Uncrossed "T's" and Undotted "I's"?

by Thomas A. Droleskey

There are many little "t's" to be crossed and little "i's" to be dotted as the leaders of the Society of Saint Pius X wait for the official word of "Pope" Benedict XVI's "reception" of them into his counterfeit ape of the Catholic Church. There will be a meeting of the so-called Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith to discuss Bishop Bernard Fellay's response, which is said to be "positive," to the "doctrinal preamble" that appears to be little difference in substance from the agreement that was signed by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre on May 5, 1988, a day before he reversed himself, and little different from the demands made by Joseph "Cardinal"  Ratzinger in a letter to the archbishop on May 29, 1985:

 

 

Your Excellency,

The Apostolic Nuncio in Switzerland has forwarded to me your letter of April 17 last. I thank you for it. I have read it with the most careful attention, looking upon it as the prolongation of our meeting of January 20, 1985.

In the last part of your letter, you put forward five concrete proposals to regularize the canonical situation of the Society of St. Pius X. This is indeed a desirable objective, and one we have at various times envisaged in the past. As a preliminary step, it would be good if the present situation (installation of Houses, categories and numbers of members, etc.) were better known by the Holy See, and so it would be desirable if you could have precise information given me on this point. However, such a regularisation pre-supposes the prior condition well known to you of a declaration signed by yourself and by the members of your Society. In your letter of April 17, page 1, you propose an extremely brief version of the declaration, which would be acceptable in itself, but which unfortunately ceases to be so when the remarks of page 2 are added on, which you say flow from the Declaration and make it more explicit, declares that "we accept the texts of the Council in accordance with the to say according to the traditional magisterium of the Church". But then remarks require not only noteworthy revision of several conciliar documents, but also "whole of the Declaration on Religious Liberty, considered to be "contrary to the Magisterium of the I can only repeat what I wrote to you in the name of the Holy Father in my letter of July 20, "You may express the desire for a Declaration or an explanatory development of this or that point. But you may not state that the texts of the Council, which are texts of the Magisterium, are incompatible with the Church's Magisterium and Tradition." The same thing holds for the new and especially grave accusation which you make against the new Code of Canon Law, published in the fullness of his authority by Pope John Paul II.

For indeed the first point criterion of Tradition, that is the additional sale revision" Church". Here 1983 (page 3):

On the second point, you declare you do not state "that the Novus Ordo Mass, celebrated according to the rite published in Rome, is automatically invalid or heretical". Notwithstanding, the second of your additional remarks still makes considerable accusations with regard to the Liturgical Reform which you say constitutes "a very grave danger for the Catholic Faith". There again, I can only remind you of what I wrote in the letter already quoted (pages 1 and 2), notably of this: "(...) to express the desire of a new revision is possible (...). However, this is on condition that the criticism should not hinder or destroy obedience and that it should not call in question the legitimacy of the Church's liturgy".

Your Excellency, I would have liked to be able to give you here and now, and on the Sovereign Pontiff's behalf, a more favourable answer, envisaging without delay the setting in motion of a regularising process often mentioned between us by word of mouth and in writing. Regretfully I see that this is not yet possible. In conscience, I must invite you to reflect further in the presence of Jesus and of the Virgin Mary, Mother of the Church.

Be at least assured that for this quite special intention, I unite my prayers with your own. And graciously accept the expression of my sentiments of religious and most respectful devotion.

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (Exchange between Rome & the Archbishop.)

Just a little less than three years later, on May 5, 1988, "Cardinal" Ratzinger and Archbishop Lefebvre signed a "protocol" containing many elements that appear to have made their way into the practical understanding reflected in Bishop Fellay's response to the "doctrinal preamble" of September 14, 2011, that will result in what is essentially a "live and let live" detente between the Society of Saint Pius X and the conciliar authorities that will, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI believes, "pacify" the "spirits" of the priests and laity in the Society once a "regularization" takes place and it is erected, perhaps under a new name, as an "apostolic administration" under the conciliar authorities. Here is an excerpt from the May 5, 1988, protocol:

 

 

I. Text of the Doctrinal Declaration

I, Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop-Bishop emeritus of Tulle, as well as the members of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X founded by me:

1. Promise to be always faithful to the Catholic Church and the Roman Pontiff, her Supreme Pastor, Vicar of Christ, Successor of Blessed Peter in his primacy as Head of the Body of Bishops.

