Blog arhiva

The Errors of Michael Davies: A Comprehensive Refutation

John Daly destroys Semi-Trad Pioneer

The Errors of Michael Davies:
A Comprehensive Refutation

MICHAEL DAVIES — AN EVALUATION
by John S. Daly

(1st ed. 1989, 2nd ed. 2015)

FREE DOWNLOAD!

One of the most prominent and influential writers of the traditionalist movement in the Vatican II Church was the English writer Michael Treharne Davies (1936-2004), shown above with then-“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger. No individual has written more prolifically than Davies on traditionalist issues, and probably no single layman, with the possible exception of Dietrich von Hildebrand, has enjoyed wider prominence, credibility, and trustworthiness than him. But is this respect Mr. Davies has enjoyed really well-founded? If not, what does this mean for the people who base most of their understanding of the traditionalist subject matter on the research and argumentation of this one individual?

In a devastating dossier of 584 pages entitled Michael Davies — An Evaluation, Englishman John S. Daly (web site here) thoroughly dismantles the star apologist for Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the Society of St. Pius X. This exhaustively-researched and well-documented book exposes and refutes the errors, fallacies, dangers, false theology, and sloppy scholarship of Michael Davies. Twenty-six years after it was first published, a new revised and expanded edition of this invaluable work was made available to the public in 2015, both in hardcopy and electronically, the latter as a free PDF download only through Novus Ordo Watch. We have advertised this outstanding work in various ways on this web site before and are happy to do so once more.

The book description provided by the author reads as follows:

Cambridge-educated translator John S. Daly puts the scholarship of the late Michael Davies under the spotlight. What emerges from systematic comparison with statements of the Magisterium and the greatest theologians must destroy Davies’s credibility in the eyes of every serious reader. “Michael Davies – An Evaluation” remains not only an unanswered indictment of Davies as a Catholic scholar, but a standing refutation of the entire ecclesiology of those who believe it possible for an orthodox Catholic to reject the doctrinal errors and reformed rites spawned by Vatican II without calling into doubt the legitimacy of recent papal claimants and the validity of the new sacraments….

(source)

There is no doubt, of course, that Davies has done considerable good and provided excellent analysis and refutation of many errors promoted by the Vatican II religion. His work as a whole is certainly responsible for opening the eyes of a great many people to the dangers and heresies of the Novus Ordo Sect (which he, alas, identified with the Catholic Church), and has (re)kindled in countless souls a love for the Holy Catholic Mass offered in the traditional Roman rite.

Daly’s exposé does not mean to detract from the good which has admittedly been accomplished by Davies over the years. However, this good must be weighed against the considerable damage he has done and harm to souls he has caused, as demonstrated throughout this work. A glass may be filled 80% with nutritious juice, but if the remaining 20% are poison, the entire glass will be contaminated, and death or serious illness will result. Pointing out that 80% of the contents were good, will not help to undo or minimize the damage of the 20%. It would also be quite irresponsible and deceptive to focus only on the healthful content and pretend the poison does not exist.

It is for this reason that we wish to assist in the distribution of Mr. Daly’s dossier — to reveal, for the good of souls, the many dangerous errors, fallacies, and problems in the research and argumentation of Michael Davies, upon whom so many, quite unjustifiedly but in good faith, have relied in their understanding of traditionalist Catholic issues over the years.

The author himself clarifies his motives for exposing Davies in the introduction to his study:

In view of Mr. Davies’s uniquely influential position in the Catholic world today, a candid examination of his writings to assess to what extent his facts, theology and reasoning can be relied upon seems to be an appropriate undertaking. That is what this Evaluation sets out to achieve by subjecting Mr. Davies’s writings to careful analysis in the light of Catholic authority.

…After several years of study and work in Catholic publishing I reached the conclusion that an Evaluation such as this was necessary in order to accomplish three main objectives:

(i) To refute the gravely erroneous positions of Mr. Davies … in which his assertions have been responsible for leading many souls astray in matters upon which salvation may quite literally depend.

(ii) To show by careful analysis that Mr. Davies is a grossly unreliable author whose statements about Catholic doctrine should never be accepted without verification from genuine Catholic authorities.

(iii) To set out in a single study the main points of disagreement among those commonly referred to as traditional Catholics, allowing both sides to state their case, and showing by rigorous demonstration in each case where the truth lies.

(John S. Daly, Michael Davies — An Evaluation, new ed. [Saint-Sauveur de Meilhan: Tradibooks, 2015], pp. XIII-XV)

Davies was a very interesting speaker, and his writing was usually quite pleasant to read. His English accent and delightful humor contributed to his affable personality. We have already conceded that much of his research and argumentation was valid and good. However, this cannot exonerate him from the many erroneous arguments he advanced and the inadequate or selective research he engaged in, often with regard to issues impacting Sedevacantism (case in point: his widely-repeated but false thesis that St. Athanasius was excommunicated by Pope Liberius, refuted here and also here).

The conclusions author John Daly reaches about Michael Davies are less than flattering:

The conclusions reached in this Evaluation are that Mr. Davies is a shameless purveyor of false doctrine, sometimes reaching actual heresy; intensely ignorant even on many elementary points of theology as well as on matters of historical fact and general Catholic knowledge; not infrequently guilty of downright dishonesty; an execrable scholar; arrogant and foolish; a source of huge scandal and, in fine, an utter disgrace to the name of Catholic. Naturally these conclusions are far from savoury. My only justification for reaching them is that they are inescapably true, and my justification for publishing them is that the good of souls demands that so great a source of danger be exposed as publicly as possible.

(Daly, Michael Davies, p. XV)

To give you a snapshot of the valuable information contained in Michael Davies — An Evaluation, we are reproducing here its table of contents:

Introduction to the New 2015 Edition

Introduction

I. Davies’s Attitude to Authority

II. Shockingly Slipshod Scholarship

III. The Vacancy of the Holy See

Appendix: Suarez on the Heretical Pope

IV. Dishonesty, Inconsistency and Arrogance

V. Which Side is Michael Davies on?

VI. Miscellaneous Doctrinal Errors

VII. The Society of St. Pius X

VIII. Davies as an Anarchist

IX. Errors of Sacramental Theology

(a) The Orders of Archbishop Lefebvre
(b) The 1968 New Rite of Ordination
(c) Validity and “Significatio Ex Adjunctis”
(d) Validity of the Novus Ordo Missæ

X. The Alleged Fall of Pope Liberius

XI. Salvation Outside the Church?

XII. Doctrinal Evolution?

XIII. Open Letter to Mr. Michael Davies

At almost 600 pages, the reader will find this work is quite comprehensive in its critique of the Lefebvrist apologist. Such a critique is necessary because we who live in these times are engaged, at least in prefigurement, in the battle of Christ vs. Antichrist, and certainly that of Pope vs. Antipope, Church vs. Counterchurch. Human respect can never get in the way of defending the truth, no matter how unpopular it might be.

To purchase a copy of this dossier on Michael Davies in paperback, you may do so directly from Mr. Daly’s web site:

If you prefer to order through Amazon.com, you may do so by clicking here.

If you would like to download for free an electronic copy of this book — fully searchable through optical character recognition — you may do so at the link below:

Download Here:
PDF Format (3.5 MB)

Michael Davies — An Evaluation
by John S. Daly
New Edition (2015)
© John S. Daly

Although this book reserves copyright, Novus Ordo Watch is distributing it with the full and explicit permission of the copyright holder, author John S. Daly.

The battle for truth is an essential part of the battle for the salvation of souls, our own as well as those of others. It is therefore imperative for people to see falsehood exposed for what it is, and to realize that Michael Davies, whom many consider a weighty authority on the pressing issues or our time, was in fact a dangerous charlatan, even if he was right on many points. People who object in principle to a critique such as the one by Mr. Daly, on the grounds that “we should not be criticizing fellow-traditionalists”, have not understood the nature and the severity of the situation we are dealing with. Motives aside, we must know who is working on the side of Christ and the Truth, and who is working for the other side.

In his second epistle to the Thessalonians, St. Paul wrote that God would permit, in the end, the “operation of error” to blind many souls because they did not love the truth:

And now you know what withholdeth, that he may be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way. And then that wicked one shall be revealed whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth; and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming, him, whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders, and in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity.

(2 Thess 2:6-11; underlining added.)

If you have not seen it yet, make sure you read Cardinal Edward Manning’s commentary on this passage and the great research he did on the question of the Pope, the Antichrist, and the latter times, in which we must surely now be, simply because that which 60 years ago would have been considered practically impossible, has now come to pass, and things are deteriorating quickly:

The situation in which we find ourselves today is unprecedented but not unexpected. A long-term vacancy of the Apostolic See, with no clear way out, seems to be a necessary condition enabling the rise of the Antichrist, else “he who withholdeth” — the Pope — would indeed restrain him. So, keep this in mind, whenever you hear some uninformed loudmouth tell you that “God would never permit this!”, that what God will or won’t permit is told to us in Divine Revelation, including Holy Scripture, and the matter is clear: God will not only permit but even “send”, as it were, the “operation of error”, with the precise intent that people will “believe lying” so that “all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity”.

Davies in his last years

We must remember also that while good will is necessary in this battle, it is not sufficient. The late great Fr. Frederick William Faber warned that one reason why the deception of the Antichrist would be so successful is that many “manifestly good” men would follow him and do his work, in ignorance:

We must remember that if all the manifestly good men were on one side and all the manifestly bad men on the other, there would be no danger of anyone, least of all the elect, being deceived by lying wonders. It is the good men, good once, we must hope good still, who are to do the work of Anti-Christ and so sadly to crucify the Lord afresh…. Bear in mind this feature of the last days, that this deceitfulness arises from good men being on the wrong side.

(Fr. Frederick Faber, Sermon for Pentecost Sunday, 1861; qtd. in Fr. Denis Fahey, The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World [text here]; underlining added.)

Besides, fallen men tend to deceive themselves, quickly ascribing good will to themselves when in fact the truth may be quite different. How often do we not tell ourselves we are only interested in the truth when in fact we are not and prefer our own self-interest before all else! (On this, see the same Fr. Faber’s excellent spiritual advice on self-deceit in Spiritual Conferences, 2nd ed. [1860], pp. 153-235.)

Jeffrey Knight’s talk on Sedevacantism and willful ignorance is also apropos here, a real eye-opener:

So, remember, ignorance alone will not get you off the hook, because much ignorance today is quite culpable. This doesn’t mean that those who are culpably ignorant are guilty of malice or ill will — no, it may simply be a case of culpable negligence. It’s time to show some fortitude, which is, after all, one of the four cardinal virtues and also a gift of the Holy Ghost: This is about the eternal destiny of your soul, for heaven’s sake! And if you have a spouse and children, it is about their souls as well. It’s time to take things seriously! Stop kidding yourself and look the facts in the eye! They do not cease to be facts just because we refuse to look.

Likewise, remember that you have nothing to lose and everything to gain: If Sedevacantism is true, it does not become false just because you refuse to look at the evidence; and if Sedevacantism were false, it would not become true just because you are looking into it. Besides, consider that Sedevacantism is entirely safe. By adhering to it, you cannot be led into heresy, nor into schism, if you are faithful to Catholic teaching. Supposing, for the sake of argument, that the position were false, where would be the danger? What could you be accused of?

The worst that could be said of you is that you were wrong about who the Pope was, or whether there was a Pope. You believed, in good faith, that there was no Pope when in fact there was one — but at least you acted consistently and in accordance with Catholic teaching, to the best of your ability and in peace with your conscience. You could be accused of having made a sincere mistake, nothing more; a mistake regarding the identity of the true Pope, as many others did before in Church history, and quite innocently (assuming, of course, that you have done your best to figure it out). This is the worst that could be said. You could not be accused of adhering to or spreading false doctrine (heresy), nor of refusing to be subject to the man you acknowledged to be the Pope (schism). That you would not submit to a man you were sincerely convinced could not possibly be Pope, cannot be laid to your charge, since a Catholic is required to refuse submission to an impostor.

God does not require us to be infallible, but He does require us to adhere to Catholic teaching at all times and in the same sense and meaning it has always had, and He requires us to accept manifest facts as true and to reject contradictions as false. Sedevacantism is the only position that can reconcile the known empirical facts with Catholic teaching. For this you cannot be faulted, even if — per impossibile — it turned out to be false.

But back to Michael Davies, the man upon whose research and argumentation so many have relied for their understanding of traditionalist issues, from the Novus Ordo Missae to Sedevacantism to the illicit episcopal consecrations of Archbishop Lefebvre.

On April 22, 1980, Davies appeared on Firing Line with Bill Buckley, Jr., debating a Novus Ordo priest and the infamous pseudo-traditionalist Malachi Martin. The video of the show is available online, and we are embedding it below as a little perk so you can experience Michael Davies at a time when he had just published the first volume of his Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre:

Michael Davies on Bill Buckley’s Firing Line (1980)

What’s interesting — and very telling — is that although Michael Davies lived until 2004, he never responded to John Daly’s blistering critique, which had first been published fifteen years prior. One would think that if such a powerful refutation of one’s own writings was being disseminated, that the individual targeted would do everything in his power to defend himself to retain or regain his credibility, certainly over a period of time as long as 15 years and at the request of several intellectuals (see Daly, Michael Davies, pp. IX-X). Not so with Michael Davies — even though his critic had even provided a convenient summary of his findings, issued as an open letter consisting of very specific errors he challenged Davies to address (found in the book as Chapter 13, pp. 553-584). No attempt at a rebuttal was ever made by the Lefebvrist apologist.

Davies died on September 25, 2004, and so has already received his judgment. We pray that it was a merciful one and that he repented of all his errors and sins before being summoned to appear before the Divine Judge. It is not our desire to focus so much on the person of Davies as on his errors, powerfully refuted in this work by John Daly, because these errors are still alive and well today, not least because the name of Michael Davies has been attached to them. Nevertheless we must call attention to the fact that it is not wrong, according to the Catholic position on personal polemics, to attack, besides the argument itself, also the person making it. Fr. Felix Sarda y Salvany explained this in his Vatican-endorsed book Liberalism is a Sin (1886):

This monumental dossier on Michael Davies is as explosive as it is detailed, and yet it is also eminently readable. You will find a great many arguments still heard today from people in the “recognize-and-resist” camp competently refuted by the sound reasoning and authentic Catholic sources used in this powerful critique, which most people have never seen or even heard of.

This Evaluation of Mr. Davies will prove a very valuable tool in defending the sedevacantist position and debunking one of its foremost critics. We do not think it an exaggeration to say that after these 584 pages, there is nothing left of the credibility of the celebrated Lefebvrist apologist.

The facts are in; the truth is out. Exit Michael Davies…

Oglasi

Coming soon to the FSSPX?

(click images to enlarge)

 

Will Bishop Vitus Huonder bring his value$ along as he moves to the SSPX District House?

On Monday, May 20, 2019, Pope Francis relieved Bishop Vitus Huonder of his duties as Bishop of the Diocese of Chur (Switzerland), while appointing an administrator with a view to the election of his successor.

According to an intention that he stated long ago, Bishop Huonder is retiring to a house of the Society of Saint Pius X. The one sole purpose of this step is to dedicate himself to prayer and silence, to celebrate the traditional Mass exclusively, and to work for Tradition, the only way of renewing the Church.

The Society of Saint Pius X appreciates Bishop Huonder’s courageous decision and rejoices to be able to provide him with the spiritual and priestly surroundings that he desires so deeply. May this example be followed by others, so as to “restore everything in Christ”.

May 20, 2019

His Excellency Vitus Huonder – Bishop Emeritus of Chur

Don Davide Pagliarani – Superior General of the SSPX

Joint communiqué of Bishop Huonder and Father Pagliarani, FSSPXNews, 20 May 2019

Bp. Huonder is a typical Novus Ordo of the liberal strain who occasionally makes a decision which appears Catholic.  He is big fan of interreligious dialogue and a friend of Moslem and Talmudic Jew alike.  Thinks highly of ‘Nostra Aetate’is a member of the Jewish / Roman – Catholic Dialogue Commission, implemented the ‘Day of Judaism’ in Switzerland, wrote his doctoral thesis in 1975 – Israel Sohn Gottes: Zur Deutung eines alttestamentlichen Themas in der jüdischen Exegese des Mittelalters (Israel Son of God: On the interpretation of an Old Testament theme in the Jewish exegesis of the Middle Ages), ad nauseum.

More of what Huonder value$…

 Female altar boys.
 How Catholic, how traditional!
 Nice pants.
 Interfaith fun with Anglican priestess, Adèle Kelham.
Nothing says Novus Ordo Missae like girls as altar boys!
 He should fit right in with the SSPX.
Delegating his Novus Ordo duties.
Communion in the hand and immodest dress.


The SSPX already shares a few of these value$…

 

Sharing sanctuary with Novus Ordo presiders.
The American SSPX HQ is a big fan of females in pants.
Adoration of Novus Ordo host at a cathedral.

Vitus Huonder’s goal in retiring to the SSPX

20 May 2019 letter from Bp. Huonder.

Bp. Huonder, “In the spirit of Pope Francis, I will strive myself to contribute to the unity of the Church, not to marginalize, but to discern, accompany and help integrate.”

The Case Against Roncalli

I learn quite a lot thanks to my readers. Each week in the comments section, there are many good discussions. Most are on the same topic as the post, but not always, and that’s fine by me. When I’m challenged on a topic I often re-think my position, to get a better understanding both for my own edification and that I may be of more informative value to my readers. I believe in the axiom,”He who does not understand his opponents’ point of view, doesn’t fully understand his own.” Last week, a comment was made by someone who objected to my designating Roncalli (John XXIII) as a false pope. He had challenged me on this point about a year ago, and I was going to research my position more thoroughly, but alas, life so often gets in the way of our plans.

This time, I started to research the topic and my findings were most fruitful–resulting in this post you’re now reading. Anyone who wishes to read the whole thread between my interlocutor and myself may do so by referring to the comments section of last week’s post. In sum, he said, “Sedevacantists recognize Paul VI onwards as pseudo-popes based on SOLID, IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE. For some reason you’re not applying this standard to Roncalli…Again, I don’t know if Roncalli was an usurper. Neither do you, so perhaps you should pull back on DECLARING him a pseudo-pope, and instead just state that YOU believe he was problematic to the point that YOU have your doubts that he was genuine. ” (Emphasis in the original).

In this post, I will put forth the reasons, proving beyond a reasonable doubt, that Roncalli must be objectively dismissed as a false pope. There’s so much that could be written, but I will confine myself as best as possible to make it terse and get the point across without delving into all aspects of his life. Hence, you will not see, for example, accusations that he was a Freemason addressed. I might touch on such issues in another post. This one will suffice for the stated purpose.

Angelo Roncalli: A Brief Background
Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli, the man who would convoke the Robber Council Vatican II, was born the fourth of thirteen children in 1881. He was born to a family of sharecroppers who lived in an Italian village. Roncalli studied for the priesthood, and completed his doctorate in Canon Law the same year as his ordination, 1904.  He became Professor of Patristics at the Lateran University in 1924, only to be relieved of his post within months “on suspicion of Modernism.”
In February 1925, the Cardinal Secretary of State Pietro Gasparri summoned him to the Vatican and informed him of Pope Pius XI’s decision to appoint him as the Apostolic Visitor to Bulgaria (1925–1935). He was subsequently consecrated a bishop in 1925 by Cardinal Porchelli. On 12 January 1953, he was appointed Patriarch of Venice and raised to the rank of Cardinal-Priest of Santa Prisca by Pope Pius XII. After the death of Pope Pius XII on October 9, 1958, Roncalli was allegedly elected pope on the eleventh ballot occurring on October 28th. He took the regnal name of John XXIII. Interestingly, this was the first time in over 500 years that this name had been chosen; previous popes had avoided its use since the time of Antipope John XXIII during the Great Western Schism several centuries before. Both his name and his “reign” would be an appropriate foreshadowing of the Vatican II sect which he helped to create.
Preliminary Considerations
1. A pope who falls into heresy— as a private individual— automatically loses his papal authority by Divine Law.
 According to Doctor of the Church St. Alphonsus Liguori, “If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate.” (See Verita della Fede, Pt. III, Ch. VIII, 9-10).
According to Wernz-Vidal, “Through notorious and openly divulged heresy, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that very fact [ipso facto] is deemed to be deprived of the power of jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgement by the Church….A pope who falls into public heresy would cease ipso facto to be a member of the Church; therefore, he would also cease to be head of the Church.(See Ius Canonicum. Rome: Gregorian [1943] 2:453).
2. A heretic is incapable by Divine Law of attaining the papacy.
 According to theologian Baldii, “Barred as incapable of being validly elected [pope] are the following: women, children who have not reached the age of reason, those suffering from habitual insanity, the unbaptized, heretics and schismatics…” (See Institutiones Iuris Canonici [1921]; Emphasis mine).
According to canonist Coronata, “III. Appointment of the office of the Primacy. 1. What is required by divine law for this appointment: …Also required for validity is that the appointment be of a member of the Church. Heretics and apostates (at least public ones) are therefore excluded.” (Institutiones 1:312; Emphasis mine)
3. If one has a reasonable suspicion regarding the election of a pope, he may be considered as a doubtful pope, and therefore no pope in the practical order.
According to theologian Szal, “Nor is there any schism if one merely transgresses a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state.” (See The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, CUA Press [1948], pg 2; Emphasis mine).
Remember that we need not have proof beyond a reasonable doubt (moral certainty) but SUSPICION. A reasonable suspicion in civil law is seen as more than a guess or hunch but less than probable cause. It is based on “specific and articulable facts,” “taken together with rational inferences from the circumstances.” Hence, if someone were elected pope, and coerced into resigning, he would remain pope. Any subsequent Cardinal “elected” could not attain to the papacy even if not a heretic. Moreover, with the death or true resignation of the man elected pope (at a time subsequent to the invalid election), it would not thereby automatically make the invalidly elected cardinal the Vicar of Christ.
Was Roncalli a Heretic Prior to His Election?
  • In the biography by Lawrence Elliot entitled I Will Be Called John:A Biography of Pope John XXIII,[Reader’s Digest Press, 1973] it is recorded that as early as 1914, Roncalli was accused of Modernism while a teacher at the seminary at Bergamo. Cardinal De Lai, Secretary for the Congregation of Seminaries, formally reprimanded Roncalli, saying: “According to the information that came my way, I knew that you had been a reader of Duchesne [an author of a three volume work placed on the Index of Forbidden Books  for teaching Modernist tenets—Introibo] and other unbridled authors, and that on certain occasions you had shown yourself inclined to that school of thought which tends to empty out the value of tradition and the authority of the past, a dangerous current which leads to fatal consequences.” (pg. 59)
  • For ten years (1905-1915), Roncalli was secretary for Bishop Radini Tedeschi, a Modernist sympathizer. Roncalli describes him thus: “His burning eloquence, his innumerable projects, and his extraordinary personal activity could have given the impression to many, at the beginning, that he had in view the most radical changes and that he was moved by the sole desire to innovate…[Tedeshi] concerned himself less with carrying out reforms than with maintaining the glorious traditions of his diocese and with interpreting them in harmony with new conditions and the new needs of the times.”(See Leroux, John XXIII: Initiator of the Changes, pg. 10) Bp. Tedeschi wanted to “update” traditions by re-interpreting them with the “needs of the times.” Sound familiar?
  • He received the red hat of a cardinal from the hands of French President Vincent Auriol in 1953 at Roncalli’s own insistence. Auriol was a committed Socialist, of whom Roncalli said he was an “honest socialist.” Pope Pius XI had stated, “No one can be, at the same time, a sincere Catholic and a true socialist.”(See Encyclical Quadragesimo Anno [1931], para #120)
  • While working in Bulgaria, Roncalli became well acquainted with Eastern Schismatics. His heretical ecumenism shone through “Catholics and Orthodox are not enemies, but brothers. We have the same faith; we share the same sacraments, and especially the Eucharist. We are divided by some disagreements concerning the divine constitution of the Church of Jesus Christ. The persons who were the cause of these disagreements have been dead for centuries. Let us abandon the old disputes and, each in his own domain, let us work to make our brothers good, by giving them good example. Later on, though traveling along different paths, we shall achieve union among the churches to form together the true and unique Church of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (See Luigi Accattoli, When A Pope Asks Forgiveness, New York: Alba House and Daughters of St. Paul, [1998], pp. 18-19; Emphasis mine.) Do the schismatics share the same faith with the One True Church? Obviously not.
  • According to Renzo Allegri (translated from the original Italian Il Papa che ha cambiato il mondo, Testimonianze sulla vita private di Giovanni XXIII, pg. 66) a Bulgarian journalist named Stefano Karadgiov stated, “I knew Catholic priests who refused to go into an Orthodox Church even as tourists. Bishop Roncalli, on the contrary, always participated in Orthodox functions, arousing astonishment and perplexity in some Catholics. He never missed the great ceremonies which were celebrated in the principle Orthodox church in Sofia. He put himself in a corner and devoutly followed the rites. The Orthodox chants especially pleased him. (Emphasis mine)
  • The import of Roncalli actively participating in false worship cannot be understated. Participating in false religious worship, according to the approved canonists and theologians, is a manifestation of heresy and/or apostasy. According to theologian Merkelbach, external heresy consists not only in what someone says, but also dictis vel factis, that is “signs, deeds, and the omission of deeds.” (Merkelbach, Summa Theologiae Moralis, 1:746; Emphasis mine)
  • Nor is this an isolated report of Roncalli participating in prayer with those outside the Church. According to John Hughes in Pontiffs:Popes Who Shaped History [Our Sunday Visitor Press, 1994], “He [Roncalli] became good friends of the Reverend Austin Oakley, chaplain at the British Embassy and the Archbishop of Canterbury’s personal representative to the Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch. Even more unusual were Roncalli’s visits to Oakley’s chapel, where the two men prayed together.” (Emphasis mine). Furthermore, according to Kerry Walters in John XXIII (A Short Biography) Franciscan Media,[2013], Roncalli once proclaimed from the pulpit that Jesus Christ “died to proclaim universal brotherhood.” (pg. 14)
Did Something Strange Happen at the 1958 Conclave?
 1.  There were several top contenders for the papacy after the death of Pope Pius XII. Fr. DePauw, my spiritual father, made it known to me that his personal friend, Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani, who was in charge of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, was so certain he would be elected, that he had already picked out his regnal name as Pope Pius XIII. Other strong contenders included Cardinals Agagianian (Modernist sympathizer), Lercaro (Modernist sympathizer), and Siri (anti-Communist and anti-Modernist like Ottaviani). The U.S. government was very interested in the election, as the Cold War was in high gear, and they wanted another staunch anti-Communist like Pope Pius XII.
In October of 1958, there were only 55 Cardinals in the world, the lowest number in decades because Pope Pius knew so many bishops were suspect of Modernism. It was the “second wave” of resurgent Modernism. Pope St. Pius X had driven the Modernists underground, but had not extirpated them. So why did Pope Pius XII give the red hat of a Cardinal to Roncalli? Contrary to what many think, the Church doesn’t simply excommunicate clerics on a whim. The fact that they were censured or held suspect of heresy is the Church doing Her job. The hope is to reform those who go astray and bring them back into the fold. Even the great St. Pius X gave the worst Modernists time to reform before excommunication. To be clear, the Church is in no way infallible when it comes to ecclesiastical appointments. Choosing someone as a Cardinal does not relieve their censure or suspicion of heresy automatically.
Pope Pius XII had a back-stabbing Judas as his confessor; Fr. Augustin Bea. Bea was thought to be anti-Modernist, but at Vatican II he worked for the passage of Nostra Aetate, the heretical document on non-Christian religions. He was an ecumenist to the extreme and wanted the Jews “absolved” for their crime of Deicide. Could he have protected Roncalli, having the ear of Pope Pius and convincing him he was “reformed” and/or not electable as pope? This is one of many possibilities, but the crux of the matter is it does nothing to absolve Roncalli of his false teachings and even without ecclesiastical excommunication, he would have been removed from the Church by Divine Law for profession of heresy.
2. Confusing white smoke signals appeared and American intelligence had allegedly found out that Cardinal Siri had been elected pope. Then the smoke was black. White smoke signals mean that a Cardinal had been elected and accepted his election as the new pope. This has lead some to speculate that Siri was elected pope (“Gregory XVII”) and was forced to resign. Therefore Roncalli’s election was null and void. I don’t accept the “Siri Theory” for good reason.

See my post http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2015/02/one-question-siri-cant-answer.html for my thoughts on the “Siri Theory.” Is it possible some other Cardinal was elected, forced to resign (which made Roncalli’s election null and void), and then lost office by going along with the Modernists? It’s a possibility. Lest anyone say there is no evidence of seriously confusing smoke, according to Kirk Clinger, “The partly white, partly dark smoke confused even the Vatican radio announcers. They had to apologize frequently for their error. The column of smoke which rose from the chimney of the Sistine Chapel was first whitish, then definitely white, and only later definitely black.” (See A Pope Laughs: Stories of John XXIII,Holt, Rinehard, and Winston[1964], pg. 43)

3. The most convincing report I heard was that both Cardinals Ottaviani and Siri were unable to muster the two-thirds plus one vote to be elected. As a result, a group of “moderates” convinced most Cardinals to give their votes to Roncalli as a “transitional” pope. He was 77 years old, and (so the reasoning went) wouldn’t do much. Could there have been threats to a Cardinal that got elected and he was forced to resign? At least two Cardinals present made disparaging statements about what transpired at that conclave, which is highly suggestive that there was something seriously wrong. They were Cardinals Ottaviani and Spellman.
4. Does this give us a reasonable suspicion, such that we may doubt Roncalli’s election? Reasonable suspicion is a low standard of evidence, so I’d say definitely so. However, there is more than ample proof Roncalli was a heretic prior to his election and therefore could not attain to the papacy. Finally, let’s not forget that a cause can be discerned by examining the effects. For example, the intelligent design of the universe points to a Creator. Likewise, if the man who came out of the conclave did what a true pope would not (indeed could not) do, we can safely say he wasn’t elected pope.
5. Roncalli, as “pope” rehabilitated every major heretic that had been censured under Pope Pius XII and had them as approved periti (theological experts) at Vatican II. These heretics included the likes of Congar, de Lubac, and Hans Kung, among many others, none of whom were required to abjure any errors. Roncalli promoted ecumenism. He ordered the words removed from the prayer of Consecration to the Sacred Heart of Jesus : “Be Thou King of all those who are still involved in the darkness of idolatry or of Islamism.” He changed the Good Friday prayers so as to remove the phrase “perfidious (i.e., faithless) Jews.” He modernized the Mass, Breviary, and Calendar. He was friends with Socialists, Communists, and Freemasons, none of whom he sought to convert. Are these the actions of a true Vicar of Christ?
Pacem In Terris: Heresy On Earth
The death-knell for those who wish to consider Roncalli pope lies in the fact that he professed heresy in his encyclical Pacem In Terris, published April 11, 1963. This section of my post is taken from the work of Mr. John Lane called John XXIII and Pacem in Terris. I give full credit to Mr. Lane for his incredible research  and incisive analysis. I have condensed the pertinent parts of his article in this section and included some of my comments and research, which I mixed in.—Introibo
The encyclical Pacem in Terris, was about “establishing universal peace in truth, justice, charity, and liberty,” and in addition to the Church, it was addressed “to all men of good will.” The heretical proposition is the opening sentence of paragraph #14. The official Latin version, published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (“AAS” –Acts of the Apostolic See), No. 55, 257-304 is as follows:

In hominis juribus hoc quoque numerandum est, ut et Deum, ad rectum conscientiae suae normam, venerari possit, et religionem privatim et publice profiteri. 

In English it means, “We must include among the rights of man that he should be able to worship God according to the rightful prompting of his conscience and to profess his religion privately and publicly.”
Those who defend Roncalli will point out (correctly) that the Church teaches humans have the right to profess and practice only the Catholic religion which is the One True Church, outside of which no one is saved. Error has no rights. There is nothing wrong with this statement in Pacem (they contend) because the word rightful modifies the “prompting of his conscience” such that it implies that one is not simply entitled to follow his conscience in the worship of God unless his conscience is rightful (i.e., in accordance with the One True Church). What no Catholic can declare is that each person should be able “to profess his religion privately and publicly.” This implies (as we shall see) that one can profess any religion, be it the True Religion or any of the myriad false religions, both privately and in public; which idea is heretical and condemned by the Church.

Here’s where it gets interesting. The possessive adjective “his” does not appear in the official Latin text published in the AAS. However, its interpolation by translators (including the official English text available on the Modernist Vatican’s website) is by no means unjustified for two reasons:

(a) Latin very rarely includes such adjectives, frequently showing them to be  understood from the context.
(b) Abundant evidence shows that John XXIII’s true meaning is represented by the inclusion of “his”–which evidence will be examined.

If you read the sentence without the word “his” it admits of an orthodox interpretation: i.e., people have the right to profess religion publicly and privately provided it’s the Catholic religion. Nevertheless, we cannot omit that word without altering the intended sense of the encyclical; a sense that is unabashedly heretical. Let no one protest that this is an exercise in mere semantics. The semi-Arian heretics, under pressure from the Emperor, were prepared to submit to every syllable of the Nicene Creed except they rejected the statement that Our Lord was consubstantial (homo-ousion) with the Father, but He was merely (homoi-ousion) of like substance, not the same substance. One letter marked the all important line between Catholic doctrine and heresy.

It is beyond dispute that the meaning Roncalli wished to convey, and to which he consciously lent his (alleged) “authority,” was that each person has the right to profess his religion—whatever that religion may be–both privately and publicly. Here is the evidence:

1. The encyclical was not, as traditionally done, addressed only to the members of the Roman Catholic Church, but to “all men of good will.” If it was only addressed to Catholics, one could argue that they would know that “his” religion is the Catholic religion, because only the Truth may be openly professed and preached. After all, he would then only have Catholics as his intended audience. It is completely unreasonable to expect Jews, Mohammedans, Protestants, and Eastern Schismatics (among other non-Catholics) to obtain that understanding from the context. The only reasonable conclusion at which they would arrive is that the encyclical guarantees every single one of them the objective moral right to practice and professhis particular false religion in public.

2. The 32nd edition of Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum [The Enchiridion is a compendium of all the basic texts on Catholic dogma and morality since the Apostolic Age. Commissioned by Pope Pius IX, it has been in use since 1854, and has been regularly updated since] was edited by Fr. Schonmetzer and has the offending sentence tagged with a footnote referencing the Masonic United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) article 18:

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

This passage is irreconcilable with Catholic doctrine, yet it is linked to the very sentence that would make a reader believe that everyone is free to express his religion in public, no matter if it is the true religion or not. It would suggest that Roncalli was conscious of that portion of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as he penned Pacem in Terris. If this does not contradict Catholic teaching, nothing does.

As Pope Gregory XVI taught: “Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care…This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it.” (See Mirari Vos [1832], para. #13 and 14).

The defenders of Roncalli will protest that there is a “lack of evidence” that Roncalli authorized the footnote; but such objection fails miserably. The authors of the Enchiridion are selected precisely to ensure that their references and explanations will meet with official approval of the Holy See, and any remark misrepresenting the mind of same would meet with a public rebuke and a retraction demanded by Rome, which was far from the case. Moreover, the involvement of the editors of the 32nd edition is more demonstrable than in any prior edition. It was the first time that the passage of Pope Pius IX’s condemnation of religious liberty was omitted.  The startling omission is explicable only on the basis that it was intended to conceal the explicit contradiction between Pacem in Terris and Quanta Cura. 

This passage was omitted: From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an “insanity” viz., that “liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way.” But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching “liberty of perdition;” and that “if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling.” (See Quanta Cura [1864], para. #3).

Clearly, it cannot be reasonably maintained that those who took such great care to arrange the suppression of the “offending” part of Quanta Cura were not also responsible for the footnote to Pacem in Terris which concerned the same subject.

3. That fact that the sentence from Pacem in Terris must be understood in connection with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is confirmed by the fact that in Pacem itself, the Masonic United Nations and its Declaration are commended and praised in paragraphs #142, 143, and 144. Roncalli said of the Declaration “It is a solemn recognition of the personal dignity of every human being; an assertion of everyone’s right to be free to seek out the truth, to follow moral principles, discharge the duties imposed by justice, and lead a fully human life. It also recognized other rights connected with these.” (para. #144; Emphasis mine). An encyclical is carefully read over by the Pontiff before signing and promulgating it. Moreover, high ranking theologians craft it at the direction of the pope. Each word is carefully chosen. If these “other rights” written in the Declaration did not include the infamous “right” to religious liberty, is it not obvious this would have been made clear?

4. The encyclical was roundly praised by the Masonic lodges and the secular media both of which promote religious Indifferentism and religious liberty through supporting separation of Church and State.

5. The Church cannot (and does not) teach ambiguously in expressing theological truths. Any deliberate ambiguity must be interpreted against the orthodoxy of the one teaching ambiguously. Propositions that are ambiguous or admit of interpretations that are either orthodox or heterodox are deemed “heretical by defect.” This is also the case with propositions that are true, but are calculated to omit pertinent truths or terms they ought to include. The following proposition of the Jansenist Pseudo-Synod of Pistoia was condemned:
“After the consecration, Christ is truly, really and substantially present beneath the appearances (of bread and wine), and the whole substance of bread and wine has ceased to exist, leaving only the appearances.”

In 1794, Pope Pius VI condemned that proposition in the Apostolic Constitution Auctorem Fidei because “it entirely omits to make any mention of transubstantiation or the conversion of the entire substance of the bread into the Body, and the whole substance of the wine into the Blood, which the Council of Trent defined as an article of Faith…insofar as, through an unauthorized and suspicious omission of this kind, attention is drawn away both from an article of Faith and from a word consecrated by the Church to safeguard the profession of that article against heresies, and tends, therefore, to result in its being forgotten as if it were merely a scholastic question.”

Summation: It is impossible to excuse Roncalli (John XXIII) from the charge of heresy by arguing that this sentence can admit of an orthodox interpretation, because it does not. Even if, ad arguendo, it could so admit of an orthodox interpretation, Roncalli would still be guilty of heresy by defect because it has been shown that the obvious sense of the sentence, taken in both text and context, is incontrovertibly heretical.

Conclusion
What, then, are the practical and objective conclusions we can deduce from the so-called pontificate of “Good Pope John”?
  • He was influenced and kept friends with Modernists, Masons, Socialists and other sworn enemies of the Church from his earliest days in the priesthood
  • He was removed from his teaching post on suspicion of heresy (Modernism)
  • He worshiped and prayed with heretics and schismatics
  • He made an overtly heretical statement regarding Catholics and Eastern Schismatics having the “same faith”
  • The conclave of 1958 was surrounded by suspicious activity and lead many to believe that someone else had been elected pope prior to Roncalli
  • After his “election” Roncalli rehabilitated all the living censured theologians under Pope Pius XII and had them actively serve as theological experts during Vatican II
  • Roncalli taught the heresy of religious liberty in Pacem in Terris; he paved the way for its adoption at Vatican II in the heretical document Dignitatis Humanae

Therefore,

1. It is morally certain that Roncalli was not pope since at least the promulgation of the heretical encyclical Pacem in Terris of April 11, 1963. A true pope cannot teach heresy.
2. Was Roncalli “pope” from October of 1958 until April 11, 1963? In a word: No. We know a cause by the effect it produces. If you see someone who’s sick, you know it’s caused by an illness, even if you can’t diagnose exactly what illness it is. Pope’s do not rehabilitate heretics, promote ecumenism and teach heresy. It is highly more probable than not that Roncalli was a heretic at the time he entered the conclave and never attained to the papacy in the first place. It is also possible (but not likely) that someone else was elected pope and resigned under duress, making Roncalli’s subsequent “election” invalid. There’s more than sufficient evidence prior to the promulgation of Pacem in Terris that we can suspect the validity of his election (due to heresy, election of another, or both) to treat him as a dubious pope –which is no pope in the practical order.
I could write dozens of posts on “Evil Pseudo-Pope John.” However, I hope this one will be sufficient to put to rest the arguments of those who are “agnostic” about his “papacy” and think he might have been pope. Finally, for those who have even the slightest qualm of conscience or scintilla of doubt remaining, let me add that Bergoglio “canonized” him a “saint.” The same Argentinian apostate who gave us “St.” John Paul the Great Apostate and “St” Paul VI, gave us “St” John XXIII. If that’s not enough to make you realize the destruction he caused, and for which the Vatican II sect praises him, no amount of information can wake you from your denial.

2019 Statistics Show Newchurch Sinking Rapidly in the U.S. Novus Ordo Mess Attendance and Fake Sacraments Are Down by a Half to Two-thirds

From: The TRADITIO Fathers

Newchurch Sinks

New 2019 Statistics from Newchurch Itself
Show that Its Mess and “Sacraments” Are Being Abandoned
By a Half to Two-Thirds
It Has Taken Fifty Years (1969-2019), but Now the Heretical Newpopes
Paul VI-Montini, JPII-Wojtyla, Benedict-Ratzinger, and Francis-Bergoglio
Who Swore Allegiance to the Blasphemous Vatican II Anti-council
Are Seeing Their Fake Newchurch Sect Crashing and Burning

2019 is the fiftieth anniversary of the full-blown, Protestant-Masonic-Pagan, invalid “New Mess,” which was generated from the Vatican II Anti-council (1962-1965) and was fabricated principally by the Chief Architect of the New Liturgy, the Freemason presbyter Hannibal Bugnini. Here are the statistics, just released for the Unioted States by the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate, seated at Newchurch’s own George Washington University in Washington, D.C.:


                                   1970          2018          Percentage
Infant "Initiations"               1,089,154     615,119       Down 43.5
Adult "Initiations"                84,534        39,660        Down 53.1
Weddings                           426,309       143,082       Down 66.4
Ordinations                        805           518           Down 35.7
Presbyters                         59,192        36,580        Down 61.8
Sisters                            160,931       44,117        Down 72.6
Percentage Attending Mess Weekly   54.9          21.1          Down 61.6

Even at that, Newchurch’s statistics are known to be notoriously “cooked.” For example, estimates of New Mess attendance are generally found by non-Newchurch sources to be closer to 10 per cent, half of what is reported by biased Newchurch sources.

It is clear that hatred of the “New Mess” is growing and that Newchurchers are simply refusing to go. Unfortunately, Newchurch and its heretical Newpopes Paul VI-Montini, JPII-Wojtyla, Benedict-Ratzinger, and Francis-Bergoglio have already so poisoned the minds of Newchurchers against the true Mass that most Newchurchers will simply drop out rather than return to the true Mass, the Traditional Latin Mass that is offered by bishops and priests independent of the Newchurch of the New Order.

In addition, Newchurch has sold out Catholic doctrine and morals, that is to say, Christ’s doctrine to appeal to “modernity,” just as many mainline (Leftist) Protestant denominations have, who approve of homosexuality, divorce, the oecumenical heresy (“we all worship the same god”; “all religions are equally true”), etc. As a result, both Newchurch and mainline Protestantism are sinking rapidly. Yet Christ Himself taught the truth regardless of how many people turned their back on his teaching. He did not water down his teaching, for example, on the Holy Eucharist. The Gospels tell us: “After this [teaching on the Holy Eucharist], many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him” (John 6:67).

True Catholics, criminals often think that they can “get away” with their crimes. In a minority of cases, some do escape justice in this world and have to face a worse judgment in the next. But in the majority of cases, criminals pay the price in this life. Thus is the case with the heretical Newpopes Paul VI-Montini, JPII-Wojtyla, Benedict-Ratzinger, and Francis-Bergoglio, who swore allegiance to the blasphemous Vatican II Anti-council. It has taken fifty years, but now they are feeling the judgment of God in this world against their fake Newchurch of the New Order, with its fake Mess, sacraments, doctrine, and morals.

The Anti-Father

If you ever heard the Vatican II sect “priests” talk about the Gospel in their “homily,” you would get the idea that the books of the Bible are more or less a bunch of nice stories that teach us to be kind because “God is good all the time.” They denigrate “born again” Protestant ministers, not for their many and genuine heresies, but because they “falsely” believe the Bible to be the inspired and infallible Word of God. At the same time, (so we are told), in the days pre-Vatican II, Catholics were “not allowed” or “discouraged” from reading the Bible on their own. In this way, they were prevented from seeing that the Bible is a nice collection of myths, stories, and some truths to encourage us to believe in a nice God and His Son Who was “the greatest man (sic) on Earth.”

If you’re wondering how we got to this sorry state of affairs, modern Biblical scholarship was infected by the Modernists in the wake of Vatican II. The seeds were sowed in the late 19th century, and one man in particular did more damage than all the others. Alfred Firmin Loisy was born in France on February 28, 1857, and died June 1, 1940. He was ordained a priest on June 29, 1879, but was off-course in his spiritual life. He obtained his theology degree in 1890. Loisy claimed in his journal that he had a “fever for glory” and wanted to become a “Father of the Church.”(See McKee, The Enemy Within the Gate [1974], pg. 23). His arrogance and diabolical hatred for all things traditional Catholic, led to him becoming one of the “Fathers of Modernism” and of the Vatican II sect, which his influence helped to spawn in 1964.

As we shall see in this post, Loisy was particularly critical of the Bible, and is even called in some circles the “Founder of Biblical Modernism in the Catholic (sic) Church.” It is because of him, and his intellectual/spiritual disciples, that the true teaching regarding the Bible was discarded.

Ridding The Bible of “Myths”
Loisy argued against the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, the reliability of Genesis’ creation accounts, and against the historical dependability of the Bible in general. As a result, he was removed from his teaching position at the Institut Catholique.  After his dismissal, he was made a chaplain at a girls school at Neuilly. In 1900 Loisy became lecturer at Ecole des hautes Estudes at the Sorbonne, where he was able to continue spreading his ideas as a Modernist. Pope Leo XIII issued the encyclical Providentissimus Deus in 1893 condemning the errors of Modernist Biblical criticism.
 Undaunted, Loisy continued to write heretical books, using Modernist Biblical criticism. In particular, Loisy:
  • Denied the authority of God, the Scriptures, and Tradition
  • Denied the Divinity of Jesus Christ
  • Denied Christ was omniscient
  • Denied the Redemptive death and Resurrection of Christ
  • Denied the Virgin Birth
  • Denied Transubstantiation
  • Denied the Divine Institution of both the papacy and the Church

In December of 1903, Loisy’s books were placed on the Index of Prohibited Books by the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office with the full approval of Pope St. Pius X, who had just been elected pope in August of that year. On January 24, 1904, Loisy wrote to the saintly and thoroughly Anti-Modernist Raphael Cardinal Merry del Val. The Cardinal was the right hand man of Pope St. Pius X, and with good reason. Cardinal Merry del Val was everything Loisy was not: humble and pious. Moreover, the Cardinal was an intellectual giant, having not only a Doctorate in Sacred Theology as an approved theologian, but he also earned a doctorate in philosophy and licentiate in Canon Law. He did not fancy himself a “Father of the Church” but actually penned a “Litany of Humility.” Some ascribed the authorship to another, but the Cardinal recited it daily, nevertheless.  His cause for sainthood was introduced in 1953, and in my opinion, had Vatican II not happened, he would have an “St.” before his name.

Loisy told the Cardinal in his letter that “I accept all the dogmas of the Church.” This was an unabashed lie, because at the same time in his journal he wrote, “I have not been Catholic in the official sense of the word for a long time…Roman Catholicism as such is destined to perish, and it will deserve no regrets.” (Ibid, pgs. 32-33). The wise Cardinal was not satisfied, as he knew all too well how Modernists lie and conceal their true intentions by giving different meanings to dogmas. A Modernist could say, “I believe in the Resurrection of Christ (insofar as he lives on; not materially, but in the minds of His followers).” The part in parentheses is never said aloud. Cardinal Merry del Val continued to advise Pope St. Pius that more stringent measures needed to be taken.
Finally, in 1907, His Holiness Pope St. Pius X condemned 65 Modernist propositions in his famous declaration Lamentabili Sane. Of those 65 propositions, fifty (50) were taken from the works of Loisy. Enraged, Loisy realized that there was no reconciliation possible with the Church and his heresy. He now made plain what he had heretofore keep close to his vest when he wrote publicly, “Christ has even less importance in my religion than he does in that of the liberal Protestants: for I attach little importance to the revelation of God the Father for which they honor Jesus. If I am anything in religion, it is more pantheist-positivist-humanitarian than Christian.” On March 7, 1908, Loisy was solemnly excommunicated by Pope St. Pius X. He became a college professor, forsaking his clerical status, and died unrepentant in 1940.
The Condemnations of Lamentabili Sane
Here are just some of the propositions (all solemnly condemned by St. Pius X) which Loisy propagated in regard to Holy Scripture:
4. Even by dogmatic definitions the Church’s Magisterium cannot determine the genuine sense of the Sacred Scriptures.
7. In proscribing errors, the Church cannot demand any internal assent from the faithful by which the judgments She issues are to be embraced.

9. They display excessive simplicity or ignorance who believe that God is really the author of the Sacred Scriptures.

10. The inspiration of the books of the Old Testament consists in this: The Israelite writers handed down religious doctrines under a peculiar aspect which was either little or not at all known to the Gentiles.

11. Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error.

12. If he wishes to apply himself usefully to Biblical studies, the exegete[interpreter of the Bible] must first put aside all preconceived opinions about the supernatural origin of Sacred Scripture and interpret it the same as any other merely human document.

In Defense of God’s Word
The attacks of Loisy and the Modernists on Sacred Scripture lack merit, even apart from a theological perspective. The following is taken and condensed from the work of A. Anderson, a lawyer who attacked the alleged logical basis of the Modernists’ faulty exegesis. Anderson shows that the Modernists cannot maintain their position in regard to Sacred Scripture being “unreliable”— even in the purposeful absence of theological proof. What makes his work, entitled A Lawyer Among the Theologians, (Hodder and Stoughton, [1967]) truly masterful, is how he demonstrates that the Gospels are historically reliable while fighting Modernists “on their own turf” by using the best secular evidence, and not invoking any theological authority.
Reasons for Accepting the Gospels as Historically Reliable
As a form of literature, the Gospels are unique, for they were written by believers to confirm the readers in their faith or to bring to faith those who did not yet believe. Since the Christian faith is rooted in history, the Evangelists were concerned in reporting what actually happened, and therefore the religious aim of the Gospels is not a valid reason for rejecting them as historically inaccurate or unreliable.
1. Two Evangelists explicitly claim they are reporting historical facts. St. Luke begins his Gospel by telling us that he has been at pains to gather reliable information about the events he plans to chronicle in order that Theophilus, for whom he is directly writing, may rest assured that his faith in Christ is based on well-established fact. The order in which he recounts the facts is not strictly chronological, but in its main outlines Luke’s account of the public ministry of Jesus tallies with those of Sts. Matthew and Mark. St. John also presents his Gospel as a record of facts which serve as a warranty for faith in Christ.
2. The Evangelists, even if they wanted to, could not have made up the story, for the central figure is so tremendous and the story of His life so unique as to be beyond the power of human imagination. Even John Stuart Mill, a rationalist philosopher who rejected the supernatural said, “Who among His disciples or among the proselytes was capable of inventing the sayings of Jesus or or of imagining the life and character revealed in the Gospels? Certainly not the simple fishermen of Galilee; certainly not St. Paul, whose character and idiosyncrasies were of a totally different sort; still less the early Christian writers.”
3. The Gospels had to pass the scrutiny of men who had witnessed the events that were recorded, and were hostile to the Christian claims.
4. Historical and archaeological research have revealed that the Gospels depict with striking exactitude the very complex social and political order that prevailed in the Middle East in the third decade of the first century, an order that was completely destroyed in 70 A.D. The Evangelists’ reliability in recording these items creates a presumption that their testimony on other matters is true as well.
5. A crucified Messiah was completely out of step with regard to Jewish expectations. The Jews were expecting a Messiah, but not a suffering Messiah, and still less an Incarnate Deity. Even if they thought the Messiah was to be the Son of God, even the most learned rabbis of the day would NOT think Him to be born in a stable, spend thirty years in obscurity as a carpenter, and end His life on the ignominious death of the cross. Christ therefore was, in the words of St. Paul, a “stumbling block” on the path to faith. (1 Corinthians 1:23).
There is non-Christian testimony from pagan historians which corroborate the unique life of Jesus Christ. These writers include:
  • Flavius Josephus
  • Tacitus
  • Suetonius
  • Pliny the Younger
Conclusion
The Modernists have come to destroy all that is good, beautiful, and true. The would be “Church Father” Alfred Loisy was the quintessential Modernist, seeking to destroy the Church and replace Her with a One World Religion. He began attacking the reliability of the Bible, and the Vatican II sect continues with the de-supernaturalized “social Gospel” which reduces the Faith to little more than worldly concerns and advocates for Socialism/Communism. One of Loisy’s most noted sayings was, “Jesus came proclaiming the Kingdom, and what arrived was the Church,” as if Our Lord never intended to found a Church. Loisy admitted to being a “pantheist-positivist-humanitarian” –a man devoid of the Faith.
Bergoglio and his false hierarchy are Loisy’s successors in heresy and apostasy. They proclaim a mythical Jesus (“There is no Catholic God”) Who founded no Church (“proselytism is solemn nonsense”) and lets you do what you want (“Who am I to judge?”). The only thing our SSPX friends need to recognize is that the Vatican II sect is not the Roman Catholic Church, and then resist the sect by admitting sedevacantism— thereby joining the fight against it.

41 comments:

  1. Admit sedevacantism? The only thing harder than admitting you were wrong is admitting you were fooled. SSPX and the other cottage industry resisters have painted themselves so far in the corner that they have become blinded by their own spin.

    Reply

  2. Tom,
    True. I guess miracles do happen? At least we can hope so—for all our sakes!

    —-Introibo

  3. Thank you, Introibo, for displaying the correct attitude one should take towards the SSPX.

    If one believes that all of the SSPX clergy are engaged in a false opposition designed to ensnare souls, one probably spends a good deal of time slapping their own head (ala Mel Gibson in “Conspiracy Theory”) while breathlessly ranting about various conspiratorial organizations. *Wild look in the eyes is optional.

    If one thinks that the SSPX has been somewhat infiltrated by the enemy, all the MORE reason to fervently pray for all of the good and holy SSPX clergy that aren’t traitors to our Lord.

    As sedevacantists we believe that they’ve concluded wrongly. This doesn’t mean we’re better or are “the chosen ones.” Far from it. Many of us are only right due to favorable circumstances.

    Did St. Monica revile and disown Augustine? It is incumbent on us to pray fervently each day for tne intention that the SSPX and their adherents see the truth. We also have a moral responsibility to see the very best in others until that is no longer possible. So from a starting point of the SSPX being horribly wrong on serious religious matters, tbey are to be pitied rather than be excoriated. Prayed for rather than uncharitably criticized.

    We’re all in this together. We all ultimately want the same thing – Heaven.

    Reply

  4. @anon7:28
    Well stated my friend!

    God Bless,

    —-Introibo

  5. Is their any difference between the SSPX and the Indult?

  6. The title of this article “The Anti-Father” reminds me of a statement by Frankie the Fake stating that “God is Father and also Mother”. Leave it to Frankie the Fake to spread confusion and modernism. Since Frankie is into and a practicing New Ager himself, perhaps he is telling many of the feminists and New Agers that it is ok to pray to God as “Goddess”? I also wonder if he will change the Our Father to “Our Father and Mother” in the Vatican II Sect?
    See link below:

    https://www.lastampa.it/2019/01/16/vaticaninsider/the-pope-god-is-father-and-also-mother-and-always-loves-even-criminals-TDZFfyjpVfPqOD6mpRYprJ/pagina.html

    Reply

  7. Joann,
    No doubt “feminist theology” has taken hold since Vatican II. Bergoglio will lead people into EVERY EVIL. There was a “priest” in Boston when Ratzinger was “pope.” He was baptizing babies “In the name of God the Creator, and of Jesus the Christ, and of the Holy Spirit.”

    Some parents questioned its validity, and much to that “priest’s “ chagrin, even the Modernist Vatican declared them null and void and to be unconditionally repeated!!

    Be assured that under Francis, he wouldn’t perturb an invalid Sacrament!

    God Bless,

    —-Introibo

  8. Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity. Matthew 7: 21-23

    I hate to say it, but I bet Alfred Firmin Loisy wishes he believed in the bible and in the Church now.

    I’m surprised the Novus ordo hasn’t talked about making him a “Doctor of the Church” like some have in regards to Teilhard de Chardin.

    Reply

  9. @anon5:39
    Oh, give them time! Teilhard shall be their “doctor,” Loisy shall be their “father,” and since its inception the V2 sect has had Satan for their lord and master.

    God Bless,

    —-Introibo

  10. The seeds of Modernism were sown in the 17th century, when many theologians downplayed the condemnation of Galileo by the Holy See, insolently maintaining that the last word had not been had not yet been spoken on the subject of heliocentrism. By the second half of the 19th century, not a single theologian held to the biblical view of cosmology, and all without exception accepted heliocentrism. By the mid-20th century, scarcely a single one held to the Genesis account of creation, and evolutionism was all the rage in theological circles. Small wonder, then, that the Modernists were able to just waltz in and take the fortress unopposed. For the institutional Church had already been gut-shot by the craven capitulation of modern churchmen to the impious ravings of modern science. Therefore, the task of the Modernists couldn’t have been easier. It was like drowning puppies.

    Reply

  11. George,
    Good to hear from you again! It’s been some time since you last commented.

    Are you claiming that geocentrism is “dogma” or Catholic doctrine the denial of which is a mortal sin against the Faith?

    Two responses:
    According to Theologian Salavarri, “…decisions of this kind [regarding Biblical Commissions, condemning Galileo, ] are not absolutely infallible nor irrevocable; therefore the assent due to them, although anyone rightly ascents to them without a prudent fear of being in error (I.e., morally certain) , still it is not absolute nor absolutely irreformable.” (See “Sacrae Theologiae Summa” Volume IB, pg. 701).

    2. Pope St Pius X solemnly approved the following two answers and decisions of the Pontifical Biblical Commission on 6/29/1909 in response to several queries:

    Question # 7: “Whether, since it was not the intention of the sacred author, when writing the first chapter of Genesis, to teach us in a scientific manner the innermost nature of visible things, and to present the complete order of creation but rather to furnish his people with a popular account, such as the common parlance of that age allowed, one, namely, adopted to the senses and to man’s intelligence, we are strictly and always bound, when interpreting these chapters to seek for scientific exactitude of expression?”

    Answer: In the negative.

    Question # 8: “Whether the word yom (‘day’), which is used in the first chapter of Genesis to describe and distinguish the six days, may be taken in its strict sense as the natural day, or in a less strict sense as signifying a certain space of time; and whether free discussion of this question is permitted to interpreters?”

    Answer: In the affirmative.

    Therefore, one is free to accept or deny geocentric ideas and the idea that Earth is only 6,000 years old. The decisions of the time referred to in Genesis was approved by The Foe Of Modernism himself—Pope St Pius X.

    That there were Modernists seeking to infiltrate the Church prior to V2, conceded. That the approved theologians all taught error, denied. For this would ascribe error to the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium which is impossible lest the Church defected. (Heresy)

    Notice how vigilant the Church was in condemning Loisy and his ilk. So were Roncalli and Ratzinger censured. It was only after Roncalli usurped the Throne Of St Peter did we get to this point.

    God Bless,

    —-Introibo

  12. Introibo: “It was only after Roncalli usurped the Throne Of St Peter did we get to this point.”

    Hi Introibo,

    We’ve previously had a conversation about the strict requirement for solid evidence before we can observe that an individual is a papal usurper or pseudo-pope.

    As noted previously, the world hasn’t yet been graced with the exhaustive and definitive article by Fr. Cekada wherein he deals the killer blow to Roncalli’s papacy by demonstrating clear-cut actions and words that would’ve doubtlessly eliminated any possibility of Roncalli attaining or maintaining the office of pope. We know that John Salza demolished a facile argument put forth by Bp. Sanborn. Others have unsuccessfully sought to show heresy in “Pacem in Terris.” There are the persistent rumors of Freemasonry, etc. But nothing presented thus far has any probative value insofar Roncalli being a pseudo-pope. There is plenty demonstrating that Roncalli was a very bad egg, sailing close to wind of heresy (he is on file as being “suspected of Modernism”), but it appears that solid evidence to convict him has not yet surfaced.

    Arising from the preceding are three immediate questions.

    1) Should we or can we refer to a papal claimant as a definite usurper without a standard of evidence that clearly demonstrates this?

    2) Considering all of the mystery (e.g., white smoke appearing at one stage during the 1958 conclave), and confusion wrought by rumors and known, dubious associations Roncalli had with bad actors, is this enough to put John XXIII/Roncalli into a “doubtful pope” category, thus enabling informed Catholics to flee him like one would run from doubtful sacraments?

    3) Do you now have any unimpeachable/solid evidence clearly showing that Roncalli was a definite false pope?

    Please discuss.

  13. Roncalli has many flaws as you rightly pointed out. Let’s first review this general principle from Theologian Szal:
    “Nor is there any schism if one merely transgresses a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if ONE REFUSES OBEDIENCE INASMUCH AS ONE SUSPECTS THE PERSON OF THE POPE OR THE VALIDITY OF HIS ELECTION, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state.” (See “The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics” CUA Press [1948], pg 2; Emphasis mine).

    Do we have reason to suspect the election of Roncalli? Yes.

    John XXIII
    Was removed from his teaching position at the Lateran University under “suspicion of Modernism.” He was on a list of suspected Modernists as far back as 1925, and which list was kept at the Holy Office.

    Received the red hat of a cardinal from the hands of French President Vincent Auriol in 1953 at Roncalli’s insistence. Auriol was a committed Socialist, of whom Roncalli said he was an “honest socialist.” Pope Pius XI had stated, ” No one can be, at the same time, a sincere Catholic and a true socialist.”

    Promoted ecumenism. He ordered the words removed from the prayer of Consecration to the Sacred Heart of Jesus : “Be Thou King of all those who are still involved in the darkness of idolatry or of Islamism.” He changed the Good Friday prayers so as to remove the phrase “perfidious (i.e., faithless) Jews.” He further modernized the Mass, Breviary, and Calendar.

    He made the following statement which is isolated, yet enunciates a heretical idea:
    In his encyclical Pacem In Terris (1963), he stated in paragraph #11, “Also among man’s rights is that of being able to worship God in accordance with the right dictates of his own conscience, and to profess his religion both in private and in public.”

    I really don’t see how he can escape the charge of heresy and either lost office or never attained it.

    Could the Siri Theory be true ? Possibly. I don’t buy it, but I try to follow the evidence where it leads. US intelligence DID report only an hour or so after the original white smoke that Giuseppe Cardinal Siri was elected as Pope Gregory XVII.

    Finally, According to Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy, there was someone deeply into the teachings of Rudolf Steiner; one Angelo Roncalli, who would become “Pope” John XXIII and convoke the Second Vatican (Robber) Council! Coomaraswamy writes, “Then in 1924, after the death of his beloved bishop [Bp. Tedeschi], he [Roncalli] was called back to Rome and given a minor post in the Association for the Propagation of the Faith. At this time he also became a part time Professor of Patristics at the Lateran University, only to be relieved of his post within months “on suspicion of Modernism” and for “teaching the theories of Rudolf Steiner” (See The Destruction of the Christian Tradition, World Wisdom Press, 2006, pg. 134 & Footnote 17, pg. 154).

    Rudolf Steiner was an open occultist.

    In 1958, would a Catholic have reason to suspect Roncalli? The average Catholic, no. But with over 60 years of hindsight we DO. Hence, a doubtful pope is to be treated as no pope at all.

    —-Introibo

  14. Thanks for all that, Introibo.

    We’ve been through all this before. You’ve said nothing new. I don’t find your reasoning convincing.

    Bottom line: What you’ve listed is not solid evidence for heresy or apostasy.

    Your “cumulative” approach does not magically add up to Roncalli being a heretic/apostate/non-Catholic. What we need is a minimum of ONE example where it can be CLEARLY shown WHAT crime Roncalli committed and HOW that crime caused him to lose the faith/cease to be a Catholic.

    Rumors of being a Freemason, Freemasons claiming he was one of their own, rumors of being a Communist, hearsay in books, hearsay about what American security agencies thought at time, theories about Cardinal Siri being elected, Steiner being an occultist, your view of a passage out of Pacem in Terris, etc. etc., don’t even begin to approach proof for Roncalli being a false pope. As a lawyer, I think you know what I’m saying is true. And Canonical legal standards are what Roncalli must be judged against, and not, for example, a “preponderance of evidence” based on hearsay.

    What I was seeking was your thoughts on whether a Catholic today can legitimately put Roncalli in the “too hard basket,” DESPITE the FACT that one would be doing so based purely on a wealth of rumor, innuendo, unverified facts, etc. That’s what our “doubt” would be/is based on. Let’s be very clear about that. Based on a complete lack of solid evidence, I hardly think one can go about 100% declaring Roncalli an usurper. That’s not how justice works.

    Heavily in Roncalli’s favor is:

    1) Compelling, is that Roncalli was suspected of Modernism (heresy) as early as 1925 yet was never brought before the courts.

    2) Although the average Catholic layman wasn’t aware of Roncalli’s shenanigans, Church authorities certainly were. Everything you’ve mentioned was seen by the authorities.

    3) Compelling, is that Roncalli sat unchallenged (for years) as Cardinal under Pope Pius XII, right up until Pius’ death in 1958.

    4) None of the traditional clergy use your arguments. They obviously don’t think that what’s on your list suffices as examples that would prove the case against Roncalli. Again, where is Fr. Cekada’s article clearly showing that Roncalli was a false pope?

    Introibo: “I really don’t see how he can escape the charge of heresy and either lost office or never attained it.”

    Again, we need a minimum of ONE example where it can be CLEARLY shown WHAT crime Roncalli committed and HOW that crime caused him to lose the faith/cease to be a Catholic.

    I simply don’t know whether Roncalli was an impostor or not. Therefore I can’t declare him to definitely be an usurper.

  15. Even if I concede we don’t know if he’s an imposter or not, the fact remains that there is enough evidence TO SUSPECT his election.
    Teaching occult theories and being removed from a teaching post are FACTS. What was written in Pacem in Terris is religious liberty.

    Is this enough (plus the white smoke and verified reports from American intelligence) to be SUSPICIOUS of his election? Yes. It is enough to refuse obedience and treat him as a non-pope, even if he were valid.

    —-Introibo

  16. “verified reports from American intelligence”

    Are you talking about the story that the FBI or CIA had documents that Siri was elected? That story is extremely questionable. I believe the only source for it is an anti-Catholic book by someone whom I heard was an apostate from being a trad. He made that claim in his book, citing a document in the archives of the CIA. Several people have filed Freedom of Information requests for the document cited in the footnote, and the response has always been that no such document exists.

    Contrary to popular belief, the author who made this claim was never a federal agent, but only a journalist, and thus did not have special access to the CIA archives. The footnote that cited a specific CIA document was changed in subsequent editions of the book and replaced with a vague reference to “CIA sources” or something equally vague. Numerous people have contacted this author requesting more information about this whole situation, and he refuses to discuss it.

    All in all it looks pretty bogus to me.

  17. Introibo,

    Geocentrism is not a dogma, as it was not solemnly defined. However, it was determined by the Holy See to be the correct interpretation of Scripture. On what grounds, then, would any obedient Catholic deny it to be the correct interpretation? On no good grounds, that’s for sure. And yet, not merely some, but absolutely ALL of the theologians of the 19th and 20th centuries did in fact deny it. And here we are in the Great Apostasy. Coincidence? I don’t think so.

    You say that Salaverri considered the Galileo decision to be fallible. Of course, he would have to say that, since he obviously had no intention of assenting to it. Show me a theologian that is willing to assent to the decisions of the Holy See, and I will listen to him. The rest aren’t worth too much.

    As for the decisions of the Biblical Commission, Question #7 is not to the point, as none of the Fathers (nor anyone else, for that matter) ever considered themselves “strictly and always bound, when interpreting these chapters to seek for scientific exactitude of expression?”

    On the other hand, Question #8 merely allowed (for the time being) the opinion that yom may mean a certain period of time, rather than a single 24-hour day. This question doesn’t bind the Catholic conscience to anything. Moreover, we are still bound to follow the common interpretation of the Fathers on Scripture, and ALL the Fathers interpreted yom to be a 24-hour day, except for St. Augustine, who believed that God created all things in a single instant, and the “days” were symbolic. Not a single Father considered yom to mean “a certain space of time,” and neither should we.

    But my main point is that the Modernists were not a sufficient cause to destroy the institutional Church.

    Reply

  18. George,
    The Church can never be destroyed, it was just driven underground—and I’m sure that’s what you meant.

    I hope you see where the problems lie:

    1. The Church defected as She was unable to prevent Her approved theologians from teaching something (geocentrism) that an obedient Catholic has “no good grounds” to reject. Yet all the popes allowed this to go unchecked.

    2. Show you a theologian Willing to assent to the decisions of the Holy See? Van Noort, Salaverri, Dorsch, Tanquerey, McHugh and Callan, etc. If they weren’t willing to submit to decisions of the Holy See, they would have been censured. Obviously, even St Pius X was a Modernist sympathizer and a weak pope since he did nothing to correct the theologians of his day.

    3. You claim:
    “Moreover, we are still bound to follow the common interpretation of the Fathers on Scripture, and ALL the Fathers interpreted yom to be a 24-hour day, except for St. Augustine, who believed that God created all things in a single instant, and the “days” were symbolic. Not a single Father considered yom to mean “a certain space of time,” and neither should we.”

    Yet, why would Pope St Pius X approve a decree that would allow you to contradict the common teaching of the Fathers on Scripture, something you say we are “bound” to do. Does this not make the decision of the Pontifical Biblical Commission and its approval by Pope St Pius X wrong??

    —-Introibo

  19. Not exactly relevant, but the term “institutional Church” makes me very uncomfortable in the way it seems designed to create a distinction between the Catholic Church and an institution called the “institutional Church”. Obviously for a Catholic there is no distinction between the two. Creating new terms to make a distinction between two things that our Faith teaches are identical seems like a bad idea.

  20. The institutional Church is merely an aspect of the One, Holy Catholic Church, which I have thought up to illustrate that part of the Church that has defected. It can be defined as the Catholic Church in its aspect as a unified and coherent network of diverse ecclesiastical communities subject to a hierarchy that possesses from God the authority to teach and govern it. Since it is clear that this aspect of the Church no longer exists, it can be rightly said that the institutional Church has been destroyed.

  21. Introibo,

    Again, thanks.

    There is enough evidence to suspect his election IF, as I said before, one is allowed to suspect based purely on a wealth of rumor, innuendo, unverified facts, etc. Are we?

    Teaching occult theories and being removed from a teaching post are NOT FACTS. The first is a story that was retailed by Dr. Coomaraswamy, and the second is a FACT, but it’s ALSO a FACT that Roncalli remained in place as a Cardinal under Pope Pius XII, and is therefore presumed to be papabile.

    No. What was in Pacem and Terris was NOT religious liberty, and I pointed it out last time we discussed this. I think you need to review that exchange and your responses.

    Since when do Catholics rely on the CIA and FBI to learn when their new pope has been elected? I’ll grant that something unusual happened with the smoke, but none of the Cardinals came out at the time and denied John XXIII’s election.

    Introibo: “Yes. It is enough to refuse obedience and treat him as a non-pope, even if he were valid.”

    Who says that you can declare that suspicions based on this, particular, set of flimsy “evidence” is enough to refuse obedience and treat him as a non-pope, even if he were valid? No one. That’s “Introibo’s Law.”

    Sedevacantists recognize Paul VI onwards as pseudo-popes based on SOLID, IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE. For some reason you’re not applying this standard to Roncalli.

    Again, Fr. Cekada and other clerics aren’t using your reasons. Fr. Cekada avoids John XXIII for precisely the same reason he avoids Pius XII’s liturgical changes. He hasn’t taken the huge bundle of rumors, false ideas about Pacem in Terris etc., and then declared that they create suspicion to enable one to definitively declare Roncalli an usurper.

    Again, I don’t know if Roncalli was an usurper. Neither do you, so perhaps you should pull back on DECLARING him a pseudo-pope, and instead just state that YOU believe he was problematic to the point that YOU have your doubts that he was genuine.

    Reply

  22. I have an excellent memory but I don’t remember every exchange I’ve had with readers over the course of nine years. I believe Pacem in Terris to promote religious liberty. If you wish to argue it go right ahead.

    When do Catholics rely on the FBI and CIA for information about a conclave? Since the information is now public and declassified and casts a serious doubt over the election. A specific cardinal with a specific papal name was mentioned.
    See https://novusordowatch.org/fbi-consultant-cardinal-siri-elected-pope-1958/

    That is real credible FACT that there is serious concerns over the 1958 conclave. None of the Cardinals denied Roncalli’s election because if the resignation of the other elected cardinal was coerced, its invalid. Later, Siri may have genuinely resigned with no duress but that has no retroactive Force with regard to Roncalli.

    Fr Cekada And the other Traditionalist clerics don’t use this line of reasoning. Who cares? They have no ordinary jurisdiction and none were approved pre-V2 theologians or canonists as was my spiritual father, Fr Gommar A DePauw, JCD. The SSPV denies the validity of Thuc bishops. Fr Cekada would have us believe an Una Cum Mass is mortal sin, but you can freely avail yourself of elderly V2 apostate priests with valid orders for Confession outside the danger of death. I follow no one blindly in this age of the Great Apostasy.

    If Roncalli is not an objectively doubtful pope as per Theologian Szal, you must submit to him.

    Therefore,
    The 1962 Missal with the name of St Joseph in the Canon and the elimination of the people’s Confiteor, the Misereatur, and Indulgentium must be the only Mass for you. (Ironically, SSPX refuses to eliminate those prayers). Do you attend the Mass of 1962 and acknowledge it as the normative Mass?

    Frs. Congar, de Lubac, Hans Küng and other censured heretics were all rehabilitated by Roncalli without abjuration of heresy. Do you accept them as approved Theologians?

    The whole group of theologians implicitly condemned by the Encyclical Humani Generis in 1950 had been called to Rome at the behest of John XXIII and also rehabilitated. Do you accept them?

    He rehabilitated Montini. All the cardinals he appointed are valid. Paul VI should therefore be accepted until November 21, 1964 when he signed Lumen Gentium. You might want to update your Mass to the first steps of the Novus Bogus in January 1964.

    A doubtful Sacrament is treated as no Sacrament in the practical order. Ditto for a dubiously elected pope. If there is no objective doubt, one must submit.

    If you want to consider him pope, go ahead. You might want to rethink that while you read approved Theologian Kung.

    —-Introibo

  23. Introibo,

    Thanks, yet again.

    We debated recently, about a year ago or so. I did argue successfully against your notion that Pacem in Terris contains heresy. You’ve forgotten. But it’s there in one of the threads.

    Go read the NOW article again. There’s no probative value. It’s admitted that the information cannot be verified. For all we know it could’ve been completely fabricated. Therefore all else you say that flows from it (the report) is inadmissible.

    Do you exclusively attend Pian Masses? Have you dictated to the SSPV that they must use the 1958 Missal because you believe Pius XII was the last true Pope? If not, do you stay home alone?

    As for all the rest:

    Introibo: “A doubtful Sacrament is treated as no Sacrament in the practical order. Ditto for a dubiously elected pope. If there is no objective doubt, one must submit.”

    Excuse me, but you haven’t even proved he was a “dubiously elected pope.” Therefore it looks like you must submit. Time to dust off your copy of Theologian Kung’s manual?

    You’ve proved nothing other than Roncalli was a bad pope. (I wish you could prove otherwise.)

    Tell me Introibo, did Fr Gommar A DePauw, JCD, approved theologian and canonist, ever write a formal theological opinion, laying down the proof that Roncalli was a false pope? Did he, perchance, use Roncalli’s poor taste in rehabilitated theologians as a reason why he ceased to be a Catholic? If he (your authority and spiritual father) didn’t, are you bound to accept Roncalli and his theologians? It works both ways. Btw, did Fr. DePauw even give an informal opinion on John XXIII? His informal opinion is as good as anyone else’s, so if he had one I’d like to hear it. By the way, was Fr. DePauw a sedevacantist? If so, when did he come to the sedevacantist conclusion?

    Last time we spoke, you said you were going to go away and do some research. This is what I was asking for this time: A minimum of ONE example where it can be CLEARLY shown WHAT crime Roncalli committed and HOW that crime caused him to lose the faith/cease to be a Catholic.

    You haven’t supplied.

    I’m uncertain about John XXIII. I simply don’t know. I look for solid evidence. You’re certain without having solid evidence. That’s the difference between us.

    But only God knows for certain.

    On that basis I prefer not to definitively declare Roncalli was an usurper.

    P.S. One moment it’s high praise from you for Fr. Cekada, next moment it’s “Who cares about him!” Fr. Cekada is a prolific writer. It IS significant that he hasn’t written condemning John XXIII, whether you think so or not.

  24. You: We debated recently, about a year ago or so. I did argue successfully against your notion that Pacem in Terris contains heresy. You’ve forgotten. But it’s there in one of the threads.

    Reply: With a 90 hr. plus work week and a family, I have a hard time believing I can do this much, so please don’t expect me to go looking for an exchange a year ago. If you want to debate it hear fine. Roncalli took a line right from John Courtney Murray’s heretical religious freedom.

    You: Go read the NOW article again. There’s no probative value. It’s admitted that the information cannot be verified. For all we know it could’ve been completely fabricated. Therefore all else you say that flows from it (the report) is inadmissible.

    Reply: Did you read the following?
    Such are the claims of Paul Williams, former consultant of the FBI, researcher, and author. Despite Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests made to the United States government, we have so far been unable to get copies of the cited declassified intelligence documents, and thus we cannot verify whether Williams’ claims about what these documents say are accurate. However, the mix-up in smoke signals of the conclave of 1958 is verifiable historical fact, recorded in the newspapers which reported on the conclave day of October 26, 1958, such as the New York Times and the Houston Post.

    As proof of this, we are producing below in PDF format the front pages of two American newspapers that reported on the conclave. Both of them mention the white smoke and the official announcement of a successful election on October 26 (two days before John XXIII), with everybody expecting the appearance of the new Pope, who, however, never did appear (keep in mind that white smoke is not produced until the Pope-elect has accepted his election):

    Download PDF: “New Pope: False Signals: [Vatican] Radio tells of election, bells sounded in error”, The Daily Gleaner, Oct. 27, 1958, p. 1
    Download PDF: “Cardinals Cast 8 Ballots Without Choosing Pope”, Newport Daily News, Oct. 27, 1958, p. 1
    So, at the very least we know that the conclave had indicated the election of a true Pope two days before Angelo Roncalli claimed the pontificate.

    Dr. Williams’ claims regarding the election of Cardinal Siri as Pope Gregory XVII and its subsequent suppression, are very significant for the Catholic Church because it is not possible for anyone, including “French cardinals,” to “annul” an accepted papal election. Nobody is able to take a valid papal election away from the Pope — only the Pope himself can resign, and even then there are restrictions as to the validity of a resignation: “Resignation is invalid by law if it was made out of grave fear unjustly inflicted, fraud, substantial error, or simony” (1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 185). It is not possible to validly elect another Pope if a true Pope is already reigning.

    If, then, a true Pope — whether Cardinal Siri or anyone else, for that matter — was already reigning when Cardinal Roncalli was chosen, this would guarantee, per divine law, the invalidity of the election of John XXIII, no matter how many people recognized him as the true Pope afterwards.

    To prevent any misunderstanding, please note that Novus Ordo Watch does not endorse or recommend Dr. Williams’ book The Vatican Exposed, which is anti-Catholic to a large extent. We make reference to it only because the information it shares regarding the conclave of 1958 appears to be based on the OBJECTIVE FINDINGS of the U.S. intelligence community and hence would seem to be sufficiently reliable. (Emphasis in Original)

    (Continued below)

  25. Remember that we need not have proof beyond a reasonable doubt (moral certainty) but SUSPICION. A reasonable suspicion in civil law is seen as more than a guess or hunch but less than probable cause. It is based on “specific and articulable facts”, “taken together with rational inferences from the circumstances. Even a 1L would concede reasonable suspicion under these facts and circumstances.

    You:Do you exclusively attend Pian Masses? Have you dictated to the SSPV that they must use the 1958 Missal because you believe Pius XII was the last true Pope? If not, do you stay home alone?

    Reply: Yes, Pian Masses ARE NORMATIVE. It should be followed, but it is not heretical to follow pre-1955. I asked if you believed they are normative. You deflected answering. Have I mentioned this to the SSPV. YES. To SEVERAL PRIESTS AND A BISHOP. I cannot “command them” into doing otherwise.

    You:Excuse me, but you haven’t even proved he was a “dubiously elected pope.” Therefore it looks like you must submit. Time to dust off your copy of Theologian Kung’s manual?

    You’ve proved nothing other than Roncalli was a bad pope. (I wish you could prove otherwise.)

    Reply: Your wish came true> I’ve proven reasonable suspicion. If you don’t think rehabilitating hard-core Modernists, combined with all the other articulated facts and circumstances raises a reasonable suspicion, you need to dust off a law book and some books on basic logic–Bayesian probability would be a good place to start.

    You: Tell me Introibo, did Fr Gommar A DePauw, JCD, approved theologian and canonist, ever write a formal theological opinion, laying down the proof that Roncalli was a false pope? Did he, perchance, use Roncalli’s poor taste in rehabilitated theologians as a reason why he ceased to be a Catholic? If he (your authority and spiritual father) didn’t, are you bound to accept Roncalli and his theologians? It works both ways. Btw, did Fr. DePauw even give an informal opinion on John XXIII? His informal opinion is as good as anyone else’s, so if he had one I’d like to hear it. By the way, was Fr. DePauw a sedevacantist? If so, when did he come to the sedevacantist conclusion?

    Reply: You missed my point entirely (no surprise). Traditionalist clergy are not approved theologians or canonists. They have the minimum training, and no one has Ordinary Jurisdiction. Fr. DePauw’s was at least a canonist. There is currently no infallible head so don’t cite to e.g., Fr Cekada as a stand alone authority. Capiche?

    I submit he taught religious liberty, he was suspect of Modernism, he was removed from his teaching post, and we have strange circumstances surrounding his election (to say the least). All of this gives reasonable suspicion because the conclave gave the white signal, withdrew it, and the man who emerged wasted no time rehabilitating Modernist theologians along with other actions that a pope would not do. If you can cite another pope who rehabilitated large numbers of censured theologians in one fell swoop, I’d like to see it.

    You:You’re certain without having solid evidence. That’s the difference between us.

    Reply: I’m certain there is reasonable suspicion, that is enough.

    You: One moment it’s high praise from you for Fr. Cekada, next moment it’s “Who cares about him!” Fr. Cekada is a prolific writer. It IS significant that he hasn’t written condemning John XXIII, whether you think so or not.

    Reply: I give praise when it’s due, and castigate when necessary. He’s a prolific writer, conceded. He hasn’t written on Roncalli–that’s all it proves, unless you can read minds or he has told you otherwise. Interesting that what you find significant becomes so. but all the evidence surrounding Roncalli doesn’t even add up to reasonable suspicion. Hopefully, you’ll never need to sit on a jury.

    —Introibo

  26. Introibo,

    Thanks for all that.

    Introibo: “Could the Siri Theory be true? Possibly. I don’t buy it, but I try to follow the evidence where it leads.”

    Neither do I, and unlike you I don’t think it raises reasonable suspicion. The white smoke is mysterious but not enough to definitively declare Roncalli a papal usurper. But suddenly a theory you “don’t buy” is used to apply a secular law definition of “reasonable suspicion” to Roncalli’s election. Here are the FACTS -No one in the actual conclave raised the alarm at the time. None had a reasonable suspicion/raised doubts about the election result. We’re talking about Cardinals whom were actually present versus a lawyer from NY opining about “reasonable suspicion” decades later/second guessing these Cardinals and the election that not one of them raised the alarm about. Explain that?

    Of course I read the article. It’s full of the usual speculation, and it’s admitted that it’s not been verified. Anonymous sources told anonymous sources that Siri was elected. (Told the Americans fairytales for all we know).

    No deflection. You’re the one who ignores your opponents’ points. Let’s say I thought that the Mass of John XXIII was the normative Mass. (Btw, it may be.) I’d be in no position to force clergy into saying it. The Pian Mass is not heretical. Should I attend SSPV or CMRI or just stay home alone? You’re the one who misses points.

    I don’t have time to continue at the moment. I’ll get back to you later.

  27. The Siri Theory —-that Siri remained pope, and has a successor somewhere, I don’t buy. That he (or another) could have been elected and forced to resign is a possibility.

    No one raised the alarm as to Roncalli’s election. Explanation: it is possible that the one elected resigned under duress, but they thought it to be legitimate.

    Facts: Roncalli was under suspicion of Modernism, was a Socialist sympathizer, and was removed from his teaching position.

    Facts: There was a strange conclave where it seemed a pope was elected, then it changed, then Roncalli appears. There is evidence that American intelligence thought Siri had been elected.

    Fact: Roncalli begins to rehabilitate ALL THE MODERNIST AND CENSURED THEOLOGIANS. Something a real pope would not do. Combine that with Pacem in Terris and all the rest and you’ve got a reasonable suspicion.

    You don’t need a law degree to figure THAT ONE OUT.

    —-Introibo

  28. How is this passage from Pacem in Terris heretical: “Also among man’s rights is that of being able to worship God in accordance with the right dictates of his own conscience, and to profess his religion both in private and in public.”? Notice it says “right dictates”. This qualification of “right” saves it from heresy; if the passage had left “dictates” undefined then a case could be
    made against its orthodoxy. I have doubts about Roncalli’s being a pope; I have no doubts that Montini and successors were/are non-popes.

    Regarding Cardinal Siri: he openly accepted Roncalli, Montini, Luciani and Wojtyła as Vicars of Christ as well as Vatican 2 and the Bogus Ordo, so, regardless of what happened at the 1958 conclave, he wasn’t a pope either.

    I read the following on Novus Ordo Watch some time back:
    “As we all struggle to explain fully what has happened to the Catholic Church since the death of Pope Pius XII, it would behoove us to acknowledge that we simply do not have all the facts; that is, we do not know everything that has transpired, for example, with regard to the conclave of 1958. This is where the whole Novus Ordo Sect mess started, and right from the beginning New York’s Cardinal Francis Spellman had a choice remark to make about the new “Pope”, Angelo Roncalli, who had assumed the name of John XXIII: “He’s no Pope. He should be selling bananas” (John Cooney, The American Pope: The Life and Times of Francis Cardinal Spellman [New York, NY: Times Books, 1984], p. 261). If only he had!

    Interestingly enough, Spellman “refused to place John XXIII’s coat of arms either at St. Patrick’s [cathedral] or the chancery” and instead “had a life-size wax figure made of Pius XII” (ibid.). Did Spellman, who of course had participated in the secret conclave, know something we can only speculate about? This is the same Cardinal Spellman about whom Mgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton wrote in his personal diary that he was “coming out of the [1958] conclave looking white and shaken” (Fenton, Personal Diary: “My 1960 Trip to Rome”, entry for Nov. 2, 1960). Whatever transpired in that most fateful conclave, we know from the results that it was not of the Holy Ghost.”
    In connection with the above, see also https://novusordowatch.org/wp-content/uploads/fatima-2018-like-sheep-without-shepherd-derksen.pdf .

    Reply

  29. Leo,
    I agree with much of what you say; you make salient points. As to Pacem in Terris, according to the Pontifical Academy Of Social Sciences, “Interestingly, it was along this latter front that the move was made directly toward the subject of religious liberty during the first session of the Council (11 October to 8 December 1962). Only eleven days after his opening al- locution, Pope John raised the Secretariat for the Promotion of Christian Unity to the same rank as the Council Commissions, thus empowering it to submit schemata. In the preparatory phase to the first session, two draft texts on the Church (Scheme Constitutionis de Ecclesia) included a chapter entitled ‘On the Relations Between Church and State’. Had the issue re- mained in that context, it would have been considered solely in the light of ecclesiastical public law. Now, having been empowered to submit schemata, Cardinal Bea’s Secretariat produced a document that was first en- titled ‘Freedom of Cult’, and a few months later,‘On Religious Freedom’.6
    Second, in December of 1962, shortly after learning from his physicians that he had a terminal cancer, Pope John instructed Msgr. Pietro Pavan of the Lateran to draft a new encyclical, which would be called Pacem in terris. The drafting committee understood that one sentence in particular would have a direct effect on the schemata being drawn by the commissioners – ‘Also among man’s rights is that of being able to worship God in accordance with the right dictates of his own conscience, and to profess his religion both in private and in public’.7 (§14) But, in order to allow the Council to exercise its full deliberative weight, these sentences on religious liberty were carefully, even somewhat ambiguously, written.
    Published on MaundyThursday,Pope John christened Pacem in terris his ‘Easter gift’.8 It was also called his ‘last will and testament’, because he died on 3 June 1963. For our purposes, it was his own, indirect schema for a number of issues that would come before the second session of the Council (29 September to 4 December 1963), including religious liberty. (See http://www.pass.va/content/dam/scienzesociali/pdf/acta17/acta17-hittinger.pdf).

    That encyclical helped the enemies of the Church and under Canon 2315, that puts one under suspicion of heresy. That’s my take. In any event I thank you for adding to the evidence that we have REASONABLE SUSPICION as regards Roncalli’s election—-and that’s good enough!

    God Bless,

    —-Introibo

  30. Introibo,

    Introibo: “Your wish came true> I’ve proven reasonable suspicion. If you don’t think…”

    Wrong. You THINK my wish came true. Big difference. You’ve proven nothing. Every traditional Catholic ALREADY knows that Roncalli was a bad egg. We don’t need you to prove that. There are two aspects to this which you convenient leave enjoined. 1) Solid evidence that the election was invalid. 2) Solid evidence that Roncalli was a heretic/apostate/non-Catholic. As far as 1: You have confusing smoke signals at the beginning of the 1958 conclave followed by unfounded “possibilities.” That’s it. That’s the sole reason for your “unreasonable suspicion” regarding the legitimacy of the election. Confusing smoke signals and an unverified US intelligence report which, if it were verified, has every “possibilty” of being riddled with disinformation.

    But confusing smoke signals have apparently occurred previously.

    https://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Hutton_Gibson

    “In the early 1990s, Gibson and Tom Costello hosted a video called Catholics, Where Has Our Church Gone?[26] which is critical of the changes made to the Catholic Church by the Second Vatican Council and espouses the Siri Thesis that in 1958, after the death of Pope Pius XII, the man originally elected pope was not Angelo Roncalli, but another cardinal, “probably Cardinal Siri of Genoa” (a staunch conservative candidate and first papabile). Gibson stated that the white smoke which emanated from a chimney in the Sistine Chapel to announce a new pope’s election was done in error; black smoke signifying that the papacy was still vacant was quickly created and the public was not informed of the reason for the initial white smoke. A still photograph of a newspaper story about this event is shown. “Had our church gone up in smoke”? asked Gibson. He stated that the new pope was forced to resign under duress and two days later, the “modernist Roncalli” was elected pope and took the name “John XXIII”. In 1962, Roncalli, as Pope John XXIII convened the Second Vatican Council.[26] In 2006, Hutton Gibson reversed his position on the Siri Thesis, asserting that this theory was based on a mistranslation of an article written on October 27, 1958 by Silvio Negro for the evening edition of the Milan-based Corriere della Sera.[27] A similar event also happened in 1939; in that case a confusing mixture of white and black smoke emanated from the Sistine Chapel chimney. In a note to Vatican Radio, the secretary of the Papal conclave at the time, a monsignor named Santoro said that a new pope, Eugenio Pacelli, had been properly elected regardless of the color of the smoke. Pacelli took the name Pius XII.[28]”

    As for 2: The Catholic Church doesn’t excommunicate people due to “reasonable suspicion.” One is not declared a heretic due to suspicions. We don’t decide that such and such a bidhop is a heretic based merely on a suspicion. There was plenty of opportunity to deal with Roncalli IF the Church had any real evidence against him. Instead, he ended up Cardinal and Patriarch of Venice under Pope Pius XII. By the way, Roncalli banished Bugnini. He didn’t resurface until after his death. The fact is that your secular law definition of “reasonable suspicion” (of Roncalli being a heretic) is NOT enough for you to definitively declare Roncalli an usurper. Thank God these matters don’t rely on secular lawyers arbitrarily deciding that there’s “reasonable suspicion,” and therefore “X bishop is no bishop at all!”

    To be continued…

    Reply

  31. Your ignorance shows. Reasonable suspicion regarding an election allows one to consider the one elected a dubious pope. You don’t need moral certitude.

    Hutton Gibson’s assertions do not jibe with the objective facts put forth since; and which I cited from NOW above.
    Let me give another example:
    if your neighbor had been Michael Jackson would you allow your child to spend the night there with a friend? Why not? He was never convicted of child molestation. However, he thought there was nothing wrong with a 44 year old sharing a bed with children because “nothing sexual went on” and all he does is give them hot milk and cookies before sleeping in the same bed with them, which he believed “the whole world should do.” Combine this with all his other bizarre behavior, and It would be reasonable to suspect he might be a child molester.

    Not enough to convict of anything but enough to be suspicious! That’s all I need and what I’ve got!

    —-Introibo

  32. Introibo,

    Your ignorance is astoumding.

    Your so-called “reasonable suspicion” is unfounded. Unfounded in terms of the election, as I’ve just shown, and unfounded as far as suspecting Roncalli and then using that to definitively declare him a heretic. Reasonable suspicion cannot be used to declare prelates heretics. That’s the point. What, precisely, don’t you understand about that? It’s not the principle that’s the problem, it’s your application of it that’s problematic. So spare me your recycled Michael Jackson examples. And for, I hope, the last time: the US security agency report is UNVERIFIED. Hutton Gibson’s presentation of FACTS obviously trumps your suite of “ifs,” “possibilities” and unverified reports which could be a whole lot of disinformation. See, it works both ways. Even if you can manage to dig up the report, I’ve already cast doubt on it due to it coming from an anonymous source/s to an anonymous sources/s in US intelligence; everyone knows that disinformation is a large part of spycraft.

    Btw, you missed my point when I referenced Fr. DrPauw. Am I surprised?

    1) I was not using Fr. Cekada as a Church authority.(I subsequently explained why I referenced him.) You assumed I was, then went on a little tear. But, oddly, you threw Fr. DePauw in as an example of a true canonist and theologian, so my questions relating to Fr. DePauw still stand. You deflected. Now, I’ve got another question re: Fr. DePauw.

    First. Do you now admit you were wrong about Roncalli preaching heresy in Pacem in Terris? If you still cling to your error, do you acknowledge that you are, stubbornly, almost on your own with that? But far more impottantly, DID Fr. DePauw object to Pacem in Terris at the time, declaring it was heretical? Did the learned theologian Guerard des Lauriers? How about Cardinal Ottaviani? Any of the distinguished, conservative churchmen of the time? Anyone? Anyone at all? (Why not? It’s obvious heresy, right?) Answer: No. Just the lawyer from NY in 2019.

    I rest my case.

    I’m uncertain about Roncalli. The difference between us is that you think you can definitively declare people to be heretics purely on your suspicions which you (erroneously) deem to be “reasonable.” I don’t.

    In charity. When you make comments along the lines of praising Fr. Cekada when it’s warranted and castigating him when necessary, you sound capricious, atbitrary and narcissistic. Just sayin’…

    And I noticed that your Lenten resolution went out the window. I was very polite, but you started to become rude, so I retaliated. Will you now go back to following your own rules, please?

    Reply

  33. 1. Hutton Gibson’s report is verified? Yeah. I suggest you reread NOW article. The papers reported FACTS about the conclave and the mix up. Gibson also has plenty of citations that Roncalli was a Freemason including Theologian Arriaga. But since it doesn’t meet you manufactured requirements for “proof” you will conveniently discount it.

    2. The facts remain that Roncalli was censured, there was a mix-up of smoke at the conclave, and Roncalli appears rehabilitating ALL the censured theologians alive from Pope Pius XII. Something unprecedented and no pope would do. Read the proof offered by Leo above regarding the actions and sayings of Cardinal Spellman WHO WAS THERE. Is that good enough for you? How about the fact that Cardinal Ottaviani was so sure of his election he even had his names picked out as Pope Pius XIII. Ottaviani told Fr. DePauw, “There was something seriously wrong.” (With the conclave).

    Did Fr object to Pacem at the time? Yes. He said it was “offensive to pious ears.” See also my reply to Leo.

    I’m glad you rested your case. I just wish you were a lawyer opposing me. You’d make my work so much easier and my lawsuits so much easier to win.

    Finally, how about this quote from Roncalli:
    “Catholics and Orthodox are not enemies, but brothers. We have the same faith; we share the same sacraments, and especially the Eucharist. We are divided by some disagreements concerning the divine constitution of the Church of Jesus Christ. The persons who were the cause of these disagreements have been dead for centuries. Let us abandon the old disputes and, each in his own domain, let us work to make our brothers good, by giving them good example. Later on, though traveling along different paths, we shall achieve union among the churches to form together the true and unique Church of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
    (See Luigi Accattoli, When A Pope Asks Forgiveness, New York: Alba House and Daughters of St. Paul, 1998, pp. 18-19.)

    Do you believe that the Eastern Schismatics and the True Church have “the same Faith”?

    Is this not heresy? Or does it not constitute evidence?

    Finally, if you don’t like the way I come off sounding, please don’t interact with me and presume to tell me how to run my blog. I have been more than charitable.

    —-Introibo

  34. Introibo,

    1. I suggest you actually read the Gibson report again. It references an Italian newspaper report that rolled off the presses during the 1958 conclave. It’s verifiable history. It has far more credence than the fairytale you’re using to claim “reasonable suspicion” about the election. I haven’t manufactured any requirements for proof. The Church doesn’t allow one to declare prelates heretics based on reasonable suspicions which are based on fairytales. That’s what you’re doing. Yes, I’ll discount all hearsay or similiar evidence. This isn’t a cruddy, civil case in a New York court with low evidentiary requirements.

    2. So Roncalli was censured. That automatically makes him a heretic; but if it doesn’t, don’t worry, a mix up with the smoke – just like what happened at the election of Pius XII – is enough to reasonably suspect the election. Yeah. What Leo relayed was interesting, but in NO WAY DOES IT SUFFICE AS HARD EVIDENCE AGAINST THE VALIDITY OF THE ELECTION. I wouldn’t even doubt it on the strength of that information.
    It’s merely stories from books written by people about other people using third hand information. Zero guarantee of accuracy. Do you believe every story you read? And Spellman’s banana remark sounds like it was made due to a personal dislike of Roncalli. Again, what’s missing are the firsthand accounts from those present that there was something seriously wrong with the election – threats, violence, coercion, duress. There’s none. Just unspecific “he said, she said” “evidence.” Cardinal Ottaviani seems very confident, but so were others, including Cardinal Siri, according to the popular stories. What a PITY that Ottaviani didn’t ELABORATE when he spoke to Fr. DePauw. It’s ALWAYS the way. No real evidence. But tell me, did Fr. DePauw opine that Roncalli was ipso facto excommunicated for “rehabilitating” those theologians, or is just you unsuccessfully trying to establish the false and novel corollary that no true pope would do that?

    3. You still haven’t answered my questions about Fr. DePauw. Did Fr. DePauw publicly or even privately state that Pacem in Terris was heretical, and as a result John XIII was a heretic and no pope at all?

    4. You reopened my case. I only wish I could oppose you in court. I’d never lose a case.

    5. Wow! I agree that that quote from Roncalli sounds bad. I found it on the Dimond Bros. Feeneyite website, along with all their hearsay “evidence” about Roncalli being a Freemason. Its authenticity is immediately dubious. Thing is, and what you can’t seem to grasp, Roncalli was never brought to trial for heresy, tried and convicted. He was “suspected of Modernism” in 1925, and then went on to become a Cardinal and Patriarch of Venice under Pope Pius XII.

    What I’m still after is a minimum of one example where it can be clearly shown what crime Roncalli committed, when he committed it, and how that crime caused him to lose the faith/cease to be a Catholic.

    Finally. No, I like interacting with you. I just thought you were sounding a bit unfriendly. I realize now that I was obviously just imagining it. My bad.

    Reply

  35. 1. Please read the newspaper reports embedded in the NOW report that is HISTORY. Not speculation.

    2. You’re conflating two separate issues. (A) Roncalli being a heretic and (b) being invalidly elected. If Siri had been elected and coerced into resigning and Ottaviani was elected, his election would be invalid, although he was definitely not a heretic.

    So, if we have reasonable suspicion that the election may be invalid that is enough to cast him a dubious pope. Remember that the standard is SUSPICION. That does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

    2. Now let’s see what we have:
    A censured cleric removed from his teaching position. His friends are Socialists and Freemasons. There is suspicious smoke and reports from American intelligence that another cardinal was elected. There are two Cardinals present at the conclave who thought something was wrong. Roncalli begins rehabilitating all the censured heretics.

    Taken together, is there reason to suspect that Roncalli was not validly elected given the circumstances and his behavior—especially after he became “pope”? You bet.

    Consider reasonable doubt is a low standard of proof. It cannot be arbitrary and capricious.

    3. Fr DePauw was sede since at least 1999, and would not discuss details. I answered what he thought of Pacem at the time and the document was praised by the Masonic Lodge.

    4. Before you could even hope to compete you’d need to learn evidentiary standards and not conflate issues.

    5. I have the book. The quote is legitimate. This is the genetic fallacy, something is wrong or dubious because of its origin. The National Enquirer is a rag, but they correctly reported John Edwards was cheating on his wife. Interesting too, is that you don’t immediately find Hutton Gibson automatically suspect. Do you deny the Holocaust too? Not enough evidence? Everything bad in the world is the result of Jews?

    Never brought up on trial for heresy. Neither was de Lubac, or sodomite Baum. Neither was Montini. How did HE lose office if there was no trial?

    There is reasonable suspicion such that we may hold Roncalli as a dubious pope, which is no pope in the practical order.

    —-Introibo

  36. Introibo,

    Firstly. YOU, in fact, were the one who was conflating the two issues -election/heresy. I pulled you up on it in a previous post. I distincly separated the two because you were combining them.

    Did you carefully read anon @ 8:22’s post? I did. It confirms all I said about your use of a fairytale to claim reasonable suspicion. You can’t claim reasonable suspicion using the NOW fairytale about the FALSE story from the fraudulent anti-Catholic author about the supposed US intelligence reports claiming Siri was elected. Anon @ 8:22 put paid to your reasonable suspicion claims using that nonsense as a reason. NOW had old NEWS reports about the smoke confusion. So what? There were similiar reports in 1939 when there were similar problems with the smoke at the election of Pope Pius XII.

    I don’t have time at the moment to answer your entire post, but I will later.

    In the meantime, when fif you first formulate your “argument” about “reasonable suspicion” and put it in writing here?

  37. I want to thank you for inspiring me. If you would be so kind, I’m doing my next post on John XXIII, and we may pick up in the comments on Monday where we leave off today.

    I’ve always said I’ve learned a lot from my readers and I mean it. Had it not been for you coming back again about Roncalli, I wouldn’t have started my research into him again, and see things from a fresh perspective.

    Thank you my friend for challenging me. The unchallenged mind can’t grow. We may not agree, but I respect your intellectual pugnacious proclivity. It’s a good thing to have! Until Monday!

    God Bless,

    —-Introibo

  38. Anonymous May 15, 2019 at 12:28 PM:
    You said: “Spellman’s banana remark sounds like it was made due to a personal dislike of Roncalli.” Note that Cardinal Spellman also stated: “He’s [Roncalli] no Pope.” This sounds more than an affirmation of a personal dislike. Pacem in Terris was an unfortunate encyclical, but it can’t be convicted of explicit heresy. What Roncalli said about the “Eastern Orthodox” looks heretical to me!
    By the way, when you said, “We know that John Salza demolished a facile argument put forth by Bp. Sanborn”, what were you referring to?

    Reply

  39. Hello Leo,

    Thanks for your post, but most of all for your correct assessment of Pacem in Terris not being heretical. Not unlike yourself I have my personal doubts about John XXIII, but they certainly don’t warrant me declaring he’s a heretic based on what’s in Pacem in Terris. That wouldn’t be just.

    Leo: ‘Note that Cardinal Spellman also stated: “He’s [Roncalli] no Pope.” This sounds more than an affirmation of a personal dislike.’

    I agree that it’s a positive assertion. It could easily be merely an affirmation of a personal dislike and distrust of Roncalli’s overall abilities. Just as is the following affirmation made by a sales manager of a car dealership: “He [Fred] is no car salesman. He should be on an assembly line in a cannery.” This speaks to Fred’s ability/suitability/skillset etc.

    But let’s say this [Spellman’s] comment was somehow meant to mean Roncalli wasn’t legitimate. Where’s the followup from Spellman? He was a Catholic Cardinal. If he had the solid evidence that Roncalli was an usurper – for whatever, legitimate reason – why did he just make a cryptic comment; an (alluring, nowadays) allusion to Roncalli being a fraud and then just leave it at that?
    Again, what’s missing are the firsthand accounts from those present that there was something seriously wrong with the election – threats, violence, coercion, duress. There’s none. Just assorted cryptic comments posing as evidence. But one thing seems to be beyond any doubt – Spellman was no fan of Roncalli. And unless or until we get a clarification of the statement, it must be interpreted as I’ve indicated, else we do gross INJUSTICE to both Spellman and Roncalli.

    I was referring to the article by Salza on their website. I assumed Introibo had seen it. Although Salza concludes correctly, he does it in his usual dodgy manner. From memory, Salza – big advocate of not using hearsay evidence to prove religious points (I agree) – ends with using the old, recycled statement Roncalli SUPPOSEDLY made on his deathbed when he SUPPOSEDLY learned that the Council was taking a wrong turn, to wit: “Stop the Council! Tell them to stop the Council!” – or words to that effect.

    Young Johnny Salza is an insufferable hypocrite, no doubt about that!

    Reply

  40. Knowing now what we know about Roncalli, would any of you let him teach the Faith to your children? I wouldn’t because from what I know about him now, he seems to have a different idea as to what the Catholic Faith entails then his predecessors. For that doubt alone, I would avoid any of his teachings.

    Reply

  41. PS-you can substitute any conciliar claimant to the Papacy in the place of Roncalli and you would get the same answer. NO

“We Are The World” and other Blasphemies at Francis’ Interreligious Peace Meeting in Bulgaria

The Francis Show in Bulgaria…

“We Are The World” and other Blasphemies at Francis’ Interreligious Peace Meeting in Sofia

[UPDATE 07-MAY-2019: Prelates of the Orthodox religion refused to attend the meeting.]

On Apr. 10, 2015, we told you that Jorge Bergoglio’s religion is basically a theological version of the famous song We Are The World, although the word “theological” was perhaps too generous.

The Jesuit pretend-pope is currently in the middle of a blather tour “Apostolic journey” to Bulgaria and North Macedonia. Today, May 6, he participated in an interreligious prayer meeting for peace in the Bulgarian capital of Sofia, together with Orthodox, Armenians, Protestants, Jews, and Muslims (see photos here). At the beginning of the event, as he and his entourage entered the stage, a children’s choir began singing the 1985 USA for Africa hit We Are The World.

For those not familiar with it, let’s review the original for a minute.

Written by American pop icons Michael Jackson and Lionel Richie, We Are The World was an immensely successful song featuring a choir of roughly three dozen famous musicians, many of whom chimed in for a quick solo performance of a line or two of text. The lyrics of We Are The World are problematic throughout, but one line in particular takes the cake. The text is entirely Naturalist — it pretends that natural life is the greatest good and that human happiness can be procured by merely natural means. This alone makes the song highly unfit to be used for any occasion, but especially in a supposedly Catholic setting.

In the first verse, Paul Simon and Kenny Rogers proclaim that “life [is] the greatest gift of all” before Billy Joel and Tina Turner inform us that “love is all we need.” Filled with all sorts of sentimental platitudes, this kind of song is right up Francis’ alley.

But then it gets more serious. Generously granting God a cameo appearance for the second verse, Willie Nelson sings: “As God has shown us, by turning stone to bread”, and Al Jarreau finishes the sentence with: “and so we all must lend a helping hand” (at 2:00 min mark here).

Yeah, that’s a great example: God turned stones into bread. Remember? Wait, how did that go again? Let’s see:

And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost, returned from the Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the desert, for the space of forty days; and was tempted by the devil. And he ate nothing in those days; and when they were ended, he was hungry. And the devil said to him: If thou be the Son of God, say to this stone that it be made bread. And Jesus answered him: It is written, that Man liveth not by bread alone, but by every word of God. …And all the temptation being ended, the devil departed from him for a time.

(Luke 4:1-4,13)

We have news for the singers of We Are The World: God did not turn stone into bread, either to feed Himself or to feed others. He once turned water into wine and fed thousands of people with only a few loaves, but never did He turn rocks into bread. It was Satan’s temptation of Christ that He should do so, but our Lord refused and would rather go hungry, for man does not live by bread alone. The popular hit, then, contains a frightful blasphemy: It proclaims that God listened to the counsel of the devil, gave in to his temptation, and turned stone to bread.

Further on in the song, two singers express one of the main errors of Naturalism, namely, that our success depends on our own natural strength: Michael Jackson warns that “when you’re down and out, there seems no hope at all” before Huey Lewis exhorts: “But if you just believe, there’s no way we can fall.” Yes, man believes in himself, tries to fix the mess he’s made all by himself, and is presumptuous enough to think that he cannot fail if he just tries hard enough. At the same time, he refuses to accept Christ the King, whose “yoke is sweet” and “burden light” (Mt 11:30), and in Whom we can do all things (see Phil 4:13; Mt 21:22). The result is precisely the world we live in today. Congratulations.

So, what is a song like that doing at a “papal” event that supposedly asks God for peace?

Alas, the choir at the event in Sofia used the exact English lyrics of the original, and you can hear the blasphemous line being sung at the 2:18 min mark:

Obviously, the children are not to blame here — they are victims in all of this, more than anyone else.

We Are The World is one of those schmaltzy “let’s all hold hands and make this world a better place” hymns that the rotten music industry manufactures every so many years, where artists worth untold millions express their sadness at how bad humanity has become before they go back to their blasphemies, their drugs, their impurities, their greed, their divorces, and their abortions. Similar such tunes include Band Aid’s Do They Know It’s Christmas? (1984), Koreana’s Hand In Hand (1988), and Michael Jackson’s Heal the World (1992).

That was then, and this is now. And guess what: The world still hasn’t become a better place. Why not? Because merely natural means — singing songs, holding hands, dialoguing, playing soccer, lighting candles, and practicing “encounter” with “open hearts” — cannot possibly work. They cannot work because real and lasting peace requires grace, which is a supernatural created gift from God. Divine grace can move souls, who are affected by concupiscence as a result of original sin, to practice love of God and neighbor. Loving God and our fellow-men means obeying the Divine Law and obeying all legitimate human laws, as well as forgiving one another for wrongs committed.

Only Jesus Christ can give this supernatural means of obtaining peace, and therefore only the peace of Christ is true and lasting: “Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as theworld giveth, do I give unto you” (Jn 14:27). We have explained this at length before, showing the true Catholic position directly from the Church’s own magisterial documents, so we will not repeat it here:

Some will object that Francis has not used merely natural means — after all, he prayed for peace today in Sofia, and surely prayer is a supernatural means. Indeed it is, but it goes without saying — or should, anyway — that if our prayer is odious to God, as joint prayer with people who do not even believe in Jesus Christ or the Trinity certainly is, then obviously the intention prayed for will certainly not be granted (see Mich 3:4; Jn 9:31; Jas 4:3). Besides, what Francis is seeking divine assistance for is not the supernatural peace of Jesus Christ but rather the Naturalist multi-religious “peace” and “human fraternity” of Freemasonry, precisely “as the world giveth”.

The interfaith meeting for peace today consisted of a mix of songs, invocations, and prayers, from each of the six different religions represented on stage. The Muslim imam, pictured above, chanted “Allah is great” and “There is no other god besides Allah” and “Mohammed is his servant and envoy”, thus explicitly attacking the Most Holy Trinity. Needless to say, no “Catholic” on stage was fazed, least of all Francis, who worships the same god as the imam anyway:

Three Jewish children sang the 1995 Liora song Amen, which, although focused on the natural, at least appears to contain no blasphemy.

Francis himself recited the Prayer of St. Francis and afterwards made some brief remarks in which he proclaimed his belief that for peace it is necessary “that we adopt dialogue as our path, mutual [collaboration] as our code of conduct, and reciprocal understanding as our method and standard”. In other words, whoever refuses to dialogue with other religions, collaborate with them, or understand them, is an enemy of peace.

We sum up: All religions are put on the same level and thus tacitly declared to be fundamentally equal. In the words of Pope Pius VII, “truth is confounded with error and the holy and immaculate Spouse of Christ, the Church, outside of which there can be no salvation, is set on a par with the sects of heretics and with Judaic perfidy itself” (Apostolic Letter Post Tam Diuturnas). The Christ-denying chant of the Muslim imam, which asserted there to be no god but Allah, was set next to Handel’s glorious Hallelujah chorus, in which Jesus Christ is rightly acknowledged to be “King of kings and Lord of lords”, who “shall reign forever and ever.” What an absurd and blasphemous spectacle!

This abominable event was perfectly in line with Bergoglian “theology”: Each group gets to do its thing, and then we all sing We Are The World.

Peace can’t be far now!

The Synagogue Of Satan

One of the most overlooked and underrated popes in the history of the Church was His Holiness Pope Leo XIII (reigned 1878-1903). He had the “misfortune” (if you can call it that), to have his papacy overshadowed by both his immediate predecessor (Pope Pius IX) and his immediate successor (Pope St. Pius X). Pope Pius IX had presided over the Vatican Ecumenical Council from 1869-1870, defined the dogma of Our Lady’s Immaculate Conception in 1854, and condemned many propositions in his famous Syllabus of Errors. Pope St. Pius X was the quintessential “Foe of Modernism,” and beat back the most deadly partisans of evil and error ever unleashed by Hell.

In between these two giants was Vincenzo Cardinal Pecci, an approved theologian and canonist with a double doctorate, whose brilliance was exceeded only by his piety. He was elected pope on the third ballot of the conclave after the death of Pope Pius IX. As Pope Leo XIII, he accomplished much good. The true social teaching of the Church was magnificently expounded upon in Leo’s famous encyclical Rerum Novarum. With Aeterni Patris, he revived Thomism and enthusiastically ordered it promoted in all Catholic universities and seminaries. His tender devotion to the Most Blessed Virgin Mary produced no less than eleven (11) encyclicals on the Rosary, and he approved the Scapular of Our Lady of Good Counsel. The ecclesiology in his encyclical Satis Cognitum is so clear, precise, and orthodox, it is (in my opinion) one of the greatest encyclicals of all time. He composed two of the prayers after Low Mass which he ordered to be instituted in 1884. Much more could be said of this illustrious pope, who was not expected to have a long reign. He was elected at the age of 68 (old for the time period), and was of slight stature, looking quite frail. Only God knows a life expectancy, and his pontificate lasted twenty-five (25) years until his death on July 20, 1903 at the age of 93. He was the last pope of the nineteenth century, as well as the first pope of the twentieth century, and his reign is the third longest behind Pope Pius IX at 32 years, and St. Peter at 34 years.

With all he did for the One True Church, Leo nevertheless did something most special, for which we all owe him a great debt of gratitude; he exposed the most wicked aims of Satan’s greatest allies–the Freemasons. To be certain, Leo was not the first pope to unambiguously condemn Freemasonry, the Church hurled anathemas against that wicked organization that plots against the Church many times before. Yet Pope Leo’s encyclical Humanum Genus, lays out the nefarious plot of Satan’s kingdom on Earth with a surgical precision one could only expect from a Vicar of Christ who was both a theologian and canonist. In this post, the truths about Masons will be set forth, as well as the most popular misconception in our day; that sacraments conferred by Masons are to be considered “dubious.”

The “Kingdom of Satan”
 
 On April 20, 1884, Pope Leo penned Humanum Genus, and compared the Masonic sect founded in 1717 to the “kingdom of Satan:”
The race of man, after its miserable fall from God, the Creator and the Giver of heavenly gifts, “through the envy of the devil,” separated into two diverse and opposite parts, of which the one steadfastly contends for truth and virtue, the other of those things which are contrary to virtue and to truth.The one is the kingdom of God on earth, namely, the true Church of Jesus Christ; and those who desire from their heart to be united with it, so as to gain salvation, must of necessity serve God and His only-begotten Son with their whole mind and with an entire will. The other is the kingdom of Satan, in whose possession and control are all whosoever follow the fatal example of their leader and of our first parents, those who refuse to obey the divine and eternal law, and who have many aims of their own in contempt of God, and many aims also against God. (para. #1; Emphasis mine)
The pontiff goes on to tell us that the Masonic Lodge tries hard to conceal itself. Most low ranking Freemasons think they belong to a charitable organization which is a good place to play cards with the guys once a week and leave the wives at home.

There are several organized bodies which, though differing in name, in ceremonial, in form and origin, are nevertheless so bound together by community of purpose and by the similarity of their main opinions, as to make in fact one thing with the sect of the Freemasons, which is a kind of center whence they all go forth, and whither they all return. Now, these no longer show a desire to remain concealed; for they hold their meetings in the daylight and before the public eye, and publish their own newspaper organs; and yet, when thoroughly understood, they are found still to retain the nature and the habits of secret societies. There are many things like mysteries which it is the fixed rule to hide with extreme care, not only from strangers, but from very many members, also; such as their secret and final designs, the names of the chief leaders, and certain secret and inner meetings, as well as their decisions, and the ways and means of carrying them out. This is, no doubt, the object of the manifold difference among the members as to right, office, and privilege, of the received distinction of orders and grades, and of that severe discipline which is maintained.

Candidates are generally commanded to promise – nay, with a special oath, to swear – that they will never, to any person, at any time or in any way, make known the members, the passes, or the subjects discussed. Thus, with a fraudulent external appearance, and with a style of simulation which is always the same, the Freemasons, like the Manichees of old, strive, as far as possible, to conceal themselves, and to admit no witnesses but their own members…Moreover, to be enrolled, it is necessary that the candidates promise and undertake to be thenceforward strictly obedient to their leaders and masters with the utmost submission and fidelity, and to be in readiness to do their bidding upon the slightest expression of their will; or, if disobedient, to submit to the direst penalties and death itself. As a fact, if any are judged to have betrayed the doings of the sect or to have resisted commands given, punishment is inflicted on them not infrequently, and with so much audacity and dexterity that the assassin very often escapes the detection and penalty of his crime. (para. #9; Emphasis mine)

Interestingly, while I conceal my identity to prevent any negative repercussions to my family and friends for speaking out about the Faith, John Salza, who claims to have been a 32nd degree Mason (ruling class elite), has had no major setbacks to the best of my knowledge and belief. He even goes about “exposing” Masonry and profits off the sale of his books. Am I the only one who thinks Salza may not be an “EX-Mason”?

 Masonry: Founded Upon Naturalism
 
Naturalism is the philosophy that human reason is supreme and nothing exists beyond nature; therefore there is no supernatural order. It is upon this false system that Masonry was developed. From this flows grave heresy. One consequence is the idea of separation of Church and State, the ideal in the United States, since the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution were mostly Masons and Deists (those who believe in an impersonal “god” who started the universe, but does not care about it, nor intervene in it).
 In those matters which regard religion let it be seen how the sect of the Freemasons acts, especially where it is more free to act without restraint, and then let any one judge whether in fact it does not wish to carry out the policy of the naturalists. By a long and persevering labor, they endeavor to bring about this result – namely, that the teaching office and authority of the Church may become of no account in the civil State; and for this same reason they declare to the people and contend that Church and State ought to be altogether disunited. By this means they reject from the laws and from the commonwealth the wholesome influence of the Catholic religion; and they consequently imagine that States ought to be constituted without any regard for the laws and precepts of the Church. (para. #13; Emphasis mine)
Another serious evil Naturalism engenders is Indifferentism. This is the heretical idea that one religion is as good as another (positive indifference) or the idea that one religion is just as bad as another (negative indifference). As Masons eschew the supernatural, they believe there is no true religion.
If those who are admitted as members[to the Masonic Lodge] are not commanded to abjure by any form of words the Catholic doctrines, this omission, so far from being adverse to the designs of the Freemasons, is more useful for their purposes. First, in this way they easily deceive the simple-minded and the heedless, and can induce a far greater number to become members. Again, as all who offer themselves are received whatever may be their form of religion, they thereby teach the great error of this age-that a regard for religion should be held as an indifferent matter, and that all religions are alike. This manner of reasoning is calculated to bring about the ruin of all forms of religion, and especially of the Catholic religion, which, as it is the only one that is true, cannot, without great injustice, be regarded as merely equal to other religions. (para. #16; Emphasis mine)
Masonry Seeks to Corrupt Morality and Enslave Humanity
 
 As Fyodor Dostoyevsky astutely observed, “If there is no God, everything is permitted.” By banishing the supernatural order and giving people a false confidence in fallen human nature, immorality of the worst kind surely follows, just as it did in godless Communist governments.
 Moreover, human nature was stained by original sin, and is therefore more disposed to vice than to virtue. For a virtuous life it is absolutely necessary to restrain the disorderly movements of the soul, and to make the passions obedient to reason. In this conflict human things must very often be despised, and the greatest labors and hardships must be undergone, in order that reason may always hold its sway. But the naturalists and Freemasons, having no faith in those things which we have learned by the revelation of God, deny that our first parents sinned, and consequently think that free will is not at all weakened and inclined to evil. On the contrary, exaggerating rather the power and the excellence of nature, and placing therein alone the principle and rule of justice, they cannot even imagine that there is any need at all of a constant struggle and a perfect steadfastness to overcome the violence and rule of our passions…For, since generally no one is accustomed to obey crafty and clever men so submissively as those whose soul is weakened and broken down by the domination of the passions, there have been in the sect of the Freemasons some who have plainly determined and proposed that, artfully and of set purpose, the multitude should be satiated with a boundless license of vice, as, when this had been done, it would easily come under their power and authority for any acts of daring. (para. #20; Emphasis mine)
With God forsaken, and the State made secular, it will be easy to control the masses when the State takes over education and marriage.
 What refers to domestic life in the teaching of the naturalists is almost all contained in the following declarations: that marriage belongs to the genus of commercial contracts, which can rightly be revoked by the will of those who made them, and that the civil rulers of the State have power over the matrimonial bond; that in the education of youth nothing is to be taught in the matter of religion as of certain and fixed opinion; and each one must be left at liberty to follow, when he comes of age, whatever he may prefer. To these things the Freemasons fully assent; and not only assent, but have long endeavored to make them into a law and institution. For in many countries, and those nominally Catholic, it is enacted that no marriages shall be considered lawful except those contracted by the civil rite; in other places the law permits divorce; and in others every effort is used to make it lawful as soon as may be. Thus, the time is quickly coming when marriages will be turned into another kind of contract – that is into changeable and uncertain unions which fancy may join together, and which the same when changed may disunite. (para. #21; Emphasis mine)
Masonic Ties to Other Evils
 
 Masons are “fellow-travelers” with Socialists and Communists (as well as Modernists).
Now, from the disturbing errors which We have described the greatest dangers to States are to be feared. For, the fear of God and reverence for divine laws being taken away, the authority of rulers despised, sedition permitted and approved, and the popular passions urged on to lawlessness, with no restraint save that of punishment, a change and overthrow of all things will necessarily follow. Yea, this change and overthrow is deliberately planned and put forward by many associations of communists and socialists; and to their undertakings the sect of Freemasons is not hostile, but greatly favors their designs, and holds in common with them their chief opinions. And if these men do not at once and everywhere endeavor to carry out their extreme views, it is not to be attributed to their teaching and their will, but to the virtue of that divine religion which cannot be destroyed; and also because the sounder part of men, refusing to be enslaved to secret societies, vigorously resist their insane attempts. (para #27; Emphasis mine)

 

Does Masonic Membership = Dubious Sacraments?
 
Having shown the evil of Masonry, some wrongfully assert that if a clergyman is a Freemason (like Bugnini), the sacraments he attempts to confer must be considered dubious at best. This is because they allegedly “withhold their intention” when performing the sacraments. Having the intention to “do what the Church does” in administering the Sacraments is necessary for validity. Since Cardinal Lienart, the prelate who ordained Archbishop Lefebvre a priest, and later consecrated him a bishop, is rumored to have been a Mason, Archbishop Lefebvre’s orders are called into doubt–and with him all the Traditionalist clergy he ordained.
Assuming, ad arguendo, Lienart was a Freemason, it does nothing to impugn the validity of Archbishop Lefebvre’s orders.

I have written on this topic in depth, and I invite all interested readers who want to know the reasons Masonic membership does nothing to cast doubt on the validity of the sacraments, to read my post: https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2018/05/intent-on-causing-harm.html

The Vatican II Sect: Promoting the Masonic Ideals of Equality, Liberty, and Fraternity
 
 The Masonic inspired French Revolution had as its motto, “Equality, Liberty, Fraternity.” It sounds good until you realized they corrupted the meaning of the words. Equality came to mean an absolute equality wherein there is no rightful authority appointed by God over men; all people being “equal” in all aspects. Liberty now meant the “right to do wrong and believe in anything.” Fraternity devolved into unity between believers and unbelievers, as God is not acknowledged. A perfect example is the heretical Vatican II document Gaudium et Spes (hereinafter GS), the “Constitution of the Church (sic) in the Modern World.” While the True Church always acknowledged the world (along with the devil and the flesh) to be Her enemies, the Vatican II sect seeks to unite itself with it. While not all Modernists are Masons, all Masons are Modernists. They were working together for the destruction of the True Church and society.

On Equality:
GS, Ch. II, para. 29: Nevertheless, with respect to the fundamental rights of the person, every type of discrimination, whether social or cultural, whether based on sex, race, color, social condition, language or religion, is to be overcome and eradicated as contrary to God’s intent. (Emphasis mine)
The True Religion cannot be given preference over false sects. That would be “discrimination.”
On Liberty:

GS, Ch. I, para. 21: Hence the Church protests against the distinction which some state authorities make between believers and unbelievers, with prejudice to the fundamental rights of the human person.(Emphasis mine).
What “fundamental rights of the person” prevents the State from making distinctions between those who profess the Truth, and those who are partisans of error?
On Fraternity:

GS, Ch. V, para. 91: Drawn from the treasures of Church teaching, the proposals of this sacred synod look to the assistance of every man of our time, whether he believes in God, or does not explicitly recognize Him. If adopted, they will promote among men a sharper insight into their full destiny, and thereby lead them to fashion the world more to man’s surpassing dignity, to search for a brotherhood which is universal and more deeply rooted, and to meet the urgencies of our ages with a gallant and unified effort born of love. (Emphasis mine)
Atheists, agnostics, and members of the Church can “fashion the world more to man’s surpassing dignity” and achieve “universal brotherhood” in which God is irrelevant at best. Pure Masonic poison.
Conclusion
Masonry continues to be one of the deadliest foes of God and humanity. Working with the other enemies of the Church, they engineered the creation of the Vatican II sect, a counterfeit Catholicism based on Modernism. As Pope Leo advised, we must expose these enemies, and seek the supernatural aids (which Traditionalists still possess) to combat them (e.g., Mass, sacraments, true doctrine,etc.) Many Masonic ideals are identical to the ideology of the Modernists. Naturalism seeks to banish God from society and deify humans with false and exaggerated claims of “human dignity” and “human rights.” Pope Leo XIII said it best, “About the ‘rights of man,’ as they are called, the people have heard enough; it is time they should hear of the rights of God.” (See Tametsi November 1, 1900).

Look Who’s Talking

“Dialogue” has become the code word in the Vatican II sect for capitulating to every heretic, schismatic, infidel and pagan on Earth. It’s not about converting those in error because “proselytism is solemn nonsense.” The word dialogue sounds like some “open-minded” and unobjectionable discussion about faith, when it’s really something sinister driven by the false ecumenical ecclesiology of Vatican II. I hear members of the Vatican II sect tell me that there’s going to be some “interfaith meeting” at their parish, where they will have a dialogue with the local Protestant minister, rabbi, imam, etc. It turns out to be little more than an attempt to further the agenda of a One World Religion where everything is accepted but the truth. This post will explore the teaching of the True Church on “dialogue,” and how the newly spawned sect of the Robber Council introduced the idea in furtherance of their nefarious goal.

Montini and Ecclesiam Suam
 The first impetus towards dialogue with false sects came when Montini (“St.” “Pope” Paul VI) issued his encyclical Ecclesiam Suam on August 6, 1964, a mere three and a half months before he would sign the first heretical document of the Council, Lumen Gentium.  The encyclical is a striking departure from those of the true popes:
  • It is certainly not Our wish to disrupt the work of the council in this simple, conversational letter of Ours, but rather to commend it and to stimulate it. (para. #6) Since when do real popes promulgate “conversational letters”?
  • The purpose of this exhortation of Ours is not to lend substance to the belief that perfection consists in rigidly adhering to the methods adopted by the Church in the past and refusing to countenance the practical measures commonly thought to be in accord with the character of our time. These measures can be put to the test. We cannot forget Pope John XXIII’s word aggiornamento which We have adopted as expressing the aim and object of Our own pontificate. Besides ratifying it and confirming it as the guiding principle of the Ecumenical Council, We want to bring it to the notice of the whole Church (para. #50; Emphasis mine) The methods of prayer and worship, and even the rule of Faith, which has produced countless saints is now considered “outdated.” They must be replaced.
  • The Church must enter into dialogue with the world in which it lives. It has something to say, a message to give, a communication to make.(para. #65) What communication would that be? Hint: It’s not “repent, convert, and be saved.”
  • We see the concrete situation very clearly, and might sum it up in general terms by describing it in a series of concentric circles around the central point at which God has placed us.(para. # 96) More Modernist claptrap. The next section describes what he really means
  • It comprises first of all those men who worship the one supreme God, whom we also worship. We would mention first the Jewish people, who still retain the religion of the Old Testament, and who are indeed worthy of our respect and love.Then we have those worshipers who adhere to other monotheistic systems of religion, especially the Moslem religion. We do well to admire these people for all that is good and true in their worship of God. And finally we have the followers of the great Afro-Asiatic religions. (para. #107; Emphasis mine) Jews cannot “retain” what no longer exists; the Old Covenant is over since the death of Christ. What is there to “admire” in Islam? There is nothing “good and true” in worshiping their false moon “god,” Allah. Finally, we have the pagans of Africa and Asia (Hindus, Animists, Buddhists, etc.) What is good or even “great” about them? Nothing. “St.” Montini adds this sop at the end of para. #107 to maintain a veneer of orthodoxy: Obviously we cannot agree with these various forms of religion, nor can we adopt an indifferent or uncritical attitude toward them on the assumption that they are all to be regarded as on an equal footing, and that there is no need for those who profess them to enquire whether or not God has Himself revealed definitively and infallibly how He wishes to be known, loved, and served. Indeed, honesty compels us to declare openly our conviction that the Christian religion is the one and only true religion, and it is our hope that it will be acknowledged as such by all who look for God and worship Him. Got that? He makes several heretical statements and hopes to cover them up. The proof that this is the case is borne out by the heretical documents of Vatican II he signed, and which lay waste to any pretense of orthodox teaching.
Vatican II and their “Dogma” of Ecumenism and Dialogue
 
 Here’s what Unitatis Redintegratio, para. #9 has to say:
Catholics who already have a proper grounding need to acquire a more adequate understanding of the respective doctrines of our separated brethren, their history, their spiritual and liturgical life, their religious psychology and cultural background. Most valuable for this purpose are meetings of the two sides – especially for discussion of theological problems – where each can treat with the other on an equal footing, providing that those who take part in them under the guidance of the authorities are truly competent. (Emphasis mine)
Consider: By entering into a discussion with anyone else on an equal footing, one renounces any claim to authority superior to the authority of the other party. Otherwise the footing simply would not be equal. The True Church cannot recommend Catholics, even the most learned, to engage in theological discussion with Protestants unless they are ready to concede their religion to be false. For a Catholic to enter into dialogue with Protestants on an equal footing, it would be necessary for the Catholic to openly and willfully call into doubt the Truths of Faith which are Divinely guaranteed. This is simply wicked. Vatican II requires those in dialogue to deny the Divine obligation to profess the One True Faith and the necessity for all heretics to submit to the Church.
Pope Pius XI teaches: “…although many non-Catholics may be found who loudly preach fraternal communion in Christ Jesus, yet you will find none at all to whom it ever occurs to submit to and obey the Vicar of Jesus Christ either in His capacity as a teacher or as a governor. Meanwhile they affirm that they would willingly treat with the Church of Rome, but on equal terms, that is as equals with an equal: but even if they could so act. it does not seem open to doubt that any pact into which they might enter would not compel them to turn from those opinions which are still the reason why they err and stray from the one fold of Christ…This being so, it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ.” (Mortalium Animos, para. #7 and 8; Emphasis mine)
Again, we read more heresy in the Vatican II document Gaudiam et Spes: 
Through loyalty to conscience, Christians are joined to other men in the search for truth and for the right solution to so many moral problems which arise both in the life of individuals and from social relationships.(para. #16)
Any Catholic who needs to go “search for truth” with heretics, apostates, pagans, etc, has either lost their Faith or their marbles (probably both). I’m also being generous, because the appellation of “Christian” rightfully only belongs to members of the One True Church.  Vatican II elsewhere (erroneously) attributed to baptized heretics and schismatics a strict right to the name of Christian without qualification.
In para. #21 of Gaudiam et Spes, we are told that Catholics must dialogue with atheists to bring about a “right order” in the world. (No wonder Bergoglio tells us, “Atheists can go to Heaven.”)
Although the Church altogether rejects atheism, she nevertheless sincerely proclaims that all men, those who believe as well as those who do not, should help to establish right order in this world, where all live together. This certainly cannot be done without a dialogue that is sincere and prudent.
A few points: World order can only be archived when the world converts to the Church. Those who deny God’s existence can in no way contribute to this endeavor. The world (along with the devil and the flesh) is the the enemy of the Church. Christ did not pray for the world, “I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me: because they are thine..”(St. John 17:9)
St. Paul tells us, “And all that will live godly in Christ Jesus, shall suffer persecution.” (2 Timothy 3:12). Who will persecute them? The world, because there can be no right order in the world, until the world accepts Christ as King. As Pope Pius XI teaches, “The Church alone can introduce into society and maintain therein the prestige of a true, sound spiritualism, the spiritualism of Christianity which both from the point of view of truth and of its practical value is quite superior to any exclusively philosophical theory. The Church is the teacher and an example of world good-will, for she is able to inculcate and develop in mankind the “true spirit of brotherly love” (St. Augustine, De Moribus Ecclesiae Catholicae, i, 30) and by raising the public estimation of the value and dignity of the individual’s soul help thereby to lift us even unto God.” (Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, para. #42). 
 
The True Church Teaches
 
The 1917 Code of Canon Law teaches in Canon 1325, section 3 that Catholics must guard against participating in debates and conferences with non-Catholics, especially public ones, without the permission of the Holy See or, in an urgent case, of the local Ordinary. (See Canonists Abbo and Hannon, The Sacred Canons, [1951] 2:563). Note this regards even debates on important topics in order to win converts. Still, care must be taken to ensure the Faith is not endangered, or made to look bad in any way.
On December 20, 1949, the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office issued an Instruction on the so-called “ecumenical movement” of its day. Pope Pius XII promulgated it and the seven important contentions that taught “dialogue”— as later described by Vatican II— was evil and heretical.
The Instruction begins by describing:
However, some of the initiatives that have hitherto been taken by various individuals or groups, with the aim of reconciling dissident Christians to the Catholic Church, although inspired by the best of intentions, are not always based on right principles, or if they are, yet they are not free from special dangers, as experience too has already shown. Hence this Supreme Sacred Congregation, which has the responsibility of conserving in its entirety and protecting the deposit of the faith, has seen fit to recall to mind and to prescribe the following:
This was to make converts, but there were still dangers to the Faith. The Instruction has seven parts, but I will only cite the most pertinent points. Part 1 of the Instruction:
They [bishops] shall also diligently provide whatever may be of service to non-Catholics who desire to know the Catholic faith; they shall designate persons and Offices to which these non-Catholics may go for consultation; and a fortiori they shall see to it that those who are already converted to the faith shall easily find means of more exact and deeper instruction in the Catholic faith, and of leading a more positively religious life, especially through appropriate meetings and group assemblies, through Spiritual Exercises and other works of piety.
Section 2:
They [bishops] shall also be on guard lest, on the false pretext that more attention should be paid to the points on which we agree than to those on which we differ, a dangerous indifferentism be encouraged, especially among persons whose training in theology is not deep and whose practice of their faith is not very strong. For care must be taken lest, in the so-called “irenic” spirit of today, through comparative study and the vain desire for a progressively closer mutual approach among the various professions of faith, Catholic doctrine—either in its dogmas or in the truths which are connected with them—be so conformed or in a way adapted to the doctrines of dissident sects, that the purity of Catholic doctrine be impaired, or its genuine and certain meaning be obscured.
Also they must restrain that dangerous manner of speaking which generates false opinions and fallacious hopes incapable of realization; for example, to the effect that the teachings of the Encyclicals of the Roman Pontiffs on the return of dissidents to the Church, on the constitution of the Church, on the Mystical Body of Christ, should not be given too much importance seeing that they are not all matters of faith, or, what is worse, that in matters of dogma even the Catholic Church has not yet attained the fullness of Christ, but can still be perfected from outside…Catholic doctrine is to be presented and explained: by no means is it permitted to pass over in silence or to veil in ambiguous terms the Catholic truth regarding the nature and way of justification, the constitution of the Church, the primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, and the only true union by the return of the dissidents to the one true Church of Christ…However, one should not speak of this [the return/conversion to the One True Church] in such a way that they will imagine that in returning to the Church they are bringing to it something substantial which it has hitherto lacked. It will be necessary to say these things clearly and openly, first because it is the truth that they themselves are seeking, and moreover because outside the truth no true union can ever be attained.
(Emphasis mine)
Conclusion
“Dialogue” is the Modernist term for having discussions with those Outside the Church, not for the purpose of conversion, but of “mutual enrichment.” It thereby denies the Church is a Perfect Society and unified, whether or not those outside are converted. The Modernists dialogue for “understanding”—as if the Church did not know all Truths of Faith and the heresies which go against them. They dialogue for “making the world a better place” and forget the truth that real peace can only be brought about by universal recognition of Christ as King and  joining His One True Church. However, what they really want to get from dialogue is the acceptance of a dogma-free One World Religion, as everyone begins to compromise their tenets of belief and accept a Masonic-inspired indifferentism. As long as everyone is “good” (according to what standard?) and believes in some vague concept of a “god” (the “Great Architect of the Universe”), all is right with the world. Vatican II dialogue is all (heretical) talk, and no (orthodox) action.

Perpetually Lost in the Fog of His “New Theology”

Although I am working on a commentary that deals, at least peripherally, with the Mueller Report as summarized by Attorney General William Barr that I hope to have completed by Saturday, April 13, 2019, the Feast of Saint Hermenegild and the Commemoration of Saturday in Passion Week, it was my great misfortune to have heard about and then, worse yet, to have read Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI’s letter about what he considers to be the cause of the clerical abuse crisis within the false religious sect that he believes is the Catholic Church.

I am afriad that this commentary turned out to be longer than Ratzinger/Benedict’s confused and confusing letter, which some commentators have said is “long” even though it is but a mere six thousand words or so. Long? Pshaw. Ratzinger/Benedict’s letter only seems long because it is long on empty rhetoric and confusion, which is the way that this poor man, who will be ninety-two years of age on Tuesday of Holy Week, April 16, 2019, has studied theology and thus views the Faith and the world. This commentary will be an effort to strip away the nonagenarian’s confusion in as short a manner as possible.

Ratzinger Unwittingly Criticizes the Consequences of His False Relgious Sect’s “Reconciliation” with the French Revolution 

Displaying his utter lack of understanding of root causes, the antipope emeritus prescinded from the trees to the forest while providing no clear understanding of the simple fact that the rise of moral relativism in the world is the simple, logical and inexorable consequence of the Protestant Revolution’s overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King and the subsequent rise and institutionalization of Judeo-Masonic naturalism as the very foundation of the civil state, social life and the social disorder that it has brought in its wake. The fifth in the current line of antipopes is incapable of understanding that all must fall into ruin when Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ does not reign over men and their nations and when His one and only true Church, the Catholic Church, is not acknowledged by the civil state as having the authority from Him to govern men in all that pertains to the good of souls.

Thus it is that Ratzinger/Benedict bemoans the rise of immorality in the 1960s on the forgetfulness of God without recognizing he himself has hailed Gaudium et Spes, December 7, 1965, as representing what he thinks is the Catholic Church’s “official reconciliation” with the “principles of that new era inaugurated in 1789.”

What happened in 1789?

Well, Judeo-Masonic forces of the French Revolution made warfare upon the very existence of God and upon His true Church as they destroyed the relics of various saints, including Saint Louis IX, King of France, desecrated churches and imprisoned and killed believing Catholics, including priests and consecrated religious.

Permit me to reprise the then Joseph “Cardinal” Ratzinger’s praise of Gaudium et Spes in his very misnamed Principles of Catholic Theology and then contrast it with what he wrote in his recently-released letter:

Let us be content to say here that the text [of Gaudium et Spes] serves as a countersyllabus and, as such, represents on the part of the Church, an attempt at an official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789. Only from this perspective can we understand, on the one hand, the ghetto-mentality, of which we have spoken above; only from this perspective can we understand, on the other hand, the meaning of the remarkable meeting of the Church and the world. Basically, the word “world” means the spirit of the modern era, in contrast to which the Church’s group-consciousness saw itself as a separate subject that now, after a war that had been in turn both hot and cold, was intent on dialogue and cooperation. (Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, p. 382.)

Does this mean that the Council should be revoked? Certainly not. It means only that the real reception of the Council has not yet even begun. What devastated the Church in the decade after the Council was not the Council but the refusal to accept it. This becomes clear precisely in the history of the influence of Gaudium et spes. What was identified with the Council was, for the most part, the expression of an attitude that did not coincide with the statements to be found in the text itself, although it is recognizable as a tendency in its development and in some of its individual formulations. The task is not, therefore, to suppress the Council but to discover the real Council and to deepen its true intention in the light of the present experience. That means that there can be no return to the Syllabus, which may have marked the first stage in the confrontation with liberalism and a newly conceived Marxism but cannot be the last stage. In the long run, neither embrace nor ghetto can solve for Christians the problem of the modern world. The fact is, as Hans Urs von Balthasar pointed out as early as 1952, that the “demolition of the bastions” is a long-overdue task. (Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, p. 391.)

A society without God — a society that does not know Him and treats Him as non-existent — is a society that loses its measure. In our day, the catchphrase of God’s death was coined. When God does die in a society, it becomes free, we were assured. In reality, the death of God in a society also means the end of freedom, because what dies is the purpose that provides orientation. And because the compass disappears that points us in the right direction by teaching us to distinguish good from evil. Western society is a society in which God is absent in the public sphere and has nothing left to offer it. And that is why it is a society in which the measure of humanity is increasingly lost. At individual points it becomes suddenly apparent that what is evil and destroys man has become a matter of course. (Antipope Benedict XVI, Thoughts on Abuse Crisis.)

How can one bemoan “a society without God” after having praised the forces that brought about this society?

Joseph Alois Ratzinger’s lifelong hatred of Thomism and its clarity of thought has produced a mind filled with internal contradictions that he is constitutionally incapable of recognizing as such. Ratzinger believes that it is “good enough” for some kind of  generic, Judeo-Masonic of God to be recognized in the “public square” without acknowledging that the First Commandment requires all men and all nations to recognize and to adore the true God, the Most Holy Trinity, as He has revealed Himself to us exclusively through His true Church. As has been noted so many times on this site, our true popes have warned us that a generic conception of God leads to the triumph of moral relativism and atheism. Men and their nations need the Catholic Faith. They need Holy Mother Church.

Pope Pius XI noted this in Mitt Brennender Sorge, March 17, 1937:

Beware, Venerable Brethren, of that growing abuse, in speech as in writing, of the name of God as though it were a meaningless label, to be affixed to any creation, more or less arbitrary, of human speculation. Use your influence on the Faithful, that they refuse to yield to this aberration. Our God is the Personal God, supernatural, omnipotent, infinitely perfect, one in the Trinity of Persons, tri-personal in the unity of divine essence, the Creator of all existence. Lord, King and ultimate Consummator of the history of the world, who will not, and cannot, tolerate a rival God by His side.

No faith in God can for long survive pure and unalloyed without the support of faith in Christ. “No one knoweth who the Son is, but the Father: and who the Father is, but the Son and to whom the Son will reveal Him” (Luke x. 22). “Now this is eternal life: That they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou has sent” (John xvii. 3). Nobody, therefore, can say: “I believe in God, and that is enough religion for me,” for the Savior’s words brook no evasion: “Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father. He that confesseth the Son hath the Father also” (1 John ii. 23) (Pope Pius XI, Mit Brennender Sorge, March 17, 1937.)

There is no such thing as a generic, one-reference-fits-all-religions God and the true God of Divine Revelation has not created all men equal in rights and duties as He created a hierarchy in the Order of Nature (Creation) and in the Order of Grace (Redemption). A husband and father, for instances, has rights and duties that are different from those of a mother. Parents have rights and duties that differ from those of children. A teacher has different rights and duties than his students. An employer has different rights and duties than his managers and employees. More the point, of course, is that a true pope has paramount rights and duties over all men on the face of this earth in all that pertains to the good of their souls.

The Protestant Revolution overturned all ecclesiastical hierarchy.

The French Revolution—and all subsequent social revolutions—overturned the natural hierarchical structure of kingdoms and nations.

Egalitarianism is the lie of the devil. It is not true that God has created all men equal in rights and duties, and it is an abject falsehood to assert that the purpose of human existence is to “live together as brothers and sisters” in order to “fill the earth and make known the values of goodness, love and peace.”

God has created man to know, to love, and to serve Him as He has revealed Himself to us exclusively through His Catholic Church, she who is the sole means of human sanctification and salvation and thus the necessary means of assuring a just social order wherein those who govern pursue the common temporal good in light of advancing man’s Last End.

Ratzinger/Benedict, rejecting the clarity and consistency of Scholasticism, says contradictory things, sometimes in the context of the same article. As noted on several occasions in the past, New Oxford Review, whose editors reject sedevacantism, once featured a very frank and honest assessment of the contradictions inherent in the writings of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI:

In Cardinal Ratzinger’s Values in a Time of Upheaval, he muddies up his phrase [the dictatorship of relativism]; indeed, he reverses his position. He says, “The modem concept of democracy seems indissolubly linked to that of relativism.” Well, well! But then he backtracks: “This means that a basic element of truth, namely, ethical truth, is indispensable to democracy.” But then he backtracks again: “We do not want the State to impose one particular idea of the good on us. … Truth is controversial, and the attempt to impose on all persons what one part of the citizenry holds to be true looks like enslavement of people’s consciences.” And he says this on the same page!

Yes, we know: Some of our readers feel that the Pope is above all criticism; he cannot make a mistake, even in his previous writings. But what he has written here is contradictory and inscrutable.

Ratzinger says, “The relativists …[are] flirting with totalitarianism even though they seek to establish the primacy of freedom …” Huh?

So, what is he saying? “The State is not itself the source of truth and morality…. Accordingly, the State must receive from outside itself the essential measure of knowledge and truth with regard to that which is good. … The Church remains outside’ the State. … The Church must exert itself with all its vigor so that in it there may shine forth moral truth …”

Then he says, “Conscience is the highest norm [italics in original] and … and one must follow it even against authority. When authority – in this case the Church’s Magisterium – speaks on matters of morality, it supplies the material that helps the conscience form its own judgment, but ultimately it is only conscience that has the last word.” A Contradictory Definition of Relativism (See also: Cardinal Ratzinger’s Subjectivism.)

That is, it is a vain exercise to seek to find clarity of thought in the mind of a man who rejects Scholasticism, the official philosophy of the Catholic Church, and who does not realize how many times he contradicts himself and presents the Faith, which is something sure and clear, in the form of one paradox after another.

Pope Saint Pius X noted the contradictory “double-minded”–nature of the Modernist in Pascendi Dominic Gregis, September 8, 1907:

This will appear more clearly to anybody who studies the conduct of Modernists, which is in perfect harmony with their teachings. In their writings and addresses they seem not unfrequently to advocate doctrines which are contrary one to the other, so that one would be disposed to regard their attitude as double and doubtful. But this is done deliberately and advisedly, and the reason of it is to be found in their opinion as to the mutual separation of science and faith. Thus in their books one finds some things which might well be approved by a Catholic, but on turning over the page one is confronted by other things which might well have been dictated by a rationalist. When they write history they make no mention of the divinity of Christ, but when they are in the pulpit they profess it clearly; again, when they are dealing with history they take no account of the Fathers and the Councils, but when they catechize the people, they cite them respectfully. In the same way they draw their distinctions between exegesis which is theological and pastoral and exegesis which is scientific and historical. So, too, when they treat of philosophy, history, and criticism, acting on the principle that science in no way depends upon faith, they feel no especial horror in treading in the footsteps of Luther and are wont to display a manifold contempt for Catholic doctrines, for the Holy Fathers, for the Ecumenical Councils, for the ecclesiastical magisterium; and should they be taken to task for this, they complain that they are being deprived of their liberty. Lastly, maintaining the theory that faith must be subject to science, they continuously and openly rebuke the Church on the ground that she resolutely refuses to submit and accommodate her dogmas to the opinions of philosophy; while they, on their side, having for this purpose blotted out the old theology, endeavor to introduce a new theology which shall support the aberrations of philosophers. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

Anyone who cannot admit that this describes Antipope Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is not examining his writings honestly. The man who was the presiding officer of the counterfeit church of conciliarism between April 19, 2005, and February 28, 2013, has at varying times criticized Gaudium et Spes, the “pastoral constitution on the Church and the world” issued by the “Second” Vatican Council on December 7, 1965, as having a semi-Pelagian flavor to it (which it does) while also praising it approvingly as a “countersyllabus” of errors, meaning that Pope Pius IX was wrong to have issued The Syllabus of Errors on December 8, 1864.

For the record, of course, it is important to point out as well that Ratzinger/Benedict, who has bemoaned the loss of God from public life, defects from the Catholic Church’s immutable teaching about the Social Reign of Christ the King as matter of principle while our true popes, while always maintaining the integrity of Catholic teaching on this doctrine, noted that it was necessary to make regrettable concessions to the reality of things as they exist in the world at present, which is quite different from accepting “religious liberty” and separation of Church and State as good and true in se, which they are not. Ratzinger simply does not believe that the Catholic Church has any role to play in the “public sphere” except to be a “voice,” something that he has made clear on any number of occasions, including in the following exchange with Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre on July 14, 1987:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leaving aside the late Archbishop Lefebvre’s refusal to recognize that apostates are not members of the Catholic Church, from which one falls as a member if embraces, no less articulates and publicly propagates heresies and errors condemned by true popes and/or our twenty legitimate general councils, this exchange demonstrates clearly that Joseph Alois Ratzinger is simply incapable of admitting that the godlessness of modern society is the direct result of the Protestant Revolution and of Judeo-Masonry. There is no middle ground between light and darkness, truth and error, Christ and Belial.

Pope Leo XIII made this clear in Custodi di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892:

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

The civil state has the positive obligation to recognize Christ the King and to be obedient to Holy Mother Church in all that pertains to the good of souls without any exception whatsoever, a truth that was summarized very clearly by Pope Saint Pius X in Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906:

That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him. Besides, this thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits the action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during this life only, which is but the proximate object of political societies; and it occupies itself in no fashion (on the plea that this is foreign to it) with their ultimate object which is man’s eternal happiness after this short life shall have run its course. But as the present order of things is temporary and subordinated to the conquest of man’s supreme and absolute welfare, it follows that the civil power must not only place no obstacle in the way of this conquest, but must aid us in effecting it. The same thesis also upsets the order providentially established by God in the world, which demands a harmonious agreement between the two societies. Both of them, the civil and the religious society, although each exercises in its own sphere its authority over them. It follows necessarily that there are many things belonging to them in common in which both societies must have relations with one another. Remove the agreement between Church and State, and the result will be that from these common matters will spring the seeds of disputes which will become acute on both sides; it will become more difficult to see where the truth lies, and great confusion is certain to arise. Finally, this thesis inflicts great injury on society itself, for it cannot either prosper or last long when due place is not left for religion, which is the supreme rule and the sovereign mistress in all questions touching the rights and the duties of men. Hence the Roman Pontiffs have never ceased, as circumstances required, to refute and condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State. (Pope Saint Pius X, Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906.)

The fact that the conditions favorable to a Catholic state do not exist at this time does nothing to detract from the immutability of the Catholic teaching explicated so clearly by Pope Saint Pius X.

Indeed, the fact that the conditions favorable to a Catholic state do not exist at this time is the result of the proliferation of a deliberate, planned attack by the adversary himself upon it by using the combined, interrelated errors of Protestantism and Judeo-Masonry to uproot the Holy Cross as the foundation of personal and social order in Europe and to make sure it was not the foundation of such order here in the United States of America.

Father Denis Fahey made this exact point in The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World:

By the grace of the Headship of the Mystical Body, our Lord Jesus Christ is both Priest and King of redeemed mankind and, as such, exercises a twofold influence upon us. Firstly, as a Priest, He communicates to us the supernatural life of grace by which we, while ever remaining distinct from God, can enter into the vision and love of the Blessed Trinity. We can thus become one with God, not, of course, in the order of substance or being, but in the order of operation, of the immaterial union of vision and love. The Divine Nature is the principle of the Divine Vision and Love, and by grace we are ‘made partakers of the Divine Nature.’ This pure Catholic doctrine is infinitely removed from Masonic pantheism. Secondly, as King, our Lord exercises an exterior influence on us by His government of us. As King, He guides and directs us socially and individually, in order to dispose all things for the reception of the Supernatural Life which He, as Priest, confers.

Society had been organized in the thirteenth century and even down to the sixteenth, under the banner of Christ the King. Thus, in spite of deficiencies and imperfections, man’s divinization, through the Life that comes from the sacred Humanity of Jesus, was socially favoured. Modern society, under the influence of Satan, was to be organized on the opposite principle, namely, that human nature is of itself divine, that man is God, and, therefore, subject to nobody. Accordingly, when the favourable moment had arrived, the Masonic divnization of human nature found its expression in the Declaration of the Rights of Man in 1789The French Revolution ushered in the struggle for the complete organization of the world around the new divinity–Humanity. In God’s plan, the whole organization of a country is meant to aid the development of a country is meant to aid the development of the true personality of the citizens through the Mystical Body of Christ. Accordingly, the achievement of true liberty for a country means the removal of obstacles to the organized social acceptance of the Divine Plan. Every revolution since 1789 tends, on the contrary, to the rejection of that plan, and therefore to the enthronement of man in the place of God. The freedom at which the spirit of the revolution aims is that absolute independence which refuses submission to any and every order. It is the spirit breathed by the temptation of the serpent: ‘For God doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened; and you shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.’ Man decided then that he would himself lay down the order of good and evil in the place of God; then and now it is the same attitude. (Father Denis Fahey, The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World, p. 27.)

The civil state has an obligation to recognize the true Faith and to pursue the common temporal good in light of man’s Last End: the possession of the glory of the Beatific Vision of Father, Son and Holy Ghost in Heaven for all eternity. This obligation is immutable even though the anti-Incarnational civil state of Modernity is founded in a revolution against it. That which is true does not cease being true simply because men reject it and then base their social structures upon its rejection.

While it is true that Holy Mother Church accommodates herself to the actual situations in which her children live, exhorting them to make use of existing laws to their benefit and thus to the good of souls, she never ceases to proclaim the truth even when men reject it.

Although the counterfeit church of conciliarism has embraced the falsehood of a “healthy secularity,” the Catholic Church has taught from time immemorial that those who exercise authority in a civil government have an obligation to subordinate all things that pertain to the good of souls to the Deposit of Faith that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has entrusted exclusively to the Catholic Church for Its eternal safekeeping and infallible explication. Yes, I well understand that even most Catholics, no less thorough-going naturalists or agnostics or atheists, find this to be utter madness to the point of frothing at the mouth as though they are suffering from hydrophobia.

It is nevertheless the case that the Catholic Church has indeed condemned the separation of Church and State has she has insisted that she has the authority from her Invisible Head and Divine Bridegroom, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, to interpose herself with civil officials in grave matters pertaining to the eternal good of souls after–and only after–the exhausting of her Indirect Power of teaching and preaching and exhortation Pope Leo XIII, writing in Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885, made it abundantly clear that the civil state has an obligation to subordinate itself in all that pertains to the good of souls to the true religion:

As a consequence, the State, constituted as it is, is clearly bound to act up to the manifold and weighty duties linking it to God, by the public profession of religion. Nature and reason, which command every individual devoutly to worship God in holiness, because we belong to Him and must return to Him, since from Him we came, bind also the civil community by a like law. For, men living together in society are under the power of God no less than individuals are, and society, no less than individuals, owes gratitude to God who gave it being and maintains it and whose everbounteous goodness enriches it with countless blessings. Since, then, no one is allowed to be remiss in the service due to God, and since the chief duty of all men is to cling to religion in both its teaching and practice-not such religion as they may have a preference for, but the religion which God enjoins, and which certain and most clear marks show to be the only one true religion — it is a public crime to act as though there were no GodSo, too, is it a sin for the State not to have care for religion as a something beyond its scope, or as of no practical benefit; or out of many forms of religion to adopt that one which chimes in with the fancy; for we are bound absolutely to worship God in that way which He has shown to be His will. All who rule, therefore, would hold in honor the holy name of God, and one of their chief duties must be to favor religion, to protect it, to shield it under the credit and sanction of the laws, and neither to organize nor enact any measure that may compromise its safety. This is the bounden duty of rulers to the people over whom they rule. For one and all are we destined by our birth and adoption to enjoy, when this frail and fleeting life is ended, a supreme and final good in heaven, and to the attainment of this every endeavor should be directed. Since, then, upon this depends the full and perfect happiness of mankind, the securing of this end should be of all imaginable interests the most urgent. Hence, civil society, established for the common welfare, should not only safeguard the wellbeing of the community, but have also at heart the interests of its individual members, in such mode as not in any way to hinder, but in every manner to render as easy as may be, the possession of that highest and unchangeable good for which all should seek. Wherefore, for this purpose, care must especially be taken to preserve unharmed and unimpeded the religion whereof the practice is the link connecting man with God. (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885.)

Meaning quite explicitly to belabor this point, the antipope emeritus who bemoaned the loss of God in society has always celebrated the separation of Church and State, doing so on May 10, 2010, in Portugal, in direct, open contradiction of Pope Saint Pius X’s condemnation of this separation in Portugal:

From a wise vision of life and of the world, the just ordering of society follows. Situated within history, the Church is open to cooperating with anyone who does not marginalize or reduce to the private sphere the essential consideration of the human meaning of life. The point at issue is not an ethical confrontation between a secular and a religious system, so much as a question about the meaning that we give to our freedom. What matters is the value attributed to the problem of meaning and its implication in public life. By separating Church and State, the Republican revolution which took place 100 years ago in Portugal, opened up a new area of freedom for the Church, to which the two concordats of 1940 and 2004 would give shape, in cultural settings and ecclesial perspectives profoundly marked by rapid change. For the most part, the sufferings caused by these transformations have been faced with courage. Living amid a plurality of value systems and ethical outlooks requires a journey to the core of one’s being and to the nucleus of Christianity so as to reinforce the quality of one’s witness to the point of sanctity, and to find mission paths that lead even to the radical choice of martyrdom. (Official Reception at Lisbon Portela International Airport, Tuesday, May 11, 2010.)

Apostasy.

“By separating Church and State, the Republican revolution which took place 100 years ago in Portugal, opened up a new area of freedom for the Church”?

Pluralism strengthens sanctity within the soul?

Guess again.

Pope Saint Pius X specifically condemned the very separation of Church and State in Portugal that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI praised on May 11, 2010:

2. Whilst the new rulers of Portugal were affording such numerous and awful examples of the abuse of power, you know with what patience and moderation this Apostolic See has acted towards them. We thought that We ought most carefully to avoid any action that could even have the appearance of hostility to the Republic. For We clung to the hope that its rulers would one day take saner counsels and would at length repair, by some new agreement, the injuries inflicted on the Church. In this, however, We have been altogether disappointed, for they have now crowned their evil work by the promulgation of a vicious and pernicious Decree for the Separation of Church and State. But now the duty imposed upon Us by our Apostolic charge will not allow Us to remain passive and silent when so serious a wound has been inflicted upon the rights and dignity of the Catholic religion. Therefore do We now address you, Venerable Brethren, in this letter and denounce to all Christendom the heinousness of this deed.

3. At the outset, the absurd and monstrous character of the decree of which We speak is plain from the fact that it proclaims and enacts that the Republic shall have no religion, as if men individually and any association or nation did not depend upon Him who is the Maker and Preserver of all things; and then from the fact that it liberates Portugal from the observance of the Catholic religion, that religion, We say, which has ever been that nation’s greatest safeguard and glory, and has been professed almost unanimously by its people. So let us take it that it has been their pleasure to sever that close alliance between Church and State, confirmed though it was by the solemn faith of treaties. Once this divorce was effected, it would at least have been logical to pay no further attention to the Church, and to leave her the enjoyment of the common liberty and rights which belong to every citizen and every respectable community of peoples. Quite otherwise, however, have things fallen out. This decree bears indeed the name of Separation, but it enacts in reality the reduction of the Church to utter want by the spoliation of her property, and to servitude to the State by oppression in all that touches her sacred power and spirit. (Pope Saint Pius X, Iamdudum, May 24, 1911.)

“Gay marriage” and the surgical execution of children were already “legal” in Portugal when Ratzinger/Benedict XVI visited in 2010. Some “new area of freedom for the Church,” eh?

Well, the same true is Ireland.

Pope Leo XIII, writing in Tametsi Futurus Prospicentibus, November 1, 1900, noted the following about the consequences of nations rejecting the Social Reign of Christ the King:

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

As with individuals, so with nations. These, too, must necessarily tend to ruin if they go astray from “The Way.” The Son of God, the Creator and Redeemer of mankind, is King and Lord of the earth, and holds supreme dominion over men, both individually and collectively. “And He gave Him power, and glory, and a kingdom: and all peoples, tribes, and tongues shall serve Him” (Daniel vii., 14). “I am appointed King by Him . . . I will give Thee the Gentiles for Thy inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for Thy possession” (Psalm ii., 6, 8). Therefore the law of Christ ought to prevail in human society and be the guide and teacher of public as well as of private life. Since this is so by divine decree, and no man may with impunity contravene it, it is an evil thing for the common weal wherever Christianity does not hold the place that belongs to it. When Jesus Christ is absent, human reason fails, being bereft of its chief protection and light, and the very end is lost sight of, for which, under God’s providence, human society has been built up. This end is the obtaining by the members of society of natural good through the aid of civil unity, though always in harmony with the perfect and eternal good which is above nature. But when men’s minds are clouded, both rulers and ruled go astray, for they have no safe line to follow nor end to aim at.  (Pope Leo XIII, Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900.)

It is not for nothing that the great defender of the Social Reign of Christ the King, Louis Edouard “Cardinal” Pie, who was the Bishop of Poitiers, France from from May 23, 1849, to the time of his death on May 18, 1880, wrote the following about the American and Belgian systems as expressions of the Universal Israelite Alliance as found in a book on his works by Father Father Théotimede Saint Just and translated from the French into the English by Mr. Daniel Leonardi:

In fine, Cardinal Pie insists:

“Christianity would not be divine if it were to have existence within individuals but not with regard to societies.”

Fr. de St. Just asks, in conclusion:

“Could it be proven in clearer terms that social atheism conduces to individualistic atheism?”. . . .

Neither in His Person,” Card, Pie said in a celebrated pastoral instruction, “nor in the exercise of His rights, can Jesus Christ be divided, dissolved, split up; in Him the distinction of natures and operations can never be separated or opposed; the divine cannot be incompatible to the human, nor the human to the divine. On the contrary, it is the peace, the drawing together, the reconciliation; it is the very character of union which has made the two things one: ‘He is our peace, Who hat made both one. . .’  (Eph. 2:14). This is why St. John told us: ‘every spirit that dissolveth Jesus is not of God. And this is Antichrist, of whom you have heard that he cometh: and is now already in the world’ (1 John 4:3; cf. also 1 John 2:18, 22; 2 John: 7). “So then, Card. Pie continues, “when I hear certain talk being spread around, certain pithy statements (i.e., ‘Separation of Church and State,’ for one, and the enigmatic axiom ‘A free Church in a free State,’ for another) prevailing from day to day, and which are being introduced into the heart of societies, the dissolvent by which the world must perish, I utter this cry of alarm: Beware the Antichrist.”

Fr. de St. Just adds:

Accordingly, the Bishop of Poitiers had always fought against THE SEPARATION OF Church and State. Moreover, he opposed all separations, that of reason and faith, of nature and grace, of natural religion and revealed religion, the separation of the philosopher and the Christian, of private man and public man. He saw in all these [separations] a resurgence of Manichean dualism and he had fought all these with, the supreme argument, the law formed by Christ. Therefore, it is in all truth, writing to [Minister of the Interior] the Count of Presigny, that he could render this testimony:

‘We have nothing in common with the theorists of disunion and opposition of two orders, temporal and spiritual, natural and supernatural. We struggle, on the contrary, with all our strength against these doctrines of separation which is leading to the denial of religion itself and of revealed religion.'”

Fr. de St. Just returns at this point and introduces us to what is perhaps Msgr. Pie’s strongest language, with regard to this entire subject:

“To this doctrine of the Church, which Msgr. Pie brought to the mind of the rulers of nations, the liberals would oppose acts favoring separation.

“Certain countries, Belgium and America, for example, haven’t they proclaimed the separation of Church and State, and doesn’t the Church enjoy a more complete liberty under such a system?”

Cardinal Pie responded firmly to this question:

‘THE AMERICAN AND BELGIUM SYSTEM, this system of philosophical-political indifference, shall eternally be a bastard system” (pp. 122-124 in Fr. de St. Just’s book) (Selected Writings of Selected Writings of Cardinal Pie of Poitiers, Catholic Action Resource Center, Orlando, Florida, October 2007, pp. 21-23.)

Ratzinger/Benedict, therefore, is continuing to endeavor in the utterly mad process of “discovering” the causes of problems without admitting that his own basic premises about the modern civil state and its “compatibility” with the Holy Faith and thus with the right ordering of men and their nations is not only erroneous but heretical.

Inherently Paradoxical and Contradictory: The Mind and the Writing of Joseph Alois Ratzinger

Remember, this is the same logically incoherent “thinker,” esteemed by “conservatives” and by traditionally-mind Catholics attached to the conciliar structures as a “theologian,” if not that veritable “restorer of tradition,” who has told us before he was “Pope Benedict XVI” that the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service represented a rupture with the past before asserting as “Pope Benedict XVI” that no such rupture had taken place:

What happened after the Council was something else entirely: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgyWe abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced itas in a manufacturing process–with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product. Gamber, with the vigilance of a true prophet and the courage of a true witness, opposed this falsification, and thanks to his incredibly rich knowledge, indefatigably taught us about the living fullness of a true liturgy. As a man who knew and loved history, he showed us the multiple forms and paths of liturgical development; as a man who looked at history form the inside, he saw in this development and its fruit the intangible reflection of the eternal liturgy, that which is not the object of our action but which can continue marvelously to mature and blossom if we unite ourselves intimately with its mystery. (Joseph “Cardinal” Ratzinger, Preface to the French language edition of Monsignor Klaus Gamber’s The Reform of the Roman Liturgy.)

The prohibition of the missal that was now decreed, a missal that had known continuous growth over the centuries, starting with the sacramentaries of the ancient Church, introduced a breach into the history of the liturgy whose consequences could only be tragic. It was reasonable and right of the Council to order a revision of the missal such as had often taken place before and which this time had to be more thorough than before, above all because of the introduction of the vernacular.

But more than this now happened: the old building was demolished, and another was built, to be sure largely using materials from the previous one and even using the old building plans. There is no doubt that this new missal in many respects brought with it a real improvement and enrichment; but setting it as a new construction over against what had grown historically, forbidding the results of this historical growth. thereby makes the liturgy appear to be no longer living development but the produce of erudite work and juridical authority; this has caused an enormous harm. For then the impression had to emerge that liturgy is something “made”, not something given in advance but something lying without our own power of decision. (Joseph “Cardinal” Ratzinger, Milestones.)

In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. (Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, Explanatory Letter on “Summorum Pontificum,” July 7, 2007.)

One who has a mind so filled with the sort of contradictions and paradoxes cannot see, no less admit, that the crises afflicting the world are the result of the apostasies, heresies and errors of Modernity with which his own false religious sect has made its “official reconciliation.” It is no accident that the licentiousness of men since the 1960s has been made worse by the sacramental barrenness of the conciliar liturgical rites and by the corruption of the young by means of the sort of explicit classroom instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments that the antipope emeritus believes, correctly, is responsible for the corruption of the young in “public education.” He cannot see that there is a connection between the gestalt, if you will, of the “Second” Vatican Council and the windows that were “opened to the world” by Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII.

Refusing to Consider the Consequences of the Protestant Revolution and of Judeo-Masonry in the World and in the Conciliar Sect

Ratzinger/Benedict is so disconnected from reality that he does not realize that the seeds for the licentiousness he decries were planted long before they had flower in the age of the “flower people” in the 1960s by the ancient enemies of Christ the King and His true Church, a phenomenon that Pope Leo XIII noted and denounced in Humanum Genus, April 20, 1884:

But the naturalists go much further; for, having, in the highest things, entered upon a wholly erroneous course, they are carried headlong to extremes, either by reason of the weakness of human nature, or because God inflicts upon them the just punishment of their pride. Hence it happens that they no longer consider as certain and permanent those things which are fully understood by the natural light of reason, such as certainly are — the existence of God, the immaterial nature of the human soul, and its immortality. The sect of the Freemasons, by a similar course of error, is exposed to these same dangers; for, although in a general way they may profess the existence of God, they themselves are witnesses that they do not all maintain this truth with the full assent of the mind or with a firm conviction. Neither do they conceal that this question about God is the greatest source and cause of discords among them; in fact, it is certain that a considerable contention about this same subject has existed among them very lately. But, indeed, the sect allows great liberty to its votaries, so that to each side is given the right to defend its own opinion, either that there is a God, or that there is none; and those who obstinately contend that there is no God are as easily initiated as those who contend that God exists, though, like the pantheists, they have false notions concerning Him: all which is nothing else than taking away the reality, while retaining some absurd representation of the divine nature.

When this greatest fundamental truth has been overturned or weakened, it follows that those truths, also, which are known by the teaching of nature must begin to fall — namely, that all things were made by the free will of God the Creator; that the world is governed by Providence; that souls do not die; that to this life of men upon the earth there will succeed another and an everlasting life.

When these truths are done away with, which are as the principles of nature and important for knowledge and for practical use, it is easy to see what will become of both public and private morality. We say nothing of those more heavenly virtues, which no one can exercise or even acquire without a special gift and grace of God; of which necessarily no trace can be found in those who reject as unknown the redemption of mankind, the grace of God, the sacraments, and the happiness to be obtained in heaven. We speak now of the duties which have their origin in natural probity. That God is the Creator of the world and its provident Ruler; that the eternal law commands the natural order to be maintained, and forbids that it be disturbed; that the last end of men is a destiny far above human things and beyond this sojourning upon the earth: these are the sources and these the principles of all justice and morality.

If these be taken away, as the naturalists and Freemasons desire, there will immediately be no knowledge as to what constitutes justice and injustice, or upon what principle morality is founded. And, in truth, the teaching of morality which alone finds favor with the sect of Freemasons, and in which they contend that youth should be instructed, is that which they call “civil,” and “independent,” and “free,” namely, that which does not contain any religious belief. But, how insufficient such teaching is, how wanting in soundness, and how easily moved by every impulse of passion, is sufficiently proved by its sad fruits, which have already begun to appear. For, wherever, by removing Christian education, this teaching has begun more completely to rule, there goodness and integrity of morals have begun quickly to perish, monstrous and shameful opinions have grown up, and the audacity of evil deeds has risen to a high degree. All this is commonly complained of and deplored; and not a few of those who by no means wish to do so are compelled by abundant evidence to give not infrequently the same testimony.

Moreover, human nature was stained by original sin, and is therefore more disposed to vice than to virtue. For a virtuous life it is absolutely necessary to restrain the disorderly movements of the soul, and to make the passions obedient to reason. In this conflict human things must very often be despised, and the greatest labors and hardships must be undergone, in order that reason may always hold its sway. But the naturalists and Freemasons, having no faith in those things which we have learned by the revelation of God, deny that our first parents sinned, and consequently think that free will is not at all weakened and inclined to evil. On the contrary, exaggerating rather the power and the excellence of nature, and placing therein alone the principle and rule of justice, they cannot even imagine that there is any need at all of a constant struggle and a perfect steadfastness to overcome the violence and rule of our passions.

Wherefore we see that men are publicly tempted by the many allurements of pleasure; that there are journals and pamphlets with neither moderation nor shame; that stage-plays are remarkable for license; that designs for works of art are shamelessly sought in the laws of a so-called verism; that the contrivances of a soft and delicate life are most carefully devised; and that all the blandishments of pleasure are diligently sought out by which virtue may be lulled to sleep. Wickedly, also, but at the same time quite consistently, do those act who do away with the expectation of the joys of heaven, and bring down all happiness to the level of mortality, and, as it were, sink it in the earth. Of what We have said the following fact, astonishing not so much in itself as in its open expression, may serve as a confirmation. For, since generally no one is accustomed to obey crafty and clever men so submissively as those whose soul is weakened and broken down by the domination of the passions, there have been in the sect of the Freemasons some who have plainly determined and proposed that, artfully and of set purpose, the multitude should be satiated with a boundless license of vice, as, when this had been done, it would easily come under their power and authority for any acts of daring. (Pope Leo XIII, Humanum Genus, April 20, 1884.)

What happened in the 1960s did not just occur overnight. Yet it is that the twisted, convoluted mind of Joseph Alois Ratzinger cannot see nor accept the simple truth that Catholicism is the sole foundation of sanctity within the human soul and hence of order within civil society, which is why he must blather ad infinitum about the existence of problems whose root causes he simply cannot identify as to do so would be to admit that his rejection of the “Second” Vatican Council which he helped to plan, guide and bring to fruition.

Unlike the dogmatic evolutionist from Bavaria, Father Edward Cahill, S.J., saw how the synagogue and the lodge were working together to produce a society preoccupied with the pursuit of material and carnal pleasure:

This intimate connexion between the two powers [Freemasonry and Cabalistic Judaism] [writes R. Lambelin] is becoming so evident that there is no longer any attempt made to deny it. The Jewish lodges of B’ne Berith, which originated in the English-speaking countries, have swarmed all over Europe, and even into Asia; and they assume the leadership of control in the whole Masonic organization. Under cover of Theosophy a new religion, which is specifically Jewish, though enveloped in a nebulous mist that obscures its character, is bidding fair to take the place of the traditional Christian belief which it flatters, and insensibly destroys.

Finally, the history of the Jews of Europe during the past three or four centuries is suggestive in this connection. The emancipation of the Jews and the unprecedented growth of the influence and power of the great Jewish financiers have synchronized with the rise and growth of the Masonic movement of the past two centuries.

Up to the sixteenth century the Jews were excluded from practically all the Christian States of Europe. With the rise of Humanism, however, in the fifteenth century, and the accentuation of the other causes that finally led to the break up of Christendom, the Jews managed to improve their position. They gradually gained readmittance, sometimes covert, sometimes openly avowed, into most of the countries from which they had been excluded. But although they were allowed to live under the protection of the laws, they were not accorded full civic rights in any of the Christian States. They engaged in trade and carried on usury, by means of which they frequently acquired immense wealth. But they were not permitted to hold public offices, and were treated as aliens. They lived usually in ghettos, apart from the Christian community.

After the Protestant revolt, and especially under the influence of the Calvinistic sections of Protestantism, such as the Huguenots in France, the Puritans in Britain, and the Dutch and Swiss Calvinists, the position of the Jews gradually improved more and more. Finally, with the rise of the Liberalism of the eighteenth century, which was fostered and promoted by Masonic influence, the Jews were accorded full rights of citizenship, first in France and then, owing to the expansion of the French Napoleonic Empire, in nearly every country of Europe and America. In France the Jews were enfranchised in 1791 at the instance of the Jacobins, the most aggressive and militant of the anti-Christian Masonic organizations of that time. Ever since that time, with the exception, perhaps, of the early Napoleonic period, the Masonic Jews and the Masonic societies have dominated the public life of France, whose anti-clericalism, secularism, and divorce-laws have mostly been inspired from that source. Roumania, where the Jews did not possess the full rights of citizenship, and were precluded from acquiring property in land was forced by Bismarck (author of the Kulturcamp, and closely identified with Freemasonry of the most extreme type) at the Congress of Berlin (1878) to grant them full civic rights. At the Peace of Paris (1918-1919) Poland was forced, in the same way, to grant such privileges to the Jews living within her borders as almost to constitute the Jewish colony a kind of State within the State. At the same Congress the Jewish leaders were accorded practical control of Palestine as a quasi-independent or incipient Jewish State under the protection of Britain. Today Jewish financial and political power is especially felt in the countries which have fallen most completely under the influence of Freemasonry and un-Christian Liberalism, such as the United States of America, England, France, Germany, Russia, Roumania, etc. (Father Edward Cahill, S.J., Freemasonry and the anti-Christian Movement, Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged, published originally by M. H. Gill and Son, Ltd., in Dublin, Ireland, 1930, and republished by Kessinger Legacy Reprints, pp. 91-95.)

In other words, everything that Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI decried as having been of a relatively recent vintage was the work, proximately speaking, of diabolical forces that were given the “religious liberty” by the anti-Incarnational civil state of Modernity to spread poisons aplenty in an unrestrained manner. And it is no wonder that the sodomites gained such a foothold within the conciliar hierarchy, presbyterate and religious communities as the “pope” who believed in the “pleasant side of man,” Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI, was himself a sodomite and made sure to fill the ranks of his hierarchy with fellow perverts, who, of course, went to great lengths to recruit, promote and protect their own fellow-travelers. If Ratzinger/Benedict wants to understand how this scenario, which certainly had antecedent roots before the “Second” Vatican Council but became far more pronounced during Montini’s time and thereafter, it would be good for him to read Mrs. Randy Engel’s The Rite of Sodomy, wherein he gets a brief mention near the book’s end along with his brother Georg.

A Dogmatic Evolutionist Denounces Moral Relativism

A final area of incongruity in Ratzinger/Benedict’s recent “letter” concerns complaint about theologians in the 1960s and thereafter who sought to relativize morality as a matter of conscience uninformed by the Catholic Church’s magisterium. Although the antipope emeritus makes a valid point in this regard, he does not comprehend that he is the greatest theological relativist of them all:

In moral theology, however, another question had meanwhile become pressing: The hypothesis that the Magisterium of the Church should have final competence (“infallibility”) only in matters concerning the faith itself gained widespread acceptance; (in this view) questions concerning morality should not fall within the scope of infallible decisions of the Magisterium of the Church. There is probably something right about this hypothesis that warrants further discussionBut there is a minimum set of morals which is indissolubly linked to the foundational principle of faith and which must be defended if faith is not to be reduced to a theory but rather to be recognized in its claim to concrete life.

All this makes apparent just how fundamentally the authority of the Church in matters of morality is called into question. Those who deny the Church a final teaching competence in this area force her to remain silent precisely where the boundary between truth and lies is at stake. (Antipope Benedict XVI, Thoughts on Abuse Crisis.)

Ratzinger’s mind is a mess.

Ratzinger simultaneously states that not all matters of morality fall within the “scope of the infallible decisions of the Magisterium of the Church,” something that is says is “probably right,” and that contemporary theologians call into question the Church’s authority in matters of morality.

To quote from the article cited earlier in this commentary: “Huh?”

Holy Mother Church cannot err on matters of Faith and Morals, and although morality can be known, albeit imperfectly, because of fallen human nature, by the light of reason unaided by Divine Revelation, she alone is the authoritative interpreter and infallible teacher of the Natural Law. The [First] Vatican Council’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church [Pastor Aeternus] July 18, 1870:

Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate.

Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this In this way, by unity with the Roman pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the church of Christ becomes one flock under one supreme shepherd [50] .

This is the teaching of the catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation. . . .

So, then, if anyone says that the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema. (Pastor Aeternus, July 18, 1870.)

Holy Mother Church, guided infallibly by the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, cannot err on any matter of Faith and Morals. Ever.

Pope Pius XI, writing in Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929, explained that the Church has never asserted that morality belongs exclusively to her, only that is belongs wholly and authoritatively to her, meaning that no one else is vested with the authority from God to contest a decision of the Catholic Church on moral theology:

18. Hence it is that in this proper object of her mission, that is, “in faith and morals, God Himself has made the Church sharer in the divine magisterium and, by a special privilege, granted her immunity from error; hence she is the mistress of men, supreme and absolutely sure, and she has inherent in herself an inviolable right to freedom in teaching.'[10] By necessary consequence the Church is independent of any sort of earthly power as well in the origin as in the exercise of her mission as educator, not merely in regard to her proper end and object, but also in regard to the means necessary and suitable to attain that end. Hence with regard to every other kind of human learning and instruction, which is the common patrimony of individuals and society, the Church has an independent right to make use of it, and above all to decide what may help or harm Christian education. And this must be so, because the Church as a perfect society has an independent right to the means conducive to its end, and because every form of instruction, no less than every human action, has a necessary connection with man’s last end, and therefore cannot be withdrawn from the dictates of the divine law, of which the Church is guardian, interpreter and infallible mistress.

19. This truth is clearly set forth by Pius X of saintly memory:

Whatever a Christian does even in the order of things of earth, he may not overlook the supernatural; indeed he must, according to the teaching of Christian wisdom, direct all things towards the supreme good as to his last end; all his actions, besides, in so far as good or evil in the order of morality, that is, in keeping or not with natural and divine law, fall under the judgment and jurisdiction of the Church.

20. It is worthy of note how a layman, an excellent writer and at the same time a profound and conscientious thinker, has been able to understand well and express exactly this fundamental Catholic doctrine:

The Church does not say that morality belongs purely, in the sense of exclusively, to her; but that it belongs wholly to her. She has never maintained that outside her fold and apart from her teaching, man cannot arrive at any moral truth; she has on the contrary more than once condemned this opinion because it has appeared under more forms than one. She does however say, has said, and will ever say, that because of her institution by Jesus Christ, because of the Holy Ghost sent her in His name by the Father, she alone possesses what she has had immediately from God and can never lose, the whole of moral truth, omnem veritatem, in which all individual moral truths are included, as well those which man may learn by the help of reason, as those which form part of revelation or which may be deduced from it. (Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929.)

There was thus no need, as Ratzinger/Benedict contended in his recent letter, for Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II to have to “recapture” the non-Biblical roots of morality in Veritatis Splendor, August 6, 1993, if Father Joseph Alois Ratzinger and others of his ilk had not rejected the Scholasticism of Saint Thomas Aquinas as part of the “new theology” that had been condemned by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis, August 12, 1950. Ratzinger has always hated Scholasticism, adopting as his own the Lutheran falsehood that the official philosophy of the Catholic Church had “obscured” the supposedly “true” meaning of Sacred Scripture and the Church Fathers and substituted a more “formalized,” “cold” and “impersonal” theology that left no room for “development” and “progress.” This hatred of Scholasticism caused Ratzinger to embrace the “new theology’s” repackaged heresy of dogmatic evolutionism, which he expressed as Father Joseph Ratzinger, as Joseph “Cardinal” Ratzinger as “Pope” Benedict XVI:

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.)

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, cited at Card. Ratzinger: The teachings of the Popes against Modernism are obsolete)

Secondly, it was necessary to give a new definition to the relationship between the Church and the modern State that would make room impartially for citizens of various religions and ideologies, merely assuming responsibility for an orderly and tolerant coexistence among them and for the freedom to practise their own religion.

Thirdly, linked more generally to this was the problem of religious tolerance – a question that required a new definition of the relationship between the Christian faith and the world religions. In particular, before the recent crimes of the Nazi regime and, in general, with a retrospective look at a long and difficult history, it was necessary to evaluate and define in a new way the relationship between the Church and the faith of Israel.

These are all subjects of great importance – they were the great themes of the second part of the Council – on which it is impossible to reflect more broadly in this context. It is clear that in all these sectors, which all together form a single problem, some kind of discontinuity might emerge. Indeed, a discontinuity had been revealed but in which, after the various distinctions between concrete historical situations and their requirements had been made, the continuity of principles proved not to have been abandoned. It is easy to miss this fact at a first glance.

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 itselfIt 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.

Basic decisions, therefore, continue to be well-grounded, whereas the way they are applied to new contexts can change. Thus, for example, if religious freedom were to be considered an expression of the human inability to discover the truth and thus become a canonization of relativism, then this social and historical necessity is raised inappropriately to the metaphysical level and thus stripped of its true meaning. Consequently, it cannot be accepted by those who believe that the human person is capable of knowing the truth about God and, on the basis of the inner dignity of the truth, is bound to this knowledge.

It is quite different, on the other hand, to perceive religious freedom as a need that derives from human coexistence, or indeed, as an intrinsic consequence of the truth that cannot be externally imposed but that the person must adopt only through the process of conviction.

The Second Vatican Council, recognizing and making its own an essential principle of the modern State with the Decree on Religious Freedomhas recovered the deepest patrimony of the Church. By so doing she can be conscious of being in full harmony with the teaching of Jesus himself (cf. Mt 22: 21), as well as with the Church of the martyrs of all time. The ancient Church naturally prayed for the emperors and political leaders out of duty (cf. I Tm 2: 2); but while she prayed for the emperors, she refused to worship them and thereby clearly rejected the religion of the State.

The martyrs of the early Church died for their faith in that God who was revealed in Jesus Christ, and for this very reason they also died for freedom of conscience and the freedom to profess one’s own faith – a profession that no State can impose but which, instead, can only be claimed with God’s grace in freedom of conscience. A missionary Church known for proclaiming her message to all peoples must necessarily work for the freedom of the faith. She desires to transmit the gift of the truth that exists for one and all(Christmas greetings to the Members of the Roman Curia and Prelature, December 22, 2005.)

What was that Pope Pius XII wrote in Humani Generis about how the “new theologians” deny that the true meaning of doctrines may be known and understood with metaphysical certitude?

Let me remind you:

34. It is not surprising that these new opinions endanger the two philosophical sciences which by their very nature are closely connected with the doctrine of faith, that is, theodicy and ethics; they hold that the function of these two sciences is not to prove with certitude anything about God or any other transcendental being, but rather to show that the truths which faith teaches about a personal God and about His precepts, are perfectly consistent with the necessities of life and are therefore to be accepted by all, in order to avoid despair and to attain eternal salvation. All these opinions and affirmations are openly contrary to the documents of Our Predecessors Leo XIII and Pius X, and cannot be reconciled with the decrees of the Vatican Council. It would indeed be unnecessary to deplore these aberrations from the truth, if all, even in the field of philosophy, directed their attention with the proper reverence to the Teaching Authority of the Church, which by divine institution has the mission not only to guard and interpret the deposit of divinely revealed truth, but also to keep watch over the philosophical sciences themselves, in order that Catholic dogmas may suffer no harm because of erroneous opinions. (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, August 12, 1950.)

For the likes of men such as the conciliar revolutionaries to be correct, the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity not only hid the true meaning of doctrines for over nineteen hundred years, He permitted true popes and the Fathers of Holy Mother Church’s twenty true general councils to condemn propositions that have, we are supposed to believe, only recently been “discovered” as having been true. Blasphemous and heretical.

Pope Pius XII also reiterated that, contrary to the implication contained in Ratzinger’s letter, every Catholic must accept all that Holy Mother Church teaches on Faith and Morals without any reservation, objection or qualification:

18. Unfortunately these advocates of novelty easily pass from despising scholastic theology to the neglect of and even contempt for the Teaching Authority of the Church itself, which gives such authoritative approval to scholastic theology. This Teaching Authority is represented by them as a hindrance to progress and an obstacle in the way of science. Some non Catholics consider it as an unjust restraint preventing some more qualified theologians from reforming their subject. And although this sacred Office of Teacher in matters of faith and morals must be the proximate and universal criterion of truth for all theologians, since to it has been entrusted by Christ Our Lord the whole deposit of faith — Sacred Scripture and divine Tradition — to be preserved, guarded and interpreted, still the duty that is incumbent on the faithful to flee also those errors which more or less approach heresy, and accordingly “to keep also the constitutions and decrees by which such evil opinions are proscribed and forbidden by the Holy See,”[2] is sometimes as little known as if it did not exist. What is expounded in the Encyclical Letters of the Roman Pontiffs concerning the nature and constitution of the Church, is deliberately and habitually neglected by some with the idea of giving force to a certain vague notion which they profess to have found in the ancient Fathers, especially the Greeks. The Popes, they assert, do not wish to pass judgment on what is a matter of dispute among theologians, so recourse must be had to the early sources, and the recent constitutions and decrees of the Teaching Church must be explained from the writings of the ancients.

19. Although these things seem well said, still they are not free from error. It is true that Popes generally leave theologians free in those matters which are disputed in various ways by men of very high authority in this field; but history teaches that many matters that formerly were open to discussion, no longer now admit of discussion.

20. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me”;[3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.

21. It is also true that theologians must always return to the sources of divine revelation: for it belongs to them to point out how the doctrine of the living Teaching Authority is to be found either explicitly or implicitly in the Scriptures and in Tradition.[4] Besides, each source of divinely revealed doctrine contains so many rich treasures of truth, that they can really never be exhausted. Hence it is that theology through the study of its sacred sources remains ever fresh; on the other hand, speculation which neglects a deeper search into the deposit of faith, proves sterile, as we know from experience. But for this reason even positive theology cannot be on a par with merely historical science. For, together with the sources of positive theology God has given to His Church a living Teaching Authority to elucidate and explain what is contained in the deposit of faith only obscurely and implicitlyThis deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church. But if the Church does exercise this function of teaching, as she often has through the centuries, either in the ordinary or extraordinary way, it is clear how false is a procedure which would attempt to explain what is clear by means of what is obscure. Indeed the very opposite procedure must be used. Hence Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Pius IX, teaching that the most noble office of theology is to show how a doctrine defined by the Church is contained in the sources of revelation, added these words, and with very good reason: “in that sense in which it has been defined by the Church.” (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, August 12, 1950.)

It is laughable for a dogmatic relativist such as Ratzinger/Benedict to complain about moral relativism as the two are entirely related and dependent upon each other.

There is one other point that needs to be made, and it is an important one.

Just as it is truly the work of the adversary to distract even believing Catholics from shutting out the world and to meditate with great fervor during Passiontide, up to and including the Paschal Triduum of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’s Passion, Death and Resurrection, by the impending release of the redacted Mueller Report and the controversy that is and will continue to surround it during this most sacred time of the year, it is also a work of the adversary to use the man who has done his bidding for him by praising false religions, entering into temples of false worship and personally esteemed the symbols of false idols with his own priestly hands and by using dogmatic evolutionism (repackaged as the “hermeneutic of continuity”) to undermine the immutability of dogmatic truth, which is an attack on the nature of God Himself and a work of blasphemy against God the Holy Ghost, to distract people with a “letter” that does nothing but prove himself to be impressed with his own supposed “originality” yet again. Spare us, O Lord, spare us, from such men—and from the man he praises at the end of his “letter,” Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

Yesterday was the Feast of Pope Saint Leo the Great, who wrote about the inerrant nature of Holy Mother Church as follows:

Pope Saint Leo the Great wrote much during his twenty years on the Throne of Saint Peter, including on the very nature of the papacy and about the fact that the jaws of hell will never prevail against the Catholic Church:

When the Lord, as we read in the Evangelist, asked His disciples Who did men, amid their divers speculations, believe that He, the Son of Man, was; blessed Peter answered and said Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father, Which is in heaven and I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; and I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Thus therefore standeth the ordinance of the Truth, and blessed Peter, abiding still that firm rock which God hath made him, hath never lost that right to rule in the Church which God hath given unto him.

In the universal Church it is Peter that doth still say every day, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, and every tongue which confesseth that Jesus is Lord is taught that confession by the teaching of Peter. This is the faith that overcometh the devil and looseth the bands of his prisoners. This is the faith which maketh men free of the world and bringeth them to heaven, and the gates of hell are impotent to prevail against it. With such ramparts of salvation hath God fortified this rock, that the contagion of heresy will never be able to infect it, nor idolatry and unbelief to overcome it. This teaching it is, my dearly beloved brethren, which maketh the keeping of this Feast to-day to be our reasonable service, even the teaching which maketh you to know and honour in myself, lowly though I be, that Peter who is still entrusted with the care of all other shepherds and of all the flocks to them committed, and whose authority I have, albeit unworthy to be his heir.

When, therefore, we address our exhortations to your godly ears, believe ye that ye are hearing him speak whose office we are discharging. Yea, it is with his love for you that we warn you, and we preach unto you no other thing than that which he taught, entreating you that ye would gird up the loins of your mind and lead pure and sober lives in the fear of God. My disciples dearly beloved, ye are to me, as the disciples of the Apostle Paul were to him, (Phil. iv. 1,) a crown and a joy, if your faith, which, in the first times of the Gospel, was spoken of throughout the whole world, Rom. i. 8, abide still lovely and holy. For, albeit it behoveth the whole Church which is spread throughout all the world, to be strong in righteousness, you it chiefly becometh above all other peoples to excel in worth and godliness, whose house is built upon the very crown of the Rock of the Apostle, and whom not only hath our Lord Jesus Christ, as He hath redeemed all men, but whom also His blessed Apostle Peter hath made the foremost object of his teaching. (Pope Saint Leo the Great, as found in Matins, The Divine Office, Feast of Pope Saint Leo the Great.)

Well, it is all there, isn’t it?

One must engage in all kinds of intellectual gymnastics to believe that the contagion of heresy is not rife within the counterfeit church of conciliarism, which is why all those who are not yet convinced of the truth of our ecclesiastical situation in this time of apostasy and betrayal should re-read these words:

This is the faith which maketh men free of the world and bringeth them to heaven, and the gates of hell are impotent to prevail against it. With such ramparts of salvation hath God fortified this rock, that the contagion of heresy will never be able to infect it, nor idolatry and unbelief to overcome it. (Pope Saint Leo the Great, as found in Matins, The Divine Office, Feast of Pope Saint Leo the Great.)

The false “popes” of conciliarism have esteemed the symbols of idolaters. So have Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and “Saint John Paul II” before the latter’s own election as the head of the false conciliar sect on March 13, 2013, and Jorge Mario Bergoglio has shown repeatedly that he has no belief in the integrity of the Catholic Faith. So have his predecessors in the past sixty and one-half years.

 

We need to pray to Pope Saint Leo the Great drive out the Huns who occupy Rome and the institutions of the Catholic Church during this time of conciliarism.

On the Feast of the Seven Dolors of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary in Passiontide

Today is the Feast of the Seven Dolors of the Blessed Virgin Mary in Passiontide, which is why we should strive to pray the Chaplet (Rosary) of the Seven Dolors in addition to meditating upon the Sorrowful Mysteries of her Most Holy Rosary.

While it is certainly true that the heresies and errors promoted by the blasphemers who govern and constitute the counterfeit church of conciliarism have grieved Our Lady’s Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, we should always recall that our own terrible sins have afflicted the Pure Heart of Mary as they caused her Divine Son to suffer their effects in His Sacred Humanity during her Passion and Death.

We are just two days away from Palm Sunday, which, liturgically, begins with First Vespers on Saturday, April 13, 2019, and just nine days away from Our Lord’s Easter Victory over sin and eternal death. May we cooperate with the graces won for us by Our Lord during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross and that He sends us through the loving hands of His Most Blessed Mother, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces, to participate in this Easter victory at our Particular Judgment as we seek to plant a few seeds for the Triumph of her Immaculate Heart in these times that He has appointed for us from all eternity to live and to work out our salvation in fear and trembling as members of His Catholic Church.

○○○

christorchaos.com

Five Sorrowful Decades: Fifty Years of Paul VI’s “New Mass”

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The Novus Ordo Missae at 50…

Five Sorrowful Decades:
Fifty Years of Paul VI’s “New Mass”

by Francis del Sarto

“Truly, if one of the devils in C. S. Lewis’s The Screwtape Letters had been entrusted with the ruin of the liturgy, he could not have done it better.” –Dietrich von Hildebrand

“Every sectarian who wishes to introduce a new doctrine finds himself, unfailingly, face to face with the Liturgy, which is Tradition at its strongest and best, and he cannot rest until he has silenced this voice, until he has torn up these pages which recall the faith of past centuries.” –Dom Prosper Guéranger, O.S.B.

“Let those who like myself have known and sung a Latin-Gregorian High Mass remember it if they can. Let them compare it with the Mass that we now have. Not only the words, the melodies, and some of the gestures are different. To tell the truth, it is a different liturgy of the Mass. This needs to be said without ambiguity: the Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists. It has been destroyed.” –Fr. Joseph Gelineau

“The reform of the liturgy is irreversible.” –“Pope” Francis

For the past half-century the vast majority of the 1.2 billion people identifying as Roman Catholic around the world have had as their “ordinary” form of worship a rite that would have seemed utterly alien to most of the faithful who lived in the nearly two millennia leading up to it. These forebears certainly would not have seen it as the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass which they knew and so cherished, once described by Fr. Frederick Faber as “the most beautiful thing this side of Heaven”. Only knowledgeable Catholics who had lived in the past 500 years would recognize it at all, but even then only as something resembling the false form of the worship services concocted by Protestant “Reformers” as a direct rival to the Mass, a veritable anti-Mass.

It was on Holy Thursday, April 3, 1969, that “Pope” Paul VI (Giovanni Battista Montini)promulgated the “Apostolic Constitution” Missale Romanum as part of a liturgical “renewal” he said had begun with Pope Pius XII’s restoration of Holy Week services as “the first step toward adapting the Roman Missal to the contemporary mentality”. We are permitted to be highly skeptical of Montini’s assertion that a return to antiquated forms may somehow be more relevant to contemporary worshippers after centuries of disuse than those that have developed organically. In fact, it was Pope Pius XII who explicitly rejected “the zeal of one who in matters liturgical would go back to the rites and usage of antiquity, discarding the new patterns introduced by disposition of divine Providence to meet the changes of circumstances and situation” (Encyclical Mediator Dei, n. 63).

Paul VI’s “Promulgation of the Roman Missal” was in reality the announcement of a non-Catholic, pseudo-Roman Missal meant to supplant the true Roman rite as promulgated by Pope St. Pius V in the 1570 Apostolic Constitution Quo Primum. Of course, we know now that the unstated goal of this new worship service was the ushering in of a new religion — the replacing of the Catholic lex orandi, lex credendi for a crypto-Modernist counterfeit. It was to eliminate the true Mass once and forever, and replace it with a fake “revised” version.

The fact that April 3, 1969, was not only Holy Thursday that year but also the first day of the Jewish Passover, is surely more than simple coincidence; for the New Mass is the Modernist repudiation of the Sacrifice of the Mass, much as observing Passover after the institution of the New Covenant is intended to reject the Sacrifice of Calvary, which is its fulfillment.

From Holy Sacrifice of the Mass to Memorial Meal

Despite a few red flags in the language of Paul VI’s Missale Romanum — vocabulary such as “[t]he words Mysterium fidei [mystery of Faith] have been removed from the context of Christ’s own words and are spoken by the priest as an introduction to the faithful’s acclamation” — it would be three days later that the full heterodox orientation of Montini’s changes became patently obvious. On April 6, the official rubrics of the “new order of the Mass” (novus ordo Missae as it was called) were published along with an accompanying General Instruction of the Roman Missal (sometimes abbreviated GIRM). This new order of Mass has since become known as the “New Mass”, the “Pauline Mass”, the “Mass of Paul VI,” or simply the “Novus Ordo.”

The following links highlight the stark differences between the Roman Mass of the ages and the Novus Ordo Missae of Paul VI:

The publication of this “revised” Roman rite led to a prompt counterattack by Catholics, principally in the form of the justly celebrated Critical Study of the New Order of Mass (aka The Ottaviani Intervention because its principal author was Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani), which argued, among other things, that the revised liturgy constituted “a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent” and “has much to gladden the heart of even the most modernist Protestant”.

This was by no means an exaggeration, as the Critical Study copiously demonstrated. Indeed, even Paul VI’s very definition of what the Holy Catholic Mass is was a blatant surrender to Protestantism. The first edition of the GIRM defined the Mass as follows:

The Lord’s Supper, or Mass, is the sacred meeting or congregation of the people of God assembled, the priest presiding, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. For this reason, Christ’s promise applies eminently to such a local gathering of holy Church: “Where two or three come together in my name, there am I in their midst” (Mt. 18:20).

(“General Instruction of the Roman Missal”Missale Romanum: Ordo Missae Editio Typica [Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1969], n. 7)

Martin Luther could not have said it better himself!

When contrasted with the true and traditional Catholic definition of the Holy Mass, such as can be found in any pre-Vatican II catechism, the departure from orthodoxy appears most striking: “The Mass is the true and especial Sacrifice of the New Law; in it Jesus Christ, by the ministry of the priest, offers His Body and Blood to God the Father, under the appearances of bread and wine, by a mystical immolation in an unbloody manner” (Cardinal Peter Gasparri, The Catholic Catechism [Toronto: Longmans, Green and Co., 1932], n. 385). That’s the Catholic definition.

In his Intervention, Cardinal Ottaviani chastised Paul VI for his overtly Protestant definition, charging:

The definition of the Mass is thus reduced to a “supper,” a term which the General Instruction constantly repeats. The Instruction further characterizes this “supper” as an assembly, presided over by a priest and held as a memorial of the Lord to recall what He did on Holy Thursday. None of this in the very least implies:

– The Real Presence – The reality of the Sacrifice – The sacramental function of the priest who consecrates – The intrinsic value of the Eucharistic Sacrifice independent of the presence of the “assembly.”

In a word, the Instruction’s definition implies none of the dogmatic values which are essential to the Mass and which, taken together, provide its true definition. Here, deliberately omitting these dogmatic values by “going beyond them” amounts, at least in practice, to denying them.

(Cardinals Alfredo Ottaviani, Antonio Bacci, et al., Critical Study of the New Order of Mass, Sept. 25, 1969)

On March 26, 1970, the Vatican released a second edition of the GIRM, in which the original definition was revised. The result was visibly little more than damage control: “At Mass that is, the Lord’s Supper, the People of God is called together, with a priest presiding and acting in the person of Christ, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord, the Eucharistic Sacrifice” (n. 27).

“Pope” Montini had cited the Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, as providing the impetus for his revision butchering of the Roman rite of Mass. And fittingly it was during deliberations over that document that Cardinal Ottaviani was in the midst of heated exchanges that ultimately led to the highly symbolic moment at the Council when this great voice of Tradition was literally silenced. A review of The Liturgical Movement by Fr. Didier Bonneterre notes:

During the first session of the Second Vatican Council, in the debate on the Liturgy Constitution, Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani asked: “Are these Fathers planning a revolution?” The Cardinal was old and partly blind. He spoke from the heart without a text about a subject which moved him deeply, and continued:

Are we seeking to stir up wonder, or perhaps scandal among the Christian people, by introducing changes in so venerable a rite, that has been approved for so many centuries and is now so familiar? The rite of Holy Mass should not be treated as if it were a piece of cloth to be refashioned according to the whim of each generation.

So concerned was he at the revolutionary potential of the Constitution, and having no prepared text, the elderly Cardinal exceeded the ten-minute time limit for speeches. At a signal from Cardinal Alfrink, who was presiding at the session, a technician switched off the microphone, and Cardinal Ottaviani stumbled back to his seat in humiliation.

The Council Fathers clapped with glee, and the journalists to whose dictatorship Father Louis Bouyer claimed the Council had surrendered itself, were even more gleeful when they wrote their reports that night and when they wrote their books at the end of the session…

(Michael Davies, “The Liturgical Movement”The Remnant, n.d.)

Paul VI knew very well what detrimental effects this “New Mass” would have upon the people. During the last General Audience before its universal use became mandatory, “Pope” Montini prophesied:

We may notice that pious persons will be the ones most disturbed, because, having their respectable way of listening to Mass, they will feel distracted from their customary thoughts and forced to follow those of others.

Not Latin, but the spoken language, will be the main language of the Mass. To those who know the beauty, the power, the expressive sacrality of Latin, its replacement by the vulgar language is a great sacrifice: we lose the discourse of the Christian centuries, we become almost intruders and desecrators [intrusi e profani] in the literary space of sacred expression, and we will thus lose a great portion of that stupendous and incomparable artistic and spiritual fact that is the Gregorian Chant. We will thus have, indeed, reason for being sad, and almost for feeling lost: with what will we replace this angelic language? It is a sacrifice of inestimable price.

(Paul VI, General Audience, Nov. 26, 1969. English translation taken from “40 years of Missale Romanum and the new Roman Rite – II: a Requiem, by Paul VI”Rorate Caeli, Nov. 29, 2009; underlining added.)

More than anything else in the post-conciliar epoch, it was Paul VI’s Novus Ordo Missae that catapulted the new religion of Vatican II into the souls of unsuspecting Catholics throughout the world. Montini was a spiritual terrorist of the worst possible sort.

How Missale Romanum Aided the Devil’s War against the Mass

In the March-April 1993 issue of the sedevacantist journal Catholic Restoration, there appeared an article entitled “The Bugnini File: A Study in Ecclesial Subversion” by John Kenneth Weiskittel. The theme of the article was to examine accusations that “Archbishop” Annibale Bugnini, who had presided over the fateful “reform” of the liturgy, had been a Freemason whose goal was to de-Catholicize the worship of the Church. While it’s not been proven beyond doubt that he was a Lodge brother, circumstantial evidence points strongly in that direction. The recent biography Annibale Bugnini: Reformer of the Liturgy by Yves Chiron devotes a few pages to this question (pp. 171-175) but does not reach a definitive conclusion either way.

Certainly, the effects of the Novus Ordo rite on souls could not have been any more deleterious if the rite had been concocted by a Freemason. Bugnini, the architect of the post-conciliar liturgy, was in truth what many called him, namely, the “gravedigger of the Mass” and the “evil spirit of the liturgical reform”. (And, may we suggest, he would make an excellent addition to the rogue’s gallery of Novus Ordo Modernist “saints” who best exemplify the “ideals” of Vatican II.)

Bugnini was Paul VI’s Secretary of the Council for the Implementation of the Constitution on the Liturgy, and would be appointed Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship in May of 1969. Mr. Weiskittel, in a section aptly titled “The War Against the Mass”, shows how the new liturgy of Montini and Bugnini worked to the advantage of occult forces bent on the Church’s destruction:

“Justly,” writes Saint Alphonsus de Liguori, “has St. Bonaventure called the Mass a compendium of all God’s love and of all his benefits to men. Hence the devil has always sought to deprive the world of the Mass by means of heretics, constituting them precursors of Antichrist, whose first efforts shall be to abolish the holy sacrifice of the altar, and according to the prophet Daniel, in punishment of the sins of men, his efforts shall be successful: And strength was given him against the continual sacrifice because of sins” [Dan 8:12].

For many Catholics the prophecy of Daniel was fulfilled in 1969, when Paul VI promulgated the publication of a “new order of the Mass.” There can be no question that with the introduction of the new “Mass” the Conciliar revolution shifted into a higher gear. All of the errors of the Council now more quickly became apparent and spread with greater ease; the Novus Ordo Missae constituting their very embodiment. Whereas the [traditional] Latin Mass is a sacramental action aimed at giving glory to God, the object of the new “Mass” is a social action centered around the congregation.

The Latin Mass is one thing, and one thing only, the perfect mode of divine worship. For the “reformers,” however, this was precisely the problem with it. Oh, they pushed the idea that the Mass had to be made more “relevant” and “understandable” to the man in the pew, and that a “return to ancient liturgical forms” was the way to accomplish this. But, in truth, there was only one real reason for eliminating the Tridentine Mass: Its continued survival constituted a major obstacle to the imposition of a new belief system on Catholics; hence, it had to go. Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy summed this up well, when he wrote:

One final problem remained. The Reformers feared that “nothing would come out of the Council.” Even though they had managed to insert into the “official” Documents of the Council their false ideas, they knew that this alone was insufficient…. Change would occur far too slowly for the impatient innovators. The greater majority of the faithful had never asked for the Council (the Curia had opposed it also), and were perfectly content with the way the Church had always been. Even John XXIII had acknowledged and praised it as being “vibrant with vitality.” For most people things would have gone on much as before. It was absolutely necessary to introduce into the fabric of the everyday life of the Christian, all these new ideas, the “new economy of the Gospel.” How then to achieve this? The answer was obvious. One had to “reform” the Liturgy. [Rama P. Coomaraswamy, The Destruction of the Christian Tradition(London: Perennial Books, 1981), p. 137.]

This is in line with the apostate [priest and occultist Paul] Roca’s thinking, who, along with calling for “the scientific, economic, and social transfiguration of our … sacraments,” writes [in his book Glorious Centennial]:

As long as Christian ideas remained in a state of sacramental incubation, in our hands and under the veil of liturgy, they were unable to exert any efficacious and scientifically decisive social effect upon the organic and public government of human societies. [Quoted in Fr. Joaquin Saenz y Arriaga, The New Montinian Church, p. 191]

The new “Mass,” likewise, would need to reflect the “ecumenical,” “humanistic,” “universalist,” “socially relevant” activism of the Conciliar Church — abominations like the civil rights “Mass,” the farm workers’ “Mass,” the Marxist “Mass,” the feminist “Mass,” the homosexual “Mass,” which removed the focus from God to “special interest groups” [that] required a fitting service for their “social gospel” messages. And they got just that with the “reformed” rite. While these are extreme manifestations, to be sure, they are accepted extremes in the Conciliar religion and serve to underscore the doctrinal gulf that separates the true Catholic faith from the new “Catholic” faith.

(John K. Weiskittel, “The Bugnini File: A Study in Ecclesial Subversion”; italics added and some formatting adjusted.)

Theory aside, the last 50 years are proof positive of the destructive nature of the Novus Ordo Missae, for, with very few exceptions, the generations raised with that liturgy have no concept whatsoever of the true Roman Catholic religion.

The apostate priest Paul Roca [1830-1893], quoted above, also had a rather remarkable prediction to make, one that must have seemed absurd in the 19th century but which, in the 21st, is basically just a recap of historical fact:

[T]he divine cult in the form directed by the liturgy, ceremonial, ritual and regulations of the Roman Church will shortly undergo a transformation at an Ecumenical Council, which will restore it to the veritable simplicity of the golden age of the Apostles in accordance with the dictates of conscience and modern civilization.

(Paul Roca, qtd. in Bp. Rudolf Graber, Athanasius and the Church of Our Time, trans. by Susan Johnson [Gerrards Cross: Van Duren C. P., Ltd., 1974], p. 35)

What are we to make of Roca’s prescient vision of the Church being radically transformed by a council in the not-too-distant future? It could be just idle boasting, or it could be something more sinister. Did he have insider knowledge of what the secret societies were planning against the Church? In any case, we notice the striking similarities between Roca’s prophecy and Paul VI’s fulfillment:

  • Roca: Liturgy to be transformed at an Ecumenical Council
    Vatican II: Sacrosanctum Concilium calls for a revision of the liturgy
  • Roca: Said change will “restore it to the veritable simplicity of the golden age of the Apostles in accordance with the dictates of conscience and modern civilization.”
    Paul VI in Missale Romanum: The revision is based on “ancient sources”, the “doctrinal and spiritual riches” of which must be brought to light in order to adapt “the Roman Missal to the contemporary mentality”

How appropriate for Montini to choose “Paul” — Roca’s first name — as his “papal” name!

Francis Speaks Out in Favor of Missale Romanum and against “Nostalgic Past Tendencies”

The usually loquacious Jorge Bergoglio (“Pope Francis”) somehow managed not to bring up the topic of his predecessor’s paradigm-smashing document this April 3, though he had already brought it up earlier in the year. Speaking to the Plenary Assembly of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments in the Vatican on February 14, 2019, in typical fashion he made some Catholic-sounding noises, only to abruptly take a hard left turn in his discourse: “We must rediscover the reality of the sacred liturgy, and not reduce it”, he declared; but by no means was he making an appeal to restore the traditional Latin Mass to its rightful place in once-Catholic churches.

On the contrary — after all, this is Francis we’re talking about. The Vatican II “liturgical renewal”, he told those gathered, was greatly furthered in 1969 by the actions of Montini:

In the first months of that year the first fruits of the reform accomplished by the Apostolic See flourished for the benefit of the People of God. On precisely this date the Motu proprio Mysterii paschalis was promulgated regarding the Roman calendar and the liturgical year (14 February 1969); then, the important Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum (3 April 1969), with which the Holy Pope [sic] promulgated the Roman Missal. In the same year the Ordo Missae and various other Ordo were issued….

(Francis, Address to Plenary Meeting of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the SacramentsZenit, Feb. 14, 2019; italics given.)

The entire address provides many insights into Bergoglio’s mindset, which shows a determined revolutionary bent, as reflected in the following passage, where he contrasts the “irreversible” revised liturgy of Paul VI with what went before:

The liturgy is not “the field of do-it-yourself”, but the epiphany of ecclesial communion. Therefore, “we”, and not “I”, resounds in prayers and gestures; the real community, not the ideal subject. When we look back to nostalgic past tendencies or wish to impose them again, there is the risk of placing the part before the whole, the “I” before the People of God, the abstract before the concrete, ideology before communion and, fundamentally, the worldly before the spiritual.

In this sense, the title of your assembly is valuable: The liturgical formation of the People of God. The task that awaits us is indeed essentially that of spreading among the People of God the splendour of the living mystery of the Lord, Who makes Himself manifest in the liturgy.

(italics given)

Just beneath the surface of his words we can see the conflict between the worship services of two opposing religious belief systems: Catholic vs. Novus Ordo. Francis condemns the Catholic conception of the liturgy every step of the way:

  • Stressing the “we” over the “I” is coded language for saying that the priest has no unique role as the alter Christus (“another Christ”), the one who offers the Mass in the person of Christ Himself; now it’s all about a community offering “praise and thanksgiving” (but not the sin-atoning Sacrifice of Calvary)
  • He restates the same when he condemns those “placing the part before the whole, the ‘I’ before the ‘People of God’”, and this criticism is also directed against whom Paul VI referred to as “pious persons … having their respectable way of listening to Mass, [who] will [now] feel distracted from their customary thoughts and forced to follow those of others” (that is, their interior prayers are now interrupted by the humanistic spectacle of the “People of God”, including an often even irreverent “presider” who acts more as entertainer or assembly leader than as sacrificing priest)
  • Bergoglio’s warning against putting “the abstract before the concrete” may be an unspoken denial of the doctrines of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence, which he possibly regards as abstract and unreal, not to mention unimportant, especially when the concrete — community — is to be preferred
  • His criticism of putting “ideology before communion and, fundamentally, the worldly before the spiritual” is absurd: The traditional Latin Mass is worldly and ideological?Really? This is yet another astounding Bergoglian black is white, white is black inversion of truth. If anything, it is the “New Mass” that is worldly, first of all because of its invalidity, but also because of its focus moved away from God and onto the congregation, and the systemic and ubiquitous liturgical “abuses” that are always focused away from the Divine, including a pastor riding a bull down the center aisle of a church, a tango in the “sanctuary” before the watchful gaze of Bergoglio, the utter chaos of “Cardinal” Christoph Schonborn’s youth liturgies, a monstrance delivered by drone, and a Super-Soaker water pistol used for sprinkling the people with holy water, and untold other liturgical and spiritual abominations, all of which can be excused by the rubric of “mak[ing] the liturgy relevant to the modern mind”, so fundamental to Montini’s justification for the changes
  • And of course one would be hard-pressed to find a bigger ideologue than Bergoglio, who reads his political and Naturalist ideology into just about every Scripture passage he preaches on; and his one-foot-in/one-foot-out-of-the-closet Marxism is by definition materialist and mundane

So, as comes as no surprise, Francis’ presentation is quite congruent with the raison d’être of the Pauline “Mass”. Fifty years later, Missale Romanum is still a foundation stone to the whole rotten Novus Ordo superstructure.

Rejecting the Conciliar Church Means First Rejecting the New “Mass”

As shown above, the Novus Ordo Missae is the most crucial “reform” of the Modernists, because by its very nature it first compromises and then utterly destroys the Faith of those who attend it. In 2002, a Patrick Buchanan column entitled “An Index of Catholicism’s Decline” included the following statistic: “By one New York Times poll, 70 percent of all Catholics in the age group 18 to 44 believe the Eucharist is merely a ‘symbolic reminder’ of Jesus.”

There is a bit of an error there, for it should read, “70 percent of all Novus Ordos”. This is the grim legacy of the Montini-Bugnini liturgy: a dissolving of even the most rudimentary Catholic beliefs. An amusing irony, however, must not escape us: In the case of Paul VI’s invalid New Mass and its equally invalid “priests”, those 70% of people who do not believe in the Real Presence happen to be unintentionally correct, for in their “Mass”, Christ is truly not present!

But some much-needed levity aside, the unhappy anniversary of the promulgation of the Novus Ordo liturgy is one to be bemoaned, not celebrated. The “New Mass” is a destroyer of souls. We must work tirelessly to bring benighted people into the light, so that they may see that it is not Catholic, is not a Mass, does not please God, and is frightfully harmful to souls.

By the way, an anagram of Novus Ordo Missae is, “a dubious norm S.O.S.”.

How very appropriate.

The Schizophrenic Church Of Recognize & Resist

The Schizophrenic Church Of R & R

All Traditionalists believe what has been defined and taught by the Church. One of the most basic and ancient expressions of the Faith is the Nicene Creed, composed in part and adopted at the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea (325 A.D.) and revised with additions by the First Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (381 A.D.). Recited at the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the Church proclaims, “Et unam sanctam catholicam et apostolicam Ecclesiam.” (I believe) in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.” Do the “recognize and resisters” (R&R) of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), or Bishop Richard Williamson’s St. Marcel Initiative, or their apologists (John Salza, Robert Siscoe, The Remnant, etc.) really believe it?

Of course they profess it, and would (correctly) state that the denial of such is heresy. However, upon closer inspection, their refusal to acknowledge sedevacantism has lead to a de facto ecclesiology (teaching on the nature of the Church) which denies the unity of the Church. They believe in a Schizophrenic “Church” whereby there are two distinct–and even contradictory– modes of belief and worship, yet they remain mysteriously unified. Don’t believe me? Let’s examine what the R&R camp says and see if it squares with authentic Church teaching.

The Church Teaching On Unity
 According to theologian Van Noort, “[The Church] enjoys a three-fold unity…unity of doctrine and profession, unity of communion, and unity of government.” (See Dogmatic Theology [1956] 2:126; Emphasis in original).
1. Doctrine and Profession of Faith
“The unity of Faith which Christ decreed without qualification consists in this, that everyone accepts the doctrines presented for belief by the Church’s teaching office.” (Ibid:127; Emphasis in original). Furthermore, “Christ demanded faith not just in some doctrines, but in all those doctrines which authority set up by Him should teach. Consequently, any distinction between fundamental and non-fundamental articles of belief is contrary to the mind and will of Christ…Furthermore…it is impossible to determine a sure standard for distinguishing fundamental from non-fundamental articles” (Ibid:128).
2. Communion
“Christ willed that His Church enjoy unity of communion or of (social) charity which consists in this, that all members of the Church, whether as individuals or as particular groups, mutually cohere like the finely articulated parts of one moral body, one family, one single society. It follows from this that they all share the same common benefits: sacrifice [Mass], sacraments, intercession.” (Ibid:128)
3. Government
“Christ willed that His Church enjoy unity of rule (hierarchical unity) which consists in this, that all members of the Church obey one and the same visible authority.” (Ibid:130)
Anticipating the objections of  the R&R (as well as Vatican II apologists), who will claim that the Mark of Unity as expressed by the Church does not apply to the sedevacantists because (1) we have different groups (SSPV, CMRI, etc.) and (2) we don’t have a visible authority to follow, a couple of responses are in order.
In a prolonged state of sedevacante, you would expect that novel theological questions would cause rifts. Nevertheless, we profess the Integral Catholic Faith. As Van Noort teaches, “[During the Great Western Schism]…hierarchical unity was onlymaterially, not formally, interrupted.  Although Catholics were split three ways in their allegiance because of the doubt as to which of the [papal] contenders had been legitimately elected, still all were agreed in believing that allegiance was owed to one legitimate successor of Peter, and they stood willing to give that allegiance.” (Ibid:131; First Emphasis in original, second emphasis mine)
According to canonist Wernz-Vidal, “… [the] visibility of the Church consists in the fact that She possesses such signs and identifying marks that, when moral diligence is used, she can be recognized and discerned…” (See Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, pg. 454; Emphasis mine). The Church does not, strictly speaking, need an actual living pope to be a visible society, the Mystical Body of Christ.
R&R Ecclesiology
1. There exists “Eternal Rome” and “Modernist Rome,” of which the pope is the head of both. When he speaks for Eternal Rome, you obey. When he speaks for Modernist Rome, you resist.
The Society is fond of quoting from a statement of Archbishop Lefebvre, which seems the starting point for their schizophrenic “Church:”

“We adhere, with all our heart, with all our soul to Catholic Rome, guardian of the Catholic Faith and of the traditions necessary for the preservation of that faith, to Eternal Rome, teacher of wisdom and truth. On the other hand we refuse and have always refused to follow the Rome of the neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendency that clearly manifested itself in the Second Vatican Council and after the Council in all the reforms that resulted from it.”

They put this into practice with disastrous results.

From “Frequently Asked Questions About The SSPX” (“FAQ”)
 (available online at http://archives.sspx.org/sspxfaqs.htm):
“We are not to co-operate blindly in the destruction of the Church by tolerating the implementation of a new religion or by not doing what we can to defend the Catholic faith. Archbishop Lefebvre was surely our model here: No authority, not even the highest in the hierarchy, can compel us to abandon or to diminish our Catholic Faith, so clearly expressed and professed by the Church’s Magisterium for 19 centuries.”

How can a true pope “implement a new religion”? It’s one thing to say that a pope is not without sin and can do morally evil acts. This is true and in this he is to be resisted (e.g., the pope asks someone to “murder one of my enemies for me”). However, it is a dogma that the Church is Indefectible, i.e., She cannot give that which is false or evil to Her members, such as imposing a “new religion.”

Therefore, the pope cannot give that which is evil or erroneous to the whole Church. According to theologian Herrmann:

“The Church is infallible in her general discipline. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments… If She [the Church] were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in Her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, She would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible.”
(Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae, Vol. 1, p. 258)

Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, Para. #9:

“[T]he discipline sanctioned by the Church must never be rejected or be branded as contrary to certain principles of natural law. It must never be called crippled, or imperfect or subject to civil authority. In this discipline the administration of sacred rites, standards of morality, and the reckoning of the rights of the Church and her ministers are embraced.”

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, Para. #66

“Certainly the loving Mother [the Church] is spotless in the Sacraments, by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed on all; in the evangelical counsels which she recommends; in those heavenly gifts and extraordinary graces through which, with inexhaustible fecundity, she generates hosts of martyrs, virgins and confessors.”

Yet the SSPX and the other R&R recognize Bergoglio, a man they claim is “implementing a new religion” (along with the other post-Vatican II “popes” before him), can be pope over both Modernist Rome (new religion) and Eternal Rome (true religion) simultaneously. Moreover, the true and the false religion seem to “subsist” together in the same overarching “Church” (sound familiar?).

2. The Eternal Rome Can Refuse to Have Communion with Modernist Rome
The SSPX: “Now, the Novus Ordo Missae [New “mass”] assumes these heterodox elements alongside the Catholic ones to form a liturgy for a modernist religion which would marry the Church and the world, Catholicism and Protestantism, light and darkness…If the Novus Ordo Missae is not truly Catholic, then it cannot oblige for one’s Sunday obligation. Many Catholics who do assist at it are unaware of its all pervasive degree of serious innovation and are exempt from guilt. However, any Catholic who is aware of its harm, does not have the right to participate. He could only then assist at it by a mere physical presence without positively taking part in it, and then and for major family reasons (weddings, funerals, etc).” (See FAQ cited above).

According to theologian Szal, to be schismatic, one must meet four requirements:

  • one must withdraw directly (expressly) or indirectly (by means of one’s actions) from obediance to the Roman Pontiff and separate oneself from ecclesiastical communion with the rest of the faithful, even though one does not join a separate schismatic sect
  • one’s withdrawal must be made with obstinacy and rebellion
  • the withdrawal must be made in relation to such things by which the unity of the Church is constituted
  • despite this formal disobedience the schismatic must recognize the Roman Pontiff as the true pastor of the Church, and he must profess as an article of faith that obedience is due the Roman Pontiff

(See The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, [1948], pg. 2)

The Church is thereby in schism with itself. The SSPX is part of Eternal Rome with Bergoglio as “pope” and yet they cannot participate in public worship with Modernist Rome which also has Bergoglio as “pope” because their “mass” is Modernist and evil. The idea of an evil “mass” given by a real pope would contradict the dogma of Indefectibility as stated above, and in this case, they are refusing communion in worship with members alleged to be Catholic, just as they are. Eternal Rome and Modernist Rome form the same Church, but somehow have different religions and can’t have unity in communion with each other.
3. The Magisterium of Modernist Rome Needs to be Corrected by Eternal Rome 
The teaching authority of BOTH Eternal Rome and Modernist Rome resides in Bergoglio. However, if Bergoglio (or his “bishops”) make a decision regarding, e.g. annulments and canonizations, the members of Eternal Rome (SSPX) must “correct” his teaching authority.
 A Fr. Gleize,  professor of ecclesiology at the SSPX seminary in Econe,  has written an article “Santo Subito: Is There a Problem?” in which he attempts to prove that we can decide which canonizations to accept and which to reject.  Fr. Gleize readily admits that canonizations are held to be infallible:
“Canonization is the act by which the Vicar of Christ, judging in ultimate instance and emitting a definitive sentence, inscribes in the catalogue of the saints a servant of God previously beatified. Canonization has a triple finality and does not refer only to the worship. In first instance, the pope declares that the faithful deceased is in the celestial glory; secondly, he expresses that the faithful deceased deserved to reach this glory for having practiced heroic virtues, which set an example for the whole Church; thirdly, so as to offer more easily these virtues as an example and to thank God for having cause it, he prescribes that the faithful deceased should receive a public cult. On these three scores the canonization is a precept and obliges the entire Church, and it constitutes a definitive and irreformable act.”
Father claims…”it is clear that, by itself, the procedure does not have the rigor of the older one. It is much less exigent in matters of guarantees from Churchmen, so that the divine assistance may insure the infallibility of the canonization, and, with greater reason, the absence of error of fact in the beatification. Besides, Pope John Paul II decided not to follow the present procedure (which disposes that the beginning of the beatification process not take place before five years after the death of the candidate), by authorizing the introduction of the cause of Mother Teresa of Calcutta three years after her passing away. Benedict XVI did the same regarding the beatification of his predecessor. The doubt becomes much more legitimate when one considers the reasons the Church has to act cautiously in these matters.”
He asserts that we are justified to doubt canonizations if a certain procedure is not carried out. However, the Divine assistance of infallibility has never been held by the Church to be dependent upon following a certain preliminary set of actions. He gives no citation for this novel idea. The process of canonization has taken different forms through the centuries, but all that is needed for the declaration to be infallible (according to the First Vatican Council and the teaching of the theologians) is that the pope intends to define a matter of Faith and/or morals as Supreme Teacher of the Church, and he intends to bind the faithful. Decrees of canonization meet this requirement. To assert that canonizations may not be infallible due to some procedural misstep is to admit the possibility that the “saint” might actually be a damned soul held up to be emulated and venerated. That would mean the Church can give evil to its members, which is impossible.
Conclusion
R&R ecclesiology results in a schizophrenic “church,” with two separate faiths lead by the same “pope” in which you must decide for yourself what is good and bad, true and false. Bergoglio’s Vatican II ecclesiology just adds to the confusion by “giving jurisdiction” for SSPX priests to hear confessions and perform marriages for members of his sect. They’re in “partial communion,” after all. The SSPX bishops are also in some strange state with Bergoglio; neither excommunicated, yet without Sees or ordinary jurisdiction.
All of this cannot be reconciled with authentic Church teaching. How much longer before the SSPX seeks to go into “full communion” with Bergoglio, and end the self-created “church within a church”? How much longer can we assume good faith on the part of R&R clerics and their apologists before we can no longer look upon them as Catholics? The only way out is sedevacantism. Being a true Traditionalist means being in the ONE True Church, not some divided concoction that gives both good and evil with clerics speaking out of both sides of their mouths.
○○○
introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com

Lažna crkva koja oponaša Katoličku Crkvu

Upozorili smo:

Otac E. Sylvester Berry o progonu Crkve u posljednjim danima (2. dio)

Lažna crkva koja oponaša pravu Crkvu

Strašne su nevolje koje je trebala izdržati Sveta Majka Crkva od smrti pape Pija XII.  Predviđene su i prorokovane u katoličkoj tradiciji, na ovaj ili onaj način. U prvom dijelu ove serije postova, pogledali smo objašnjenje 12. poglavlja Apokalipse E. Sylvestera Berryja i kako je to proročanstvo o sotoninom progonu papinstva. U ovom trenutnom postu pogledat ćemo što je isti Fr. Berry rekao u vezi s đavlovim pokušajem da obmani izabrane s pomoću lažne crkve.

Profesor apologetike na bogosloviji Svete Marije u Marylandu, fr. Berry je napisao apologetsku i dogmatsku raspravu o katoličkoj ekleziologiji, grani teologije koja se bavi Crkvom. Knjiga nosi naslov Kristova crkva i prvi put je objavljena 1927. godine.

Obraćajući se na temu lažnih čuda za koje je naš blaženi Gospodin upozorio da će Sotona činiti (vidi Mt 24,24), fr. Berry je istaknuo da će ti lažni znakovi i lažna čuda potjecati od đavla koji će stvoriti lažnu crkvu koja će se prerušavati u Katoličku Crkvu i oponašati je, ali zapravo je ona djelo zloga.

Proročanstva Apokalipse [knjiga Otkrivenja] pokazuju da će Sotona oponašati Kristovu Crkvu kako bi prevario čovječanstvo; on će postaviti crkvu Sotone u suprotnosti s Kristovom Crkvom. Antikrist će preuzeti ulogu Mesije; njegov će prorok djelovati kao papa; i zavladat će imitacija sakramenata Crkve.

(Rev. E. Sylvester Berry,  Crkva Kristova: Apologetska i dogmatska rasprava  [St. Louis, MO: B. Herder Book Co., 1927], str. 119;

Da bismo dokazali da je ovaj citat autentičan, pružamo skeniranje stvarne stranice:

Godine 1955. Berryjeva je knjiga ponovno objavljena, ali koristeći drugačiji slog, što je rezultiralo značajnom promjenom u numeriranju stranica. Izdanje iz 1955. jedino je u tisku i može se naručiti ovdje:

Budući da je tekst ponovno sastavljen za novo izdanje, gornji citat nije pronađen na istoj stranici: citat pronađen na str. 119 od izdanja iz 1927. nalazi se na str. 65-66 u izdanju iz 1955. godine.

U svjetlu onoga što se dogodilo Katoličkoj Crkvi od smrti pape Pija XII., ovo proročanstvo lažne crkve, lažnog pape i lažnih sakramenta poprima sve veći značaj. Nema sumnje u to: svjedočimo ispunjenju proročanstva.

To bi nas sve trebalo ispuniti nadom i utjehom, podsjećajući da je sve što je Majka Crkva pretrpjela u ovoj svojoj najvećoj kušnji, u potpunosti unutar Božanskog Plana i na kraju značilo da nam pomogne u našem posvećenju.

“Kazao sam vam to sada, prije nego li se dogodi, da vjerujete kad se dogodi.” (Iv 14,29).

Vidi također:

¿Quis ut Deus? Veritas Vincit

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

¿Quis ut Deus? Stat Veritas

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Traditional Catholic Education

A Traditional Catholic(Sedevacantist) Site.

Call Me Jorge...

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

AMOR DE LA VERDAD

que preserva de las seducciones del error” (II Tesal. II-10).

Ecclesia Militans

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

St. Gertrude the Great

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Speray's Catholicism in a Nutshell

Apologia for Sedevacantism and Catholic Doctrine

SCATURREX

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

St. Anthony of Padua - Hammer of Heretics

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Introibo Ad Altare Dei

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

: Quidlibet :

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

TraditionalMass.org Articles

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

TRADITIO.COM: The Traditional Roman Catholic Network

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

True Restoration

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Homunizam

homoseksualizacija društva - politička korektnost - totalitarizam - za roditelje: prevencija homoseksualnosti - svjedočanstva izlaska iz homoseksualnosti

¿Quis ut Deus? Veritas Vincit

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

¿Quis ut Deus? Stat Veritas

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Traditional Catholic Education

A Traditional Catholic(Sedevacantist) Site.

Call Me Jorge...

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

AMOR DE LA VERDAD

que preserva de las seducciones del error” (II Tesal. II-10).

Ecclesia Militans

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

St. Gertrude the Great

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Speray's Catholicism in a Nutshell

Apologia for Sedevacantism and Catholic Doctrine

SCATURREX

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

St. Anthony of Padua - Hammer of Heretics

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Introibo Ad Altare Dei

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

: Quidlibet :

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

TraditionalMass.org Articles

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

TRADITIO.COM: The Traditional Roman Catholic Network

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

True Restoration

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Homunizam

homoseksualizacija društva - politička korektnost - totalitarizam - za roditelje: prevencija homoseksualnosti - svjedočanstva izlaska iz homoseksualnosti

%d bloggers like this: