do Protestants "follow" Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in all things as He has revealed Himself to men exclusively through His Catholic Church? No one but no one who is not a member of the Catholic Church can teach us how to follow Our Divine Redeemer faithfully. Those who are not Catholics are not members of Our Lord's vineyard.

Who says so? Let's try Pope Leo XIII and Pope Pius XII, all right?

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. (Pope Leo XIII, Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae, June 20, 1894.)

Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. "For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free." As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered - so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit. (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943.)


What does Ratzinger/Benedict think of these papal statements. Not much. He believes that they may have had their place in their time but that we have come to a more "mature" understanding of them, at long last (!), in the past forty years. Ratzinger/Benedict is, whether he realizes it or not, an inheritor of not only the legacy of Georg Friedrich Engel through the warped mind of his mentor, Father Hans Urs von Balthasar; he is also an inheritor of the warped transcendentalist ideology of the likes of Ralph Waldo Emerson, who viewed self-contradiction simply as a way of life:

The other terror that scares us from self-trust is our consistency; a reverence for our past act or word, because the eyes of others have no other data for computing our orbit than our past acts, and we are loath to disappoint them.

But why should you keep your head over your shoulder? Why drag about this corpse of your memory, lest you contradict somewhat you have stated in this or that public place? Suppose you should contradict yourself; what then? It seems to be a rule of wisdom never to rely on your memory alone, scarcely even in acts of pure memory, but to bring the past for judgment into the thousand-eyed present, and live ever in a new day. In your metaphysics you have denied personality to the Deity: yet when the devout motions of the soul come, yield to them heart and life, though they should clothe God with shape and color. Leave your theory, as Joseph his coat in the hand of the harlot, and flee.

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood. (Self-Reliance.)


Ratzinger/Benedict has no difficulty contradicting the immutable teaching of the Catholic Church as he dares to blaspheme God by saying the following on Sunday, January 17, 2010:

Christians and Jews share to a great extent a common spiritual patrimony, they pray to the same Lord, they have the same roots, and yet they often remain unknown to each other.  It is our duty, in response to God’s call, to strive to keep open the space for dialogue, for reciprocal respect, for growth in friendship, for a common witness in the face of the challenges of our time, which invite us to cooperate for the good of humanity in this world created by God, the Omnipotent and Merciful. (Ratzinger at Rome synagogue: ‘May these wounds be healed forever!’ )


Says who? Not Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ:

(2) But at any rate the Jews say that they, too, adore God. God forbid that I say that. No Jew adores God! Who says so? The Son of God says so. For he said: "If you were to know my Father, you would also know me. But you neither know me nor do you know my Father". Could I produce a witness more trustworthy than the Son of God?

(3) If, then, the Jews fail to know the Father, if they crucified the Son, if they thrust off the help of the Spirit, who should not make bold to declare plainly that the synagogue is a dwelling of demons? God is not worshipped there. Heaven forbid! From now on it remains a place of idolatry. But still some people pay it honor as a holy place. (Saint John Chrysostom: Eight Homilies Against the Jews)


It is necessary once again to contrast Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's refusal to seek with urgency the conversion of any non-Catholic, including those who adhere to the Talmud, with the words of Pope Saint Pius X, who spoke frankly as a Catholic, as a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter, to the founder of international Zionism, Theodore Herzl, on January 25, 1904:

POPE: We are unable to favor this movement [of Zionism]. We cannot prevent the Jews from going to Jerusalem—but we could never sanction it. The ground of Jerusalem, if it were not always sacred, has been sanctified by the life of Jesus Christ. As the head of the Church I cannot answer you otherwise. The Jews have not recognized our Lord, therefore we cannot recognize the Jewish people.

HERZL: [The conflict between Rome and Jerusalem, represented by the one and the other of us, was once again under way. At the outset I tried to be conciliatory. I said my little piece. . . . It didn’t greatly impress him. Jerusalem was not to be placed in Jewish hands.] And its present status, Holy Father?

POPE: I know, it is disagreeable to see the Turks in possession of our Holy Places. We simply have to put up with it. But to sanction the Jewish wish to occupy these sites, that we cannot do.

HERZL: [I said that we based our movement solely on the sufferings of the Jews, and wished to put aside all religious issues].

POPE: Yes, but we, but I as the head of the Catholic Church, cannot do this. One of two things will likely happen. Either the Jews will retain their ancient faith and continue to await the Messiah whom we believe has already appeared—in which case they are denying the divinity of Jesus and we cannot assist them. Or else they will go there with no religion whatever, and then we can have nothing at all to do with them. The Jewish faith was the foundation of our own, but it has been superceded by the teachings of Christ, and we cannot admit that it still enjoys any validity. The Jews who should have been the first to acknowledge Jesus Christ have not done so to this day.


Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, apart from being an "Anti-Peter," is an anti-every-true-pope, including Pope Saint Pius X. Ratzinger/Benedict's refusal to seek the conversion of Elio Toaff stands in very sharp contrast to the example given by Pope Pius XII, who helped to inspire one Toaff's predecessor as the Chief Rabbis of Rome, Israel Zolli, to convert to the true Faith:

At the first hour of his pontificate Pius XII said: Exactly in times like these, he who remains firm in his faith and strong in his heart, knows that Christ the King is never so near as in trial, which is the hour of fidelity. With a heart broken by the suffering of so many of her children, but with the courage and firmness that come from faith in the Lord's promises, the Spouse of Christ [the Church], advances towards the approaching storm. She knows that the truth she announces, the charity she teaches, and its practice will be the unique counsellors and collaborators of men of good will in the reconstruction of a new world, in justice and love, after humanity, weary of running in the way of error, will have tasted the bitter fruit of hatred and of violence.

Many are the books by statisticians, generals, journalists, and many are the memoirs of individuals concerning this great war. The archives hold quantities of material for future historians. But who, outside of God in heaven, has gathered into his heart the sorrows and the groans of all the injured? Like a watchful sentinel before the sacred inheritance of human pain stands the angelic Pastor, Pius XII. He has seen the abyss of misfortune towards which humanity is advancing. He has measured and foretold the greatness of the tragedy. He has made himself the herald of the serene voice of justice and the defender of true peace.... I did not hesitate to give a negative answer to the question whether I was converted in gratitude to Pius XII for his numberless acts of charity. Nevertheless, I do feel the duty of rendering homage and of affirming that the charity of the Gospel was the light that showed the way to my old and weary heart. It is the charity that so often shines in the history of the Church and which radiated fully in the actions of the reigning Pontiff. (Eugenio Maria Zolli, Before the Dawn, Chapter 17.)


The same will never be said of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI by Rabbi Elio Toaff or by any other adherent of the Talmud. Ratzinger/Benedict believes that a "Jewish reading of the Bible is a possible one." He is content to leave people in a false religion to stay in that false religion until death, making al of his display of human friendship utterly worthless in the eyes of the Most Blessed Trinity. We are meant to help our friends get home to Heaven as members of the Catholic Church as we pray and fast and make sacrifices for them, making sure, as always, to make reparation for our own many sins that have shown us to be enemies of Christ the King and to the souls for whom He shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on more occasions than perhaps we would like to admit to ourselves.

One of the great tragedies of our time is that Ratzinger/Benedict has used Summorum Pontificum, July 7, 2007, as a means to silence voices that used to point these things out far, far better than they are pointed out on this site by this miserable sinner. At least a few priests in the Society of Saint Pius X are refusing to be silent, including Father Juan Turco, who wrote a letter of resignation from the Society to its Superior-General, Bishop Bernard Fellay. Here is an excerpt as found in its translated form on the anti-sedevacantist Tradition in Action website, whose contributors are, however, very intellectually honest about Ratzinger/Benedict's defections from the Faith (and about how many in traditionally-minded Catholic circles now are either silent about Ratzinger/Benedict's defections from the Faith and/or have become active defenders of the same sort of philosophical and theological absurdities they used to criticize during the "pontificate" of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II):

Letter to the Superior General of SSPX, Bishop Bernard Fellay

Fr. Juan José Turco

Bogotá, April 5, 2010.
Monday in the Octave of Easter
Bishop Fellay,

After informing you of what has happened with me on a personal level (with the correspondence that I sent you yesterday) and after having received your replies, I see no point to continue writing. In good conscience I cannot agree with what is being done by both Your Excellency and the other Fathers.

Doctrinal concessions

First and foremost, I refer to all the doctrinal flaws involved in the present talks with Rome.

In short, let me mention the following:

* The doctrinal flaw of accepting pre-conditions;

* Did you or did you not ask for the lifting of the excommunication?

* Why were things that Archbishop Lefebvre has said and done hidden or misrepresented?

* How it is possible to attribute to the Virgin Mary [the accomplishment of] pre-conditions involving modernist errors and falsehoods?

* How can we have continued on [with the talks] despite the fact that Rome has not converted?

* How can you present a false image of Benedict XVI as if he would be regularly favoring Tradition? How does he show this? Is it by his saying that the Traditional Mass is subordinate to the New Mass or by seeking to merge the two? Is it by his lifting of the excommunication as if it were valid? Is it by his saying that we are outside of the Church if we do not accept the Council? Is it by his using the image of the Curé of Ars to encourage "the active participation of the laity" or his embellishing of Modernism with "holiness" and "piety" in order to thus save the modernist liturgy?

Bishop Fellay talks with Rome

Smiles and concessions in the talks with Rome
I place these questions along with the other points presented in the letters I sent to you in October and November of last year (2009).

In good conscience I cannot agree to these talks and their flaws:

* Because we are forced to remain silent (the facts can prove it);
* Because I foresee that we will continue to make doctrinal concessions;
* Because, according to statements of the Society, I see that what is intended is not to convert Rome, but to reach a canonical solution regardless of whether we shred the doctrine and the liturgy in the process;
* Because I foresee that we will align ourselves with those [who accepted the conditions] of Ecclesia Dei;
* Because the way these talks are being conducted is a betrayal of Archbishop Lefebvre.

Fellay: ‘An authentic renewal started…’

Second, in good conscience I cannot agree with many of your statements.

In addition to those I have mentioned on other occasions, I want to affirm here that it seems incredible to me that the Superior of the SSPX can make such error of judgment as to write to me: "If someone, as you claim, like Fr. Ceriani, that everyone [in the Vatican] is modernist, then think again. You are outside of the reality and the truth".

Or when you wrote: "A renewal of the Church has started. It is very difficult, but authentic."

Ideological persecution inside SSPX

Third, because of the doctrinal implications in the talks:

I cannot agree to the prohibitions which demanded that I remain silent about the Modernism of Benedict XVI. It is incredible that this has occurred in the Society of Saint Pius X.  (Fellay: ‘Rome Started an Authentic Renewal…’)


A letter written on December 17, 1997, by the then recently ordained Father Robert Neville to Bishop Fellay that took all of this to its logical conclusion, something that many Society of Saint Pius X priests, including Father Turco, who leave it or are expelled from its ranks are unwilling to do:

To those who will say that we do not have the right to judge the Pope: I answer by making a distinction: that we cannot judge him with juridical authority, I concede; that we cannot judge his deeds and enactments by comparing them to the teaching and discipline of the Church, I deny. The Society of St. Pius X makes these judgments everyday when it sifts the magisterium, the laws and disciplines which emanate from the Vatican, and when it carries on its worldwide apostolate in defiance of John Paul II. What the Society fails to do is to draw the logical conclusions from the disagreement which it finds between the Vatican II magisterium and practice on the one hand, and the Catholic magisterium and practice on the other.

With these things in mind, I must in conscience resign from the Society of St. Pius X. I am willing and ready to celebrate two Masses in Redford and one in Mancelona on Sunday December 21, but please be advised that I fully intend to explain to the faithful why I have left the Society of St. Pius X.

The Society condemned the priests [Thomas A. Droleskey note--those who formed the morally corrupt Society of Saint John] who recently left to establish themselves under the authority which it supposedly recognizes. It will also condemn me for refusing to make its numerous contradictions and inconsistencies the very basis for my priestly apostolate. Be that as it may, the God of truth is my judge. (Letter to Bishop Bernard Fellay; for a list of the major errors of the Society of Saint Pius X, please see the appendix below, which has been published on this site several times in the past fourteen months; see also True Popes Never Need to Convert to the Faith.)


Conciliarism is a dead end on the wrong path, one that has not been marked out for men by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Conciliarists must live in a world of ambiguity, mutability, contradiction, paradox and murkiness. Such is not the simplicity, clarity, certainty and immutability of conciliarism:

As for the rest, We greatly deplore the fact that, where the ravings of human reason extend, there is somebody who studies new things and strives to know more than is necessary, against the advice of the apostle. There you will find someone who is overconfident in seeking the truth outside the Catholic Church, in which it can be found without even a light tarnish of error. Therefore, the Church is called, and is indeed, a pillar and foundation of truth. You correctly understand, venerable brothers, that We speak here also of that erroneous philosophical system which was recently brought in and is clearly to be condemned. This system, which comes from the contemptible and unrestrained desire for innovation, does not seek truth where it stands in the received and holy apostolic inheritance. Rather, other empty doctrines, futile and uncertain doctrines not approved by the Church, are adopted. Only the most conceited men wrongly think that these teachings can sustain and support that truth. (Pope Gregory XVI, Singulari Nos, May 25, 1834.)

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.)

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


We must, of course, continue to remember that this is the time that God has appointed from all eternity for us to be alive. He has work for us to do. Let us do this work with courage and valor as we never count the cost of being humiliated for the sake of defending the integrity of Faith, as we never cease our prayers for the conversion of all people, including those who adhere to the Talmud and Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and his fellow conciliarists, to the true Church, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order.

Every Rosary we pray will help to plant seeds for the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary as we beg Our Lady to help us to have the desire to live more and more penitentially each day for the honor and glory of the Most Blessed Trinity through her own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart.

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!


Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

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

Saint Antoninus, O.P., pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints

Appendix A

Errors of the Society of Saint Pius X and Its Adherents (A response to an article against sedevacantism on the Tradition in Action website )

Complied in 2009 by Mr. Michael Creighton (who gave permission in 2009 for its publication on this site)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


© Copyright 2010, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.