2. We declare our acceptance of the doctrine contained in number 25 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council on the ecclesial Magisterium and the adherence which is due to that magisterium.

3. With regard to certain points taught by the Second Vatican Council or concerning later reforms of the liturgy and law, and which seem to us able to be reconciled with the Tradition only with difficulty, we commit ourselves to have a positive attitude of study and of communication with the Holy See, avoiding all polemics.

4. We declare in addition to recognize the validity of the Sacrifice of the Mass and of the Sacraments celebrated with the intention of doing that which the Church does and according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Rituals of the Sacraments promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II.

5. Finally, we promise to respect the common discipline of the Church and ecclesiastical laws, especially those contained in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II, without prejudice to the special discipline granted to the Society by particular law. (May 5, 1988, Protocol.)

The juridical part of the May 5, 1988, protocol promised "amnesty" to the Society's priests and that those who followed the rule of life of various religious communities (Dominicans, Carmelites, Benedictines) would be given a "particular statue" to regulate their religious lives. Archbishop Lefebvre's desire to provide a bishop for the Society of Saint Pius X was met as follows:

 

 

5.1 On the doctrinal (ecclesiological) level, the guarantee of stability and maintenance of the life and activity of the Society is assured by its erection as a Society of apostolic life of pontifical right, and the approval of its Statutes by the Holy Father.

5.2 But, for practical and psychological reasons, the consecration of a member of the Society as a bishop seems useful.  This is why, in the context of the doctrinal and canonical solution of reconciliation, we suggest to the Holy Father that he name a bishop chosen from among the members of the Society, presented by Archbishop Lefebvre.  In consequence of the principle indicated above (5.1), this bishop as a rule is not the Superior General of the Society. But it seems opportune that he be a member of the Roman commission. (May 5, 1988, Protocol.)

Although a tentative date of August 15, 1988, had been set for the consecration of a priest from within the ranks of the Society of Saint Pius X to the episcopacy after he was named by Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, Archbishop Lefebvre, who was then eighty-three years of age, did not want to wait. He wanted to proceed with this planned episcopal consecrations on June 30, 1988, and that he wanted to consecrate three men, not one, as bishops. This was a reneging of the spirit of the protocol that he had signed just the day before:

Eminence,

Yesterday it was with real satisfaction that I put my signature on the Protocol drafted during the preceding days. However, you yourself have witnessed my deep disappointment upon the reading of the letter which you gave me,55] bringing the Holy Father’s answer concerning the episcopal consecrations.

Practically, to postpone the episcopal consecrations to a later undetermined date would be the fourth time that it would have been postponed.56

The date of June 30 was clearly indicated in my previous letters as the latest possible.

I have already given you a file concerning the candidates. There are still two months to make the mandate.

Given the particular circumstances of this proposal, the Holy Father can very well shorten the procedure so that the mandate be communicated to us around mid-June.

In case the answer will be negative, I would find myself in conscience obliged to proceed with the consecrations, relying upon the agreement given by the Holy See in the Protocol for the consecration of one bishop member of the Society.

The reticence expressed on the subject of the episcopal consecration of a member of the Society, either by writing or by word of mouth, gives me reason to fear delays. Everything is now prepared for the ceremony of June 30: hotel reservations, transportation, rental of a huge tent to house the ceremony.

The disappointment of our priests and faithful would be extreme. All of them hope that this consecration will be realized with the agreement of the Holy See; but being already disappointed by previous delays they will not understand that I would accept a further delay. They are aware and desirous above all of having truly Catholic bishops, transmitting the true Faith to them, and communicating to them in a way that is certain the graces of salvation to which they aspire for themselves and for their children.

In the hope that this request shall not be an insurmountable obstacle to the reconciliation in process, please, Eminence, accept my respectful and fraternal sentiments in Christo et Maria.

† Marcel Lefebvre

Former Archbishop-Bishop of Tulle (Letter of Archbishop Lefebvre to Cardinal Ratzinger.)

 

The future "Pope" Benedict XVI, who is about to rein in the herd that he believes has wandered far from the Sheepfold of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in order to "break down" "obstinacy" and "narrow-mindedness, wrote back immediately that same day, May 6, 1988:

 

 

Excellency,

I have attentively read the letter which you just addressed to me, in which you tell me your intentions concerning the episcopal consecration of a member of the Society on June 30 next.

Since these intentions are in sharp contrast with what has been accepted during our dialogue on May 4, and which have been signed in the Protocol yesterday, I wish to inform you that the release of the press communiqué has to be deferred.

I earnestly wish that you reconsider your position in conformity with the results of the dialogue, so that the communiqué⁶⁰ may be released.

In this hope, please Excellency,...

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (Letter of Cardinal Ratzinger to Archbishop Lefebvre.)

Reneging almost completely on the spirit and the letter of the May 5, 1988, protocol, Archbishop Lefebvre wrote the following letter to "Pope" John Paul II  two weeks later, that is, on May 20, 1988:

 

 

Most Holy Father,

While a certain hope was raised regarding a possible solution to the problem of the Society after the signing of the Protocol, a grave difficulty now arises with respect to the episcopacy granted to the Society, to succeed me in my episcopal function.

It clearly appears that this conferring of the episcopacy is a source of apprehensions and concern to the Holy See, for the following reasons:

 

• in the first place this episcopacy is superfluous. After the legal recognition of the Society as one of pontifical right, the Superior General can give dimissorial letters to a bishop of his choice.
• in the second place, this granting of the episcopacy might seem to be a distinct mark of disapproval of the bishops now in office, and might turn the bishops against the Holy See.
• finally, this episcopacy could eventually create difficulties in the dioceses, occasioned by the apostolate among the faithful.

 

No doubt these apprehensions are what provoke the delays, the evasive responses of the Holy See for over a year and which morally oblige me to put an end to this waiting, after having insisted several times on the urgent necessity of having several bishops, for the continuation and development of the work.

June 30 now appears to me as the final date to bring about this succession. Providence seems to have prepared this date. The accords have been signed, the names of the candidates have been proposed. If Cardinal Ratzinger is overworked and does not have time to prepare the mandates, perhaps Cardinal Gagnon could be entrusted with it.

Most Holy Father, deign to put an end to this sorrowful problem of priests, the faithful and your servant, who in keeping Tradition have had no other desire than to serve the Church, the Pope, and to save souls.

Permit me to add some considerations on the renewal of the Church, obtained by means of the Society and the episcopacy which would be granted to it.

In reporting the instances of Vienna in Austria, and Coire in Switzerland, regarding episcopal appointments, the press has alluded to a change of orientation on the part of the Holy See in the choice of bishops. This is a good sign, but the reactions show that these bishops will have enormous difficulties in the realization of their apostolate, and they will be forced to manifest their adherence to the modern spirit by ecumenism, as well as the charismatic movement, to calm people down.

Even if they observe a certain discipline and a greater piety, their seminaries will be imbued with this modern spirit, and only with difficulty will they contribute to the true renewal of the Church.

Henceforth this renewal can only be brought about by bishops who are free to revive Christian Faith and virtue by the means Our Lord entrusted to the Church for the sanctification of priests and the faithful.

Only an atmosphere entirely detached from modern errors and modern ways will permit this renewal. This atmosphere is the one encountered by Cardinal Gagnon and Msgr. Perl, an atmosphere made up of profoundly Christian families having many children, and from which come numerous and excellent vocations.

The development of this renewed atmosphere, encouraged by your decisions, Most Holy Father, will restore the dioceses through contacts with the bishops and the clergy. Certain bishops will entrust to us the formation of their seminarians and thus, by the grace of God, the Church will find a new youthfulness—and transform pagan society into Christian society.

You will easily understand why only one bishop will not suffice for such a vast field of the apostolate.

If I allow myself to submit these considerations to your judgment, it is in the most profound desire of coming to your aid in solving these grave problems which you are striving to resolve in the course of your apostolic journeys.

Deign to accept, Most Holy Father, the expression of my most respectful and filial sentiments in Jesus and Mary.

† Marcel Lefebvre
Archbishop-Bishop Emeritus of Tulle
Founder of the Society of Saint Pius X (May 20, 1988, Letter of Archbishop Lefebvre to John Paul II.)

Archbishop Lefebvre sent two letters to "Cardinal" Ratzinger, one on May 20, 1988, and one on May 24, 1988, before he received a response from the then prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on May 24, 1988. Dissatisfied with that response, the Archbishop, who wrote second and much more forceful letter to Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II on June 2, 1988:

Most Holy Father,

The conversations and meetings with Cardinal Ratzinger and his collaborators, although they took place in an atmosphere of courtesy and charity, persuaded us that the moment for a frank and efficacious collaboration between us has not yet arrived.

For indeed, if the ordinary Christian is authorized to ask the competent Church authorities to preserve for him the Faith of his Baptism, how much more true is that for priests, religious and nuns?

It is to keep the Faith of our Baptism intact that we have had to resist the spirit of Vatican II and the reforms inspired by it.

The false ecumenism which is at the origin of all the Council’s innovations in the liturgy, in the new relationship between the Church and the world, in the conception of the Church itself, is leading the Church to its ruin and Catholics to apostasy.

Being radically opposed to this destruction of our Faith and determined to remain with the traditional doctrine and discipline of the Church, especially as far as the formation of priests and the religious life is concerned, we find ourselves in the absolute necessity of having ecclesiastical authorities who embrace our concerns and will help us to protect ourselves against the spirit of Vatican II and the spirit of Assisi.

That is why we are asking for several bishops chosen from within Catholic Tradition, and for a majority of the members on the projected Roman Commission for Tradition, in order to protect ourselves against all compromise.

Given the refusal to consider our requests, and it being evident that the purpose of this reconciliation is not at all the same in the eyes of the Holy See as it is in our eyes, we believe it preferable to wait for times more propitious for the return of Rome to Tradition.⁷²

That is why we shall give ourselves the means to carry on the work which Providence has entrusted to us, being assured by His Eminence Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter of May 30, that the episcopal consecration is not contrary to the will of the Holy See, since it was granted for August 15.⁷³

We shall continue to pray for modern Rome, infested with Modernism, to become once more Catholic Rome and to rediscover its 2,000 year-old tradition. Then the problem of our reconciliation will have no further reason to exist and the Church will experience a new youth.

Be so good, Most Holy Father, as to accept the expression of my most respectful and filially devoted sentiments in Jesus and Mary.

† Marcel Lefebvre (Letter of Archbishop Lefebvre to John Paul II.)

The rest, as they say, is history. Despite another twenty-eight days of letters and telegrams, highlighted by a Canonical Warning issued by Bernard "Cardinal" Gantin, the prefect of the conciliar-controlled Congregation for the Bishops, Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated Fathers Bernard Fellay, Richard Williamson, Alfonso de Galaretta and Bernard Tissier de Mallerais to the episcopacy, which prompted Wojtyla/John Paul II to "excommunicate" the Archbishop and his co-consecrator, Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer of the Society of John Mary Vianney in Campos, Brazil, and each of the four men consecrated, as he issued his Ecclesia Dei motu proprio.

After all of this and the events that have transpired in the past twenty-four years thereafter, including what appeared to be another agreement in 2001, the current developments have brought this soap opera, and it has been nothing than a soap opera, back almost full circle to where it was twenty-four months ago this month.

There are, however, a lot of unanswered questions concerning diocesan and religious priests in the conciliar structures who have joined the Society of Saint Pius X without, of course, seeking or any having "permission" from their conciliar superiors to do so.

What will happen to those priests who have left their dioceses in conciliar captivity to join the Society of Saint Pius X and have been "suspended" by their conciliar "bishops" as a result? Will they be forced to return to the diocesan structures to function once again as ministers of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service? Will they be permitted to stay in the Society of Saint Pius X without seeking a formal release from their dioceses? Will there be any guarantees that such releases must be granted by their conciliar "bishops"? Will this all be decided, as everything else seems to be in this farcical situation, on an ad hoc, case-by-case, diocese-by diocese basis?

What will happen to the conciliar priests (and I know at least three personally) who have been conditionally ordained by bishops of the Society of Saint Pius X? Will they incur any "canonical" penalties from the conciliar authorities for repeating the administration of a sacrament that can be conferred only once? That is, how can men who say that they "recognize" the conciliar "popes" as legitimate Successors of Saint Peter contend that there was any question at all concerning the validity of the Novus Ordo rite of priestly ordination that caused them to seek conditional ordination at the hands of a Society of Saint Pius X bishop? Will the bishops of the Society of Saint Pius X be forced to "apologize" for putting the validity of the Novus Ordo rite of priestly ordination into question by means of performing these conditional ordinations? Will they incur any penalties for repeating a sacrament that can be administered only once?

These are among the plethora of questions raised by the "regularization" process being sought of the conciliar Vatican by the Society of Saint Pius X at the present time. (Quo Vadis, Society of Saint Pius X? also raised the issue of the status of the decrees of marital nullity that have been issued by the "marriage tribunal" erected by the Society of Saint Pius X.) No one, no, not even the conciliarists in the Vatican, has any consistent set of answers to these questions as the entire situation is without precedent in the history of the Catholic Church. Catholics do not engage in "negotiations" with a true Vicar of Christ or his representatives on matters pertaining to the Faith after they have dared to pose themselves as the ultimate "arbiters" of "papal" liturgical decrees and teachings for nearly a four decade period of time.

Pope Pius XI made it abundantly clear in Mortalium Animos that the Catholic Church could never be suspected of contaminating the teaching that has been entrusted to her by her Divine Founder and Invisible Head, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and that it is necessary for all of those outside of the Church to return to her maternal bosom. He was not content to leave non-Catholics in an absolutely mythical, farcical concept of "partial communion:"

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. During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears witness: "The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly." The same holy Martyr with good reason marveled exceedingly that anyone could believe that "this unity in the Church which arises from a divine foundation, and which is knit together by heavenly sacraments, could be rent and torn asunder by the force of contrary wills." For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one, compacted and fitly joined together, it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)

 

As Pope Pius XI noted in the succeeding paragraph of Mortalium Animos, one submits to the authority of the Roman Pontiff or he is not a Catholic. There is no need to engage in what he termed "obstinate wrangling." Articles of the Faith are absolutely and completely non-negotiable:

Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors. Did not the ancestors of those who are now entangled in the errors of Photius and the reformers, obey the Bishop of Rome, the chief shepherd of souls? Alas their children left the home of their fathers, but it did not fall to the ground and perish for ever, for it was supported by God. Let them therefore return to their common Father, who, forgetting the insults previously heaped on the Apostolic See, will receive them in the most loving fashion. For if, as they continually state, they long to be united with Us and ours, why do they not hasten to enter the Church, "the Mother and mistress of all Christ's faithful"? Let them hear Lactantius crying out: "The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this the house of Faith, this the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling. For life and salvation are here concerned, which will be lost and entirely destroyed, unless their interests are carefully and assiduously kept in mind. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)

 

The true popes of the Catholic Church were never content to let non-Catholics rest in a false sense of "security" about the salvation of their immortal souls. They exhorted non-Catholics to return unconditionally and with urgency to the true Church, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order. Consider these words of Pope Leo XIII in Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae and Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos:

Nor is there any reason for you to fear on that account that We or any of Our Successors will ever diminish your rights, the privileges of your Patriarchs, or the established Ritual of any one of your Churches [of the Orthodox]. It has been and always will be the intent and Tradition of the Apostolic See, to make a large allowance, in all that is right and good, for the primitive Traditions and special customs of every nation.  On the contrary, if you re-establish Union with Us, you will see how, by God's bounty, the glory and dignity of your Churches will be remarkably increased.  May God, then, in His goodness, hear the Prayer that you yourselves address to Him: "Make the schisms of the Churches cease," and "Assemble those who are dispersed, bring back those who err, and unite them to Thy Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church."  May you thus return to that one Holy Faith which has been handed down both to Us and to you from time immemorial; which your forefathers preserved untainted, and which was enhanced by the rival splendor of the Virtues, the great genius, and the sublime learning of St. Athanasius and St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nazianzum and St. John Chrysostom, the two Saints who bore the name of Cyril, and so many other great men whose glory belongs as a common inheritance to the East and to the West. (Pope Leo XIII, Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae, June 20, 1894.)

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.)

 

Even Bishop Richard Williamson, who still persists in his belief that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is a true pope, has said that the conciliar church is not the Catholic Church, which prompts me to ask His Excellency the following question: How can Ratzinger/Benedict be the "pope" when his church is not the Catholic Church? I hope that His Excellency will read and then accept the arguments advanced in Gregorius's The Chair is Still Empty. Those who defect from the Catholic Faith are not Catholics.

Pope Leo XIII, writing in Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896, explained that no one can be a member of the Catholic Church if he dissents from even one item contained in the Deposit of Faith:

Agreement and union of minds is the necessary foundation of this perfect concord amongst men, from which concurrence of wills and similarity of action are the natural results. Wherefore, in His divine wisdom, He ordained in His Church Unity of Faith; a virtue which is the first of those bonds which unite man to God, and whence we receive the name of the faithful - "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Eph. iv., 5). That is, as there is one Lord and one baptism, so should all Christians, without exception, have but one faith. And so the Apostle St. Paul not merely begs, but entreats and implores Christians to be all of the same mind, and to avoid difference of opinions: "I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms amongst you, and that you be perfect in the same mind and in the same judgment" (I Cor. i., 10). Such passages certainly need no interpreter; they speak clearly enough for themselves. Besides, all who profess Christianity allow that there can be but one faith. It is of the greatest importance and indeed of absolute necessity, as to which many are deceived, that the nature and character of this unity should be recognized. And, as We have already stated, this is not to be ascertained by conjecture, but by the certain knowledge of what was done; that is by seeking for and ascertaining what kind of unity in faith has been commanded by Jesus Christ. . . .

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).

The need of this divinely instituted means for the preservation of unity, about which we speak is urged by St. Paul in his epistle to the Ephesians. In this he first admonishes them to preserve with every care concord of minds: "Solicitous to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Eph. iv., 3, et seq.). And as souls cannot be perfectly united in charity unless minds agree in faith, he wishes all to hold the same faith: "One Lord, one faith," and this so perfectly one as to prevent all danger of error: "that henceforth we be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive" (Eph. iv., 14): and this he teaches is to be observed, not for a time only - "but until we all meet in the unity of faith...unto the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ" (13). But, in what has Christ placed the primary principle, and the means of preserving this unity? In that - "He gave some Apostles - and other some pastors and doctors, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ" (11-12).

 

Those who desire to be in "full communion" with the apostasies summarized, if ever so briefly, in False Doctrine, Father Pfluger? two days ago now or to believe that these are merely "private" views of a "pope" that do not "bind" all Catholics will find themselves fighting a never-ending battle to "defend" the truths of the Faith that have been rejected by conciliar "bishops" who believe that the revolutionary named Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who is not, after all, going to live forever, is not "progressive" enough, which shows just how blind these "bishops" are to the objective reality of Joseph Ratzinger's absolute and unwavering commitment to the "Second" Vatican Council and to thwarting the "integralists" dead in their tracks (see "Joe" Hasn't Changed, Fellas and Apostates Reprimanding Apostates). . Those who want to play the role of Sisyphus will do so (see A World of Sisyphuses and It's Still a World of Sisyphuses), oblivious to the simple truth, enunciated so clearly by Pope Leo XIII in Satis Cognitum, that those who fall from the Faith in one thing fall from It in Its entirely and can no longer be considered Catholics.

Others of us, Catholics who are not one whit better than anyone else and who, in many instances (including most especially me!), have many sins for which to make reparation, will continue to cleave to true bishops and true priests in the Catholic catacombs who make no concessions to conciliarism or to the nonexistent legitimacy of its false shepherds, false shepherds who are really ravenous wolves who are controlled by the Talmudic deniers of the one and only Holocaust by which we were redeemed. It took me far, far too long to recognize that I could NOT "recognize and resist" a true pope. I pray that more will come to see the simple truth expressed so clearly by Fathers Francisco and Dominic Radecki, CMRI, in Tumultuous Times:

"A legitimate pope cannot contradict or deny what was first taught by Christ to His Church. An essential change in belief constitutes the establishment of a new religion.

"The attribute of infallibility was given to the popes in order that the revealed doctrines and teaching of Christ would remain forever intact and unchanged. It is contrary to faith and reason to blindly follow an alleged pope who attempts to destroy the Catholic Faith--for there have been 41 documented antipopes. Papal infallibility means that the Holy Ghost guides and preserves the Catholic Church from error through the succession of legitimate popes who have ruled the Church through the centuries. All Catholics, including Christ's Vicar on earth, the pope, must accept all the doctrinal pronouncements of past popes. These infallible teachings form a vital link between Christ and St. Peter and his successors.

"If a pope did not accept and believe this entire body of formulated teachings (the Deposit of Faith), he could not himself be a Catholic. He would cease to belong to Christ's Church. If he no longer belongs to the Catholic Church, he cannot be her Head." (Fathers Francisco and Dominic Radecki, CMRI, Tumultuous Times, p. 274.)

 

We will not "win the day" for Holy Mother Church by means of these polemics. Oh, perhaps a soul or two might be motivated into thinking about matters as he prays fervently about them. What we need to remember first and foremost, however, is that we need to be about the business of saving our souls and of attempting to cooperate with the graces won for us by the shedding of every single drop of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ's Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross that flow into our hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces, to scale the heights of personal sanctity on a daily basis by making reparation for our sins and those of the whole world as the consecrated slaves of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through His Most Blessed Mother's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart.  

We need to be about the business of praying more, talking less and of praying as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit.

Indeed, another sign, perhaps more convincing to those who do not have the time to read or study but are totally consecrated to Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, of the counterfeit nature of the conciliar church is that its immediate past head, Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, dared to tamper with the perfection of her Most Holy Rosary (which, of course, makes same sense in the "logic" of the conciliar world as what is it to tamper with the Rosary after the destruction of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church?),  and that is current head, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, almost never exhorts anyone to pray the Rosary that Our Lady taught Jacinta and Francisco Marto and their cousin Lucia dos Santos explained was a key the conversion of sinners, starting with ourselves. Noting one or two exceptions in the past seven years now, Ratzinger/Benedict has never used his pilgrimages overseas to promote devotion to Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary and to encourage Catholics to join the Confraternity of the Most Holy Rosary.

Saint Louis de Montfort wrote as follows about those who are not devoted to and do not have fervor for Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary:

 

 

The second truth is that those who love this divine salutation bear the very special stamp of predestination.

The third is that those to whom God has given this favour of loving our Lady and of serving her out of love must take very great care to continue to love and serve her until the time when she shall have had them placed in heaven by her Son in the degree of glory which they have earned (Blessed Alan)

50.Heretics, all of whom are children of the devil and who clearly bear the sign of God's reprobation, have a horror of the Hail Mary. They still say the Our Father, but never the Hail Mary; they would rather carry a poisonous snake about them than a rosary.

Among Catholics, those who bear the mark of God's reprobation think but little of the Rosary. They either neglect to say it or only say it quickly and in a lukewarm manner.

Even if I did not believe what was revealed to Blessed Alan de la Roche, even then my own experience would be enough to convince me of this terrible but consoling truth. I do not know, nor do I see clearly, how it can be that a devotion which seems to be so small can be the infallible sign of eternal salvation, and how its absence can be the sign of God's eternal displeasure; nevertheless, nothing could be more true.

In our own day we see that people who hold new doctrines that have been condemned by the Church, with all their would-be piety, ignore the devotion to the Rosary and often dissuade their acquaintances from saying it with all sorts of fine pretexts. They are very careful not to condemn the Rosary and the Scapular, as the Calvinists do, but the way they set about attacking them is all the more deadly because it is the more cunning. I shall refer to it again later on.

51.The Hail Mary, the Rosary, is the prayer and the infallible touchstone by which I can tell those who are led by the Spirit of God from those who are deceived by the devil. I have known souls who seemed to soar like eagles to the heights by their sublime contemplation and yet were pitifully led astray by the devil. I only found out how wrong they were when I learned that they scorned the Hail Mary and the Rosary, which they considered as being far beneath them.

The Hail Mary is a blessed dew that falls from heaven upon the souls of the predestinate. It gives them a marvellous spiritual fertility so that they can grow in all virtues. The more the garden of the soul is watered by this prayer, the more enlightened in mind we become, the more zealous in heart, the stronger against all our enemies.

The Hail Mary is a sharp and flaming shaft which, joined to the Word of God, gives the preacher the strength to pierce, move, and convert the most hardened hearts, even if he has little or no natural gift for preaching.

As I have already said, this was the great secret that our Lady taught St. Dominic and Blessed Alan for the conversion of heretics and sinners. Saint Antoninus tells us that that is why many priests acquired the habit of saying a Hail Mary at the beginning of their sermons. (Secret of the Rosary.)

Today just happens to be the Feast of Saint Antoninus, O.P.!

Let us pray a Rosary right now for the conversion of the heresiarchs in the counterfeit church of concilairism and that those in the Society of Saint Pius X will come to realize that True Popes Never Need to Convert to the Faith. For as much as the three bishops of the Society of Saint Pius X want to continue "opposing" Modernist Rome, they must do so only by recognizing that those who appear to hold the offices and to exercise the authority of the Catholic Church are simply apostates who fell away from the Faith decades ago (see Letter of The Three Bishops to The General Council Concerning an Agreement with Rome).

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!

 

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

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

Saints Gordian and Epimachus, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints