Procinctu Press | THE BLOG

Ecclesiastical Materialism

Original Post on In Veritate by Bishop Sanborn

Ecclesiastical Materialism

Introduction.

From the title, one might expect that I would be writing about avarice among the clergy. I am not addressing that at all, however.

Recently I received from an old friend, who is a Novus Ordo conservative, a note in which he invited me to come back “to Rome — and the true Church — outside of which there is no salvation.”

His invitation, although made with all good intentions, nevertheless prompted me to write this response. What he means is that I should give up my repudiation of Vatican II and its subsequent reforms, submit to the local bishop, and be somehow “regularized” within the structures of the Novus Ordo.

First response.

My first response is the following. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that there is one true Church of Christ, and only one, which is the Roman Catholic Church. The Novus Ordo teaches that the Church of Christ merely “subsists in” the Catholic Church. (Lumen Gentium) The Roman Catholic Church teaches that outside of the Roman Catholic Church there is no salvation. The Novus Ordo teaches that outside the Roman Catholic Church there is salvation, namely that non-Catholic religions are means of salvation. (Decree on EcumenismCatechesi Tradendæ of John Paul II) The Roman Catholic Church condemns religious liberty. The Novus Ordo teaches religious liberty. (Decree on Religious Liberty) The Roman Catholic Church condemns the idea that the college of bishops has supreme jurisdiction over the whole Church. The Novus Ordo teaches this condemned doctrine, known as collegiality. (Lumen Gentium) The Roman Catholic Church condemns adultery and fornication in all cases. The Novus Ordo teaches that these are morally acceptable in certain cases. (Amoris Lætitia) The Roman Catholic Church condemns as a mortal sin of sacrilege the giving the Holy Eucharist to non- Catholics. The Novus Ordo approves of it. (1983 Code of Canon Law) The Roman Catholic Church condemns the use of birth control devices as mortally sinful and intrinsically evil. The Novus Ordo permits birth control devices for prostitutes. (Ratzinger“Benedict XVI,” in a published interview)

What I have responded above is only a smattering of the myriad dogmatic, moral, liturgical, and disciplinary contradictions between the Roman Catholic Church and what we call the Novus Ordo. We could provide the endless list of heresies and blasphemies of Bergoglio. But these things are well known.

The four marks of the Church.

I will add to this first response the four marks of the Church.  (1) The Roman Catholic Church is one in faith, that is, in order to be Catholic all must profess the same dogmatic and moral teachings which are taught by the Roman Catholic Church. The Novus Ordo has no unity of faith, and as we have seen, has no continuity with the Catholic past in any of the essential aspects of the Church’s unity. (2) The Roman Catholic Church is catholic, that is, universal, since it preaches a single doctrine to the whole world. Since the Novus Ordo lacks unity in doctrine, and lacks continuity with the Church’s past in matters of doctrine, it cannot have the mark of catholicity. For catholicity presupposes unity. (3) The Roman Catholic Church is holy. The Novus Ordo is unholy, because it condones evil disciplines, preaches condemned doctrines and heresies, leads people into error and sin, and promotes the evil New Mass, promotes abominable ecumenical acts with non-Catholic religions, and condones sacrilegious liturgical practices. (4) The Roman Catholic Church is apostolic. The Novus Ordo has abandoned apostolic doctrine and discipline, and teaches and does what is contrary to this sacred apostolic deposit.

Come back to what?

My friend’s invitation makes it sound as if the Catholic religion is intact in the institutions he wants me to embrace. It is as if it is the year 1950, and that I have wandered off into schism because of my pride. If this were true, I would return immediately. But there is an elephant in the room. The elephant is this: The Novus Ordo is innovation, is heresy, is alien to the religion revealed by God and taught by the Roman Catholic Church. It is as much a break with the past as the heresy of Martin Luther was. What is different, however, between Martin Luther and the Novus Ordo? There is this significant difference: Martin Luther was excommunicated and subsequently founded his own churchThe Novus Ordites have never been excommunicated, and have never founded their own church. This difference is the key to understanding the present problems in the Catholic Church.

Ecclesiastical materialism.

Now I will explain ecclesiastical materialism. The Roman Catholic Church has a visible aspect and an invisible aspect. What is visible is the external profession of faith, the administration of the sacraments, and the visible government. What is invisible is the grace and assistance of the Holy Ghost which infuses the virtues of faith, hope, and charity, the authority to govern, and the indelible character on the soul in Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders. The Holy Ghost, furthermore, assists the Church by an invisible influence in its promulgation of doctrine, morals, liturgy, and discipline, in such a way that these things are free from error. It is this invisible assistance which guarantees the infallibility and indefectibility of the Church.

All of these qualities are invisible, but are nonetheless what make the Catholic Church the one, true Church of Jesus Christ, outside of which there is no salvation. These invisible qualities have made the Catholic Church for two thousand years the unchanging, permanent, always consistent and coherent institution of divine truth in a sinful, ignorant, and ever-fluctuating  world.

Even the administration of the sacraments has an external and internal aspect. The external aspect is the visible rite itself. The internal aspect is the validity of the sacrament, whereby it confers the grace it signifies. It is therefore possible that the external rite be observed and administered, even though, through some internal and invisible defect, the sacrament is not valid.

In our discussion here, we are saying that what is left of the authority of the Church in the Novus Ordo is merely the material or visible aspect of authority, that is, persons designated to receive authority. What is lacking to them is the divine authority, and the  divine assistance which necessarily accompanies it.

Body and soul.

Just as the soul is the life of the body, so it is authority which gives life, so to speak, to the person who is designated to be pope or bishop. It is to say that a mere election or appointment is not sufficient. The authority must come to him from Christ, the Invisible Head of the Church, in order that he be a true pope or a true bishop. This authority is transferred only on condition that the designated person have the intention of promoting the objective and proper ends of the institution over which he is placed. It  is for this reason that the president-elect of the United States does not obtain power in November when he is merely elected, but in January when he is inaugurated, and only on condition of swearing to uphold the Constitution of the United States. He must swear that he intends to lead the country to its objective and proper ends. Were he to fail to so swear, he  would fail to obtain the power, and would remain a president-elect, a president only materially, until such time as the Congress removed the election from him.

What has happened to the Church since 1958.

What we are facing in the Novus Ordo is this: Modernists, by remaining secretive for decades, managed to obtain by the normal and legal process of appointment and designation, a position in the Church to which authority is normally connected. So John XXIII was elected pope in 1958. By a defect, however, the authority,  which is invisible and which is given by Christ the Head of the Church, was never transferred to John XXIII and his successors. What  was this defect? It is that they intended to pervert the Church, and to lead it in a direction contrary to its nature and purpose given to it by God. In a word, they wanted to transform the structures and institutions of the Roman Catholic Church into a huge vehicle of their  Modernism. This evil intention is what has blocked the flow of authority from Christ into them. Without this authority they remain non-popes, false popes. The bishops who have embraced this perversion of Catholicism are also false bishops for the same reason.

That the authority of Christ and the assistance of the Holy Ghost are lacking can be seen from the Hiroshima effect of Vatican II. The Novus Ordo religion — essentially Modernism — has wrecked all of the institutions of the Catholic Church. What is left is only a lifeless shell of these institutions. There are the same physical buildings. There are the same institutions of government. There is still a functioning Vatican. There is still a diocesan bishop. There is still a chancery. There are pastors appointed. There are functioning parishes. There are rectors of seminaries, the few that are left.

What we are seeing here, however, is merely a carcass of the Church’s authority. It is something like a dead whale which has washed up on the shore. These institutions, both the buildings and the government, constitute, from a purely material and visible point a view, a continuity with the past. Internally and invisibly, however, they are full of doctrinal, moral, liturgical, and disciplinary corruption. The stench of death rises from them, that is, the stench of heresy and all of its effects. Everything is infected with gangrene: the Mass, the rites of the sacraments, the catechism, doctrine, morals, attitudes. We see the effects of this infection, as well, in the emptying of the seminaries, convents and religious houses of all kinds, in the breathtaking decline of religious belief and practice, especially among the young, in the nauseating and disgusting conduct of the clergy, even to the point of sodomitic orgies in the Vatican, enhanced with both drugs and liquor, which recently took place, and was reported in the major newspapers, e.g., the London Times.

The Novus Ordo popes, consequently, are mere “cadavers” of real popes, inasmuch as they sit in the chair of Peter, wear the uniform of a pope, but have no power from Christ to teach, rule and sanctify in His name.

My second response.

My second response, therefore, is that the Novus Ordo conservatives are ecclesiastical materialists. They can see only the continuity of lifeless institutions from pre- to post- Vatican II, and from that they conclude that salvation consists in adhering to these lifeless institutions. They see only the material side of the Church, its visible side, and turn a blind eye to the absence of the invisibles of the Church, especially the assistance of the Holy Ghost in keeping the Church free from error and defection.

The Novus Ordo religion is one big error and defection. The fact that error and defection can be found in it is an infallible sign that the invisible assistance of the Holy Ghost is not with the Modernist “popes” and “bishops.” They have no authority to rule, no matter if they are maintaining the buildings and governmental institutions of the Church.

An analogy.

To illustrate my point, I will make an analogy to a hijacked airplane. Imagine a scene in which terrorists, who have come through the ranks of the airline as uniformed, licensed, and authorized pilots, one day show their true colors by announcing that the airplane will be flown into the side of a building. They slit the throats of anyone who tries to stop them.

From the outside, the plane is flying as normal. Inside there is chaos, terror, and horror.

The Novus Ordo conservative could be compared to the passenger who would say: “For as long as we are still flying, and the pilots are authorized and uniformed pilots, and the airline logo is still on the plane, there is nothing to fear.”

The sedevacantists are those who have done something to stop the evil pilots, and who have had the common sense to declare that if the pilots intend the ruination of the aircraft and its passengers, they do not have the authority to pilot the plane. These sedevacantists are considered “extreme” and “misled” by the passengers who are consoled — indeed blinded — by the purely external signs of the normal functioning of the plane. These are the Novus Ordo conservatives.

A carcass of authority.

The Novus Ordo conservative looks merely at the carcass of  authority and government, which is really the only thing left intact since Vatican II, and from it concludes to the identity of the pre- and post-Vatican II religion. He fails to understand that if the invisible qualities of the Church do not vivify the visible institutions of the Church, then these institutions are dead in the practical order.

The Catholic Church, as the Church founded by Christ and assisted by the Spirit of Truth, always retains these institutions of the papacy and episcopacy and her faithful are always attached to them. Therefore in this present hijacking of these institutions, the Church does not lose her power to teach, to rule, and to sanctify, for these pertain to her divine constitution. Just as the solution to the hijacked airline is to wrest the control of the aircraft from those who would pervert its function and destination, so the solution for the Church is to wrest control of these sacred institutions from the Modernists so that once again the government of the Church may function normally.

In order to wrest control, however, it is first necessary to identify the hijacker  and to proclaim what is common sense: that he who intends the destruction of the  aircraft and its passengers does not have the authority to pilot the aircraft. Likewise the Modernist, though sitting in a papal or episcopal throne, does not have the authority to pilot the Church.

The worst thing anyone could do in such a case is to reassure Catholics that because we find these Modernists sitting in the papal throne or episcopal throne, then for that reason they must have the authority to rule the Church. It is as absurd as to say that because the hijacking pilots are seated in the cockpit, they have the authority to pilot the plane and we must obey them.

The Novus Ordo conservative, in remaining loyal to the Modernist “authorities,” stymies and paralyzes a proper and efficacious reaction to the problem in the Church. He invites everyone to rally to the Modernists, and to spurn and condemn the sedevacantists as schismatics. If the four Novus Ordo cardinals who presented the Dubiato Francis had the courage to declare him a non-pope, for reason of heresy, the Catholic Church would be on the road to recovery. Instead, they were careful to tell Francis that they were not sedevacantists. Cardinal Burke, one of the Dubia cardinals, stated in an interview in December that if Francis were a public heretic, he would no longer be the pope.

Leave Rome? Who has left Rome?

It is not to leave Rome, the one true Church, to be faithful to Catholic doctrine, liturgy and discipline. It is not to leave Rome to denounce as Modernism, the worst heresy to assail the Church according to Saint Pius X, the aberrations of Vatican II in doctrine, liturgy, and discipline. It is not to leave Rome to declare that those who deviate from the true faith cannot rule the Catholic Church.

It is to leave Rome, however, to embrace the new religion of Vatican II, and to associate with the authority of Christ those who have devastated, in a matter of  fifty-nine years, counting from 1958, the magnificent Catholic Church, built up for centuries by true popes and bishops with the assistance of the Spirit of Truth. For Rome is  the Church, and the Church is the Faith.

All of these discussions always revert to a single question: Do the reforms of Vatican II constitute a new religion, different from the Catholic religion? If they do, then the position of the sedevacantists is correct. For it is impossible that the Church, assisted by the Holy Ghost, could promulgate to the whole world a false religion. If, on the other hand, they do not constitute a new religion, if indeed there is continuity of true doctrine, liturgy and discipline, then the sedevacantist is wrong and the Novus Ordo conservative is right. So it is pointless to talk about anything else unless this single burning question is answered.

 

Catholic Quotes to Keep in Mind

Original Post on Novus Ordo Watch

Catholic Quotes to remember and share

The following is a list of quotes by various Catholic authorities before the Second Vatican Council. These days there is so much misinformation about what true Catholicism is that these little snippets will serve as a welcome and refreshing reminder and a veritable “reality check” against the errors and misconceptions of our times. In the collection of quotes presented here, you will find timeless truths, aphorisms, warnings, clarifications, predictions, and exhortations.

Be sure to share these quotes with friends!

  • “Reveal to the faithful the wolves which are demolishing the Lord’s vineyard.”
    —Pope Clement XIII, Encyclical Christianae Reipublicae, 1766
  • “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)
  • “Everyone should avoid familiarity or friendship with anyone suspected of belonging to Masonry or to affiliated groups. Know them by their fruits and avoid them. Every familiarity should be avoided, not only with those impious libertines who openly promote the character of the sect, but also with those who hide under the mask of universal tolerance, respect for all religions, and the craving to reconcile the maxims of the Gospel with those of the revolution. These men seek to reconcile Christ and Belial, the Church of God and the state without God.”
    —Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Custodi di Quella Fede, n. 15, 1892
  • “It is impious to say, ‘I respect every religion.’ This is as much as to say: I respect the devil as much as God, vice as much as virtue, falsehood as much as truth, dishonesty as much as honesty, Hell as much as Heaven.”
    Fr. Michael MüllerThe Church and Her Enemies (source here)
  • “The Papacy will be attacked by all the powers of hell. In consequence the Church will suffer great trials and afflictions in securing a successor upon the throne of Peter…. It is a matter of history that the most disastrous periods for the Church were times when the Papal throne was vacant, or when anti-popes contended with the legitimate head of the Church. Thus also shall it be in those evil days to come.”
    —Fr. E. Sylvester BerryThe Apocalypse of St. John (1921), pp. 121, 124
  • “Our Apostolic Mandate requires from Us that We watch over the purity of the Faith and the integrity of Catholic discipline. It requires from Us that We protect the faithful from evil and error; especially so when evil and error are presented in dynamic language which, concealing vague notions and ambiguous expressions with emotional and high-sounding words, is likely to set ablaze the hearts of men in pursuit of ideals which, whilst attractive, are nonetheless nefarious.”
    Pope St. Pius X, Apostolic Letter Notre Charge Apostolique, 1910
  • “People are not wanting who pretend to form an alliance between light and darkness and to associate justice with iniquity in favor of those doctrines called Liberal Catholicism, which, based on the most pernicious principles, show themselves favorable to the intrusion of secular power upon the domain of spirituals; they lead their partisans to esteem, or at least to tolerate, iniquitous laws, as if it were not written that no one can serve two masters. Those who thus conduct themselves are more dangerous and more baneful than declared enemies, not only because, without being warned of it, perhaps even without being conscious of it, they second the projects of wicked men, but also because, keeping within certain limits, they show themselves with some appearance of probity and sound doctrine. They thus deceive the indiscreet friends of conciliation and seduce honest people, who would otherwise have strenuously combatted a declared error.”
    –Pope Pius IX, Brief to Circle of St. Ambrose of Mila, 1873 (qtd. here)
  • “[According to the doctrine of the Modernists] it is necessary that the primitive [religious] formulas be accepted and sanctioned by the heart; and similarly the subsequent work from which are brought forth the secondary formulas must proceed under the guidance of the heart. Hence it comes that these formulas, in order to be living, should be, and should remain, adapted to the faith and to him who believes. Wherefore, if for any reason this adaptation should cease to exist, they lose their first meaning and accordingly need to be changed. In view of the fact that the character and lot of dogmatic formulas are so unstable, it is no wonder that Modernists should regard them so lightly and in such open disrespect, and have no consideration or praise for anything but the religious sense and for the religious life. In this way, with consummate audacity, they criticize the Church, as having strayed from the true path by failing to distinguish between the religious and moral sense of formulas and their surface meaning, and by clinging vainly and tenaciously to meaningless formulas, while religion itself is allowed to go to ruin.”
    Pope St. Pius X, Encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis, n. 13, 1907
  • “Therefore the whole and entire 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.”
    —Pope Pius XIIInstruction On the Ecumenical Movement, n. II, 1949
  • “Even on the plea of promoting unity it is not allowed to dissemble one single dogma; for, as the Patriarch of Alexandria warns us, ‘although the desire of peace is a noble and excellent thing, yet we must not for its sake neglect the virtue of loyalty in Christ.’ Consequently, the much desired return of erring sons to true and genuine unity in Christ will not be furthered by exclusive concentration on those doctrines which all, or most, communities glorying in the Christian name accept in common. The only successful method will be that which bases harmony and agreement among Christ’s faithful ones upon all the truths, and the whole of the truths, which God has revealed.”
    —Pope Pius XIIEncyclical Orientalis Ecclesiae, n. 16, 1944
  • “Now you know well that the most deadly foes of the Catholic religion have always waged a fierce war, but without success, against this Chair [of St. Peter]; they are by no means ignorant of the fact that religion itself can never totter and fall while this Chair remains intact, the Chair which rests on the rock which the proud gates of hell cannot overthrow and in which there is the whole and perfect solidity of the Christian religion.”
    —Pope Pius IXEncyclical Inter Multiplices, n. 7, 1853
  • “…this beloved Rome, purpled with the blood of so many martyrs, they [the Church’s enemies] want to cast it once more into the pit of that old corruption, make it return to the times of Nero, or better, of Julian the Apostate; this beloved Rome, sacred center of truth, they would like to make it become again the center of all errors. But they will not succeed: God is fighting for his Church. They will not succeed because the Church of Christ, built upon a rock, will never be shaken, whatever be the violence of the storm. She has the guarantees of this in the words of the God who said: The gates of hell shall not prevail… The Church can never be reconciled with error, and the Pope cannot be separated from the Church.”
    —Pope Pius IX, Allocution to Pilgrims, Nov. 27, 1871 (in Papal Teachings: The Church, n. 389)
  • “…[I]t is not allowable for anyone to produce another faith, that is, to write or to compose or to consider or to teach others; those who dare to compose another faith, or to support or to teach or to hand on another creed to those who wish to turn to knowledge of the truth, whether from Hellenism or Judaism or indeed from any heresy whatsoever, or to introduce novelty of speech, that is, invention of terms, so as to overturn what has now been defined by us, such persons, if they are bishops or clerics, are deprived of their episcopacy or clerical rank, and if they are monks or layfolk they are excommunicated.”
    —Pope St. Leo IIThird Council of Constantinople, 681
  • “The declared enemies of God and His Church, heretics and schismatics, must be criticized as much as possible, as long as truth is not denied. It is a work of charity to shout: ‘Here is the wolf!’ when it enters the flock or anywhere else.”
    St. Francis de SalesIntroduction to the Devout Life, Part III, Chapter 29
  • “We ought to remember that Catholics are, far more than the Jews were, the chosen people of God….”
    —Fr. Richard F. Clarke, “The Ministry of Jesus: Short Meditations on the Public Life of Our Lord”, in Beautiful Pearls of Catholic Truth, p. 542)
  • “A church which would come into existence on Modernist principles — if at all such principles can create real religious community, which is very doubtful — would no longer be the Church of Christ but a creation of the 20th century, based on principles that are partly Protestant but mainly based on an ideology of Agnosticism, Positivism, with a bit of mystical dreams. This new church could have both pope and bishops but they would be puppets only; it could talk about dogmas, revelations, and supernatural religion but they would be terms stripped of their former meaning, they would be words without content – how then could it truthfully be said that the former Church has not been changed but only improved? No, never; the previous Church would be destroyed and on her ruins there would be a religious assembly of the 20th century which would begin the era of its existence with the appearance of the Modernists.”
    —Fr. Maciej Sieniatycki, Professor of Dogmatic Theology at University of Cracow, 1916; original Polish source here
  • “Trusting in God and relying on His ever present help, [St. Benedict] went south and arrived at a fort ‘called Cassino situated on the side of a high mountain…; on this stood an old temple where Apollo was worshipped by the foolish country people, according to the custom of the ancient heathens. Around it likewise grew groves, in which even till that time the mad multitude of infidels used to offer their idolatrous sacrifices. The man of God coming to that place broke the idol, overthrew the altar, burned the groves, and of the temple of Apollo made a chapel of St. Martin. Where the profane altar had stood he built a chapel of St. John; and by continual preaching he converted many of the people thereabout’.”
    —Pope Pius XIIEncyclical Fulgens Radiatur, n. 11, 1947; showing the anti-ecumenical nature of Roman Catholicism and that the true path to the conversion and salvation of people is not to respect their false religions but to lead them out of them into the True Faith
  • “As we said earlier, I repeat once more: If anyone preaches to you a gospel contrary to what you have received, let him be accursed. …The heretic, even though he has not been condemned formally by any individual, in reality brings anathema on himself, having cut himself off from the way of truth by his heresy. What reply can such people make to the Apostle when he writes: As for someone who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned. It was in the spirit of this text that Cyril of holy memory, in the books which he wrote against Theodore, declared as follows: ‘Whether or not they are alive, we ought to keep clear of those who are in the grip of such dreadful errors. It is necessary always to avoid what is harmful, and not to be worried about public opinion but rather to consider what is pleasing to God’.”
    —Pope VigiliusSecond Council of Constantinople, 553
  • “…diabolical error, when it has artfully colored its lies, easily clothes itself in the likeness of truth while very brief additions or changes corrupt the meaning of expressions; and confession, which usually works salvation, sometimes, with a slight change, inches toward death.”
    —Pope Clement XIIIEncyclical In Dominico Agro, n. 2, 1761
  • “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.
    St. Paul the Apostle (2 Thess 2:7-11)
  • “Know ye therefore, that they who are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.”
    St. Paul the Apostle (Gal 3:7)
  • “Compromise with those not of the Faith is at all times the deadliest of errors. Here precisely is the danger of religious indifferentism. Here is the danger of socialism. Here is the danger of mixed marriages. Here is the danger of seeking to keep at all costs the golden opinion of the world and fearing its contempt. Here is the danger of education in non-Catholic schools, no matter how innocent they may seem to be.”
    Fr. Joseph HussleinThe Catholic’s Work in the World (1917), pp. 93-94
  • “The propagators and abettors of heresy, as well as its authors, have at all times been called heretics. As the Church has always considered heresy a very grave evil, so has she always called its adherents bad and pervert. Run over the list of ecclesiastical writers — you will then see how the Apostles treated the first heretics, how the Fathers and modern controversialists and the Church herself in her official language has pursued them. There is then no sin against charity in calling evil evil; its authors abettors and its disciples bad; all its acts, words, and writings iniquitous, wicked, malicious. In short, the wolf has always been called the wolf; and in so calling it, no one ever has believed that wrong was done to the flock and the shepherd. If the propagation of good and the necessity of combating evil require the employment of terms somewhat harsh against error and its supporters, this usage is certainly not against charity. This is a corollary or consequence of the principle we have just demonstrated. We must render evil odious and detestable. We cannot attain this result without pointing out the dangers of evil, without showing how and why it is odious, detestable and contemptible. Christian oratory of all ages has ever employed against impiety the most vigorous and emphatic rhetoric in the arsenal of human speech. In the writings of the great athletes of Christianity, the usage of irony, imprecation, execration and of the most crushing epithets is continual. Hence the only law is the opportunity and the truth.”
    –Fr. Felix Sarda y Salvany, Liberalism is a Sin, Chapter 20, 1886
  • “Let no Christian therefore, whether philosopher or theologian, embrace eagerly and lightly whatever novelty happens to be thought up from day to day, but rather let him weigh it with painstaking care and a balanced judgment, lest he lose or corrupt the truth he already has, with grave danger and damage to his faith.”
    —Pope Pius XIIEncyclical Humani Generis, n. 30, 1950
  • “These moderns, forever prattling about culture and civilization, are undermining the Church’s doctrine, laws, and practices. They are not concerned very much about culture and civilization. By using such high-sounding words they think they can conceal the wickedness of their schemes. All of you know their purpose, subterfuges, and methods. On Our part We have denounced and condemned their scheming. They are proposing a universal apostasy even worse than the one that threatened the age of Charles [Borromeo]. It is worse, We say, because it stealthily creeps into the very veins of the Church, hides there, and cunningly pushes erroneous principles to their ultimate conclusions.”
    —Pope St. Pius XEncyclical Editae Saepe, nn. 17-18, 1910
  • “The Church will be punished because the majority of her members, high and low, will become so perverted. The Church will sink deeper and deeper until she will at last seem to be extinguished, and the succession of Peter and the other Apostles to have expired. But, after this, she will be victoriously exalted in the sight of all doubters.”
    St. Nicholas of Flue, in Catholic Prophecy, edited by Yves Dupont, p. 30
  • “In our time more than ever before, the chief strength of the wicked, lies in the cowardice and weakness of good men… All the strength of Satan’s reign is due to the easy-going weakness of Catholics. Oh! if I might ask the Divine Redeemer, as the prophet Zachary did in spirit: What are those wounds in the midst of Thy hands? The answer would not be doubtful: With these was I wounded in the house of them that loved Me. I was wounded by My friends, who did nothing to defend Me, and who, on every occasion, made themselves the accomplices of My adversaries. And this reproach can be levelled at the weak and timid Catholics of all countries.”
    —Pope St. Pius X, Discourse at the Beatification of St. Joan of Arc, 1908 (found in Acta Apostolicae Sedis, vol. I, pp. 142-145)
  • “But their profession of fidelity to the Vicar of Christ is vain in those who, in fact, do not cease to violate the authority of their Bishops. For ‘by far the most august part of the Church consists of the Bishops, (as Our Predecessor Leo XIII of holy memory wrote in his letter of December 17, 1888, to the Archbishop), inasmuch as this part by divine right teaches and rules men; hence, whoever resists them or pertinaciously refuses obedience to them puts himself apart from the Church. . . On the other hand, to pass judgment upon or to rebuke the acts of Bishops does not at all belong to private individuals — that comes within the province only of those higher than they in authority and especially of the Sovereign Pontiff, for to him Christ entrusted the charge of feeding not only His lambs, but His sheep throughout the world. At most, it is allowed in matters of grave complaint to refer the whole case to the Roman Pontiff, and this with prudence and moderation as zeal for the common good requires, not clamorously or abusively, for in this way dissensions and hostilities are bred, or certainly increased.’”
    –Pope St. Pius XEncyclical Tribus Circiter, n. 9, 1906
  • “The apostles and their successors are God’s vicars in governing the Church which is built on faith and the sacraments of faith. Wherefore, just as they may not institute another Church, so neither may they deliver another faith, nor institute other sacraments.”
    —St. Thomas AquinasSumma Theologica, III, q. 64, art. 2, ad. 3
  • “I hear around me reformers who want to dismantle the Holy Sanctuary, destroy the universal flame of the Church, to discard all her adornments, and smite her with remorse for her historic past.”
    —Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli (the future Pope Pius XII) to Count Enrico P. Galeazzi
  • “Pope Gelasius in his ninth letter (chap. 26) to the bishops of Lucania condemned the evil practice which had been introduced of women serving the priest at the celebration of Mass. Since this abuse had spread to the Greeks, Innocent IV strictly forbade it in his letter to the bishop of Tusculum: ‘Women should not dare to serve at the altar; they should be altogether refused this ministry.’ We too have forbidden this practice in the same words….”
    —Pope Benedict XIVEncyclical Allatae Sunt, 1755
  • “On December 8, 1869, the International Congress of Freemasons imposed it as a duty on all its members to do all in their power to wipe out Catholicity from the face of the earth. Cremation was proposed as a suitable means to this end, since it was calculated to gradually undermine the faith of the people in ‘the resurrection of the body and life everlasting.’”
    —Fr. John LauxCatholic Morality (1934), p. 106
  • “…the liberty of thinking, and of publishing, whatsoever each one likes, without any hindrance, is not in itself an advantage over which society can wisely rejoice. On the contrary, it is the fountain-head and origin of many evils. Liberty is a power perfecting man, and hence should have truth and goodness for its object. But the character of goodness and truth cannot be changed at option. These remain ever one and the same, and are no less unchangeable than nature itself. If the mind assents to false opinions, and the will chooses and follows after what is wrong, neither can attain its native fullness, but both must fall from their native dignity into an abyss of corruption.”
    —Pope Leo XIIIEncyclical Immortale Dei, n. 32, 1885
  • “It is impossible to approve in Catholic publications a style inspired by unsound novelty which seems to deride the piety of the faithful and dwells on the introduction of a new order of Christian life, on new directions of the Church, on new aspirations of the modern soul, on a new social vocation of the clergy, on a new Christian civilization, and many other things of the same kind.”
    —Pope Leo XIII, Instruction to the Sacred Congregation of Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs, 1902; quoted by Pope St. Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, n. 55, 1907
  • “…the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would bring back to the world (if such a Church could overcome) the reign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak, and of all those who toil and suffer. […] Indeed, the true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries, nor innovators: they are traditionalists.”
    —Pope St. Pius X, Apostolic Letter Notre Charge Apostolique, 1910
  • “When other Christian bodies are licensing as preachers young men who have abandoned the foundations of Christian belief, the Church would rather face the threatened defection of thousands of minds reputed brilliant or learned, than sacrifice one iota of the Truth confided to her by her Founder.”
    America: A Catholic Review of the Weekvol. 1, n. 15 (July 24, 1909), p. 410
  • “The Son of Man, when He cometh, shall He find, think you, faith on earth?”
    —Blessed Lord Jesus Christ (Lk 18:8)

Remember: Friends don’t let friends be Novus Ordo, so spread these quotes far and wide!

What is an Excommunicated Novus Ordo Priest to do?

Original Post on Novus Ordo Watch

False Church to excommunicate False Priest

Facing Excommunication:

Italian Novus Ordo Priest critical of Francis to be slapped with harshest possible Penalty

[POST UPDATED 17-NOV-2017: Replaced original Italian video with English version just released]

His name is Alessandro Minutella. He is a 44-year-old Novus Ordo priest in Italy and has publicly criticized the man he belives to be the Pope of the Catholic Church, Jorge Bergoglio (“Pope Francis”) — basically for being too “progressive”. He went so far as to call Francis a “false prophet” at the top of the “mystical body of the antichrist”.

In late March of this year, Minutella had made an open appeal to Francis from the pulpit (video here) regarding the confusion caused by Amoris Laetitia. When “Don” Minutella called for a conference of “Catholic resistance”, his “Archbishop”, Mr. Corrado Lorefice, stepped in and removed him from his post as pastor of St. John Bosco church in Palermo, Sicily. The pseudo-bishop also forbade him from speaking against the “Catholic” hierarchy in any way, and threatened him with suspension. Minutella obeyed, called off the conference, and remained mostly silent. Although he was not suspended, he was still removed as pastor, which did not take place until June, however. By that time, the Vatican was aware of the situation.

To make a long story short: Yesterday, Nov. 9, it was revealed on the Facebook page of Minutella’s Radio Domina Nostra (“Our Lady’s Radio”) that the Vatican had released a decree ordering him to make a public profession of loyalty to Francis within 48 hours, else he would be excommunicated (the text of the decree was reportedly read to him by “Abp.” Lorefice). The text of the Facebook post reads verbatim:

Urgent notice!

Within 48 hours don minutella will have to express himself, at the request of the holy see, public to papa bergoglio.
Otherwise he will be excommunicated by the congregation for the faith and the congregation of the clergy…
What will our don do now? He’ll be on the air at 22 on the radio.

(source)

Minutella then released a 21-minute video statement in Italian regarding his impending “excommunication”, for he has no intention of complying with the Vatican order. He entitled his video is Il Coraggio della Verità (“The Courage of Truth”). An English version of it can be watched here:

The reason Minutella gives for rebuffing the Vatican’s order is bizarre: It is not the case that he refuses loyalty to Francis, he says, but that such a declaration should not be necessary since he had already declared his loyalty to the Roman Pontiff and the Magisterium back on Sep. 21, without, however, specifically identifying Francis as the currently-reigning Roman Pontiff. It’s nice to know that there are still some ambiguities the Vatican is not willing to tolerate!

Although we do not have a full transcript of the video available, we can provide the following highlights in a loose English translation (via German):

I will not commit this hypocritical act [of making a profession of loyalty], for this would not be a profession but an unacceptable subjugation. This has the flavor of a regime, not of the Catholic Church… I am not afraid of any such baseless condemnations. From tomorrow on, I will be excommunicated…

These strange hierarchs of the so-called Church of Mercy, which opposes anyone who does not adjust to its criteria, this Church of Mercy, which runs out into all the harbors of Italy to welcome poor migrants and yet condemns anyone to the guillotine who will not subject himself to its uniform and almost dictatorial way of thinking; they are not afraid of me, for I have no bodyguards and am easy to eliminate; they are afraid of her, of [the Blessed Virgin] Mary. …Holy Mother Church is under siege — for a siege is truly what this is — with the goal of destroying the healthy, two-thousand-year-old spirit of the Church. …Let us liberate the Church by means of the Holy Rosary.

As this story is just breaking, there is only one other news report available in English that we are aware of, but we share with you some more links to several Italian and German reports as well:

So Minutella has gone on the record accusing Bergoglio’s club of being a false church. In this assessment he is entirely correct, of course. Unfortunately, he does not seem to understand that by recognizing Francis as a true Pope, he himself is part of this false church, and it did not just come into being on Mar. 13, 2013 but has existed, at least in an inchoate manner, since Antipope John XXIII usurped the Chair of St. Peter on Oct. 28, 1958. In addition, Minutella — regardless of his intentions, which may be very noble indeed — is himself a false priest, since his orders were conferred in the invalid 1968 ordination rite of Antipope Paul VI.

We recall here that another outspoken critic of “Pope” Francis was recently “excommunicated” by the Novus Ordo pseudo-authority: the Colombian Prof. José Galat. In contradistinction to Minutella, however, Galat takes the position that Francis is not a valid Pope (he believes Benedict XVI is), so it makes sense that Galat would pay no attention to any bogus “excommunication” by members of Francis’ false hierarchy.

Minutella’s position, however, makes no sense whatsoever. If Francis is the Pope of the Catholic Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ, then he cannot also be the head of the mystical body of the antichrist. This much should stand to reason. If Bergoglio is Pope, then it is Minutella’s duty to submit to him and not to argue about whether or not he should have to give more than one declaration of submission.

It is a grave error, condemned by the Church, to think that an excommunication by the true Catholic authority is not to be feared so long as it is unjust (in which case it is void). On Sep. 8, 1713, Pope Clement XI issued the Apostolic Constitution Unigenitus, in which he condemned the errors of Pascal Quesnel, among which are the following:

CONDEMNED: The fear of an unjust excommunication should never hinder us from fulfilling our duty; never are we separated from the Church, even when by the wickedness of men we seem to be expelled from it, aslong as we are attached to God, to Jesus Christ, and to the Church herself by charity.

CONDEMNED: To suffer in peace an excommunication and an unjust anathema rather than betray truth, is to imitate St. Paul; far be it from rebelling against authority or of destroying unity.

(Pope Clement XI, Apostolic Constitution Unigenitus, nn. 91-92; Denz. 1441-1442)

Whether or not Minutella recognizes Francis and his hierarchy as legitimate, therefore, makes all the difference in the world to the moral permissibility of his actions.

It will be interesting to see what happens next. Will they really go through with their threat of excommunication? Probably so. But what is certain already is that the apostate Vatican II Church is thoroughly hypocritical. On the one hand, they are mercilessly persecuting a simple “priest” for being publicly critical of Francis. On the other hand, they are in the process of rehabilitating the arch-heretic Martin Luther, whom they now hail as a “witness of the Gospel” and of whom they assert that the Holy Bible was the “source and destination of his doctrine”, i.e. of his heresies! A few days ago, they even issued a postage stamp in honor of the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation, which brought unspeakable evil upon Christendom, both in the short and in the long run. The stamp blasphemously depicted Luther and his sudent Philipp Melancthon at the foot of the Cross on Mount Calvary!

If he waits long enough, will “Fr.” Minutella also get his own postage stamp?

Either way, the whole charade of the Vatican II Church is finally falling apart, and we must once again ask when it all will really hit the fan: How Long Until Schism?

Perfect Contrition

Original Post on Novus Ordo Watch

When you need to go to confession but can’t…

Perfect Contrition: The Key to Heaven, especially for Our Times

You can still be forgiven of your mortal sins if there is no priest available to hear your confession…

For the great majority of Catholics in the world today, it is virtually impossible to go to confession to a validly ordained priest who professes the true Catholic Faith of the ages and does not profess communion with a public heretic or apostate like Francis or Benedict XVI. Throughout Church history, there were many people in sundry places and circumstances that made approaching a priest for confession, for one reason or another, impossible. And it goes without saying that although everyone will die one day, most people will not have a priest close-by to whom they can make their deathbed confession.

Does this mean, then, that our chances of making it to Heaven are, for that reason, very slim? By no means!

It is a deplorable fact that although all Catholics know to approach the sacrament of Penance to have their mortal sins forgiven, only few seem to know that there is a way to have one’s mortal sins forgivenoutside the sacrament of Penance, although not entirely apart from it: through Perfect Contrition. In order not to fall prey to any confusion, it will be important to understand exactly what is meant by it and how it “works”, that is, how to obtain this great grace.

What is Perfect Contrition?

In the sixteenth century, the Council of Trent issued a decree on the Sacrament of Penance, which includes a chapter dedicated to the subject of contrition. The subsequent Catechism of the Council of Trent also explains contrition and how it relates to the sacrament of Penance. The 1907 Catholic Encyclopedia likewise contains an informative article summarizing the essentials on contrition.

In a nutshell: Perfect Contrition is a supernatural sorrow for, and hatred of, the sins one has committed, accompanied by a firm resolution never to sin again, because by committing them one has offended God, who is infinitely good and deserving of all of one’s love.

It is evident that if the truth about Perfect Contrition is to bear rich fruit in souls, then this somewhat complex definition needs a detailed explanation that is easily comprehensible by the common man. To this end, the Australian Catholic Truth Society in 1959 issued a very readable booklet on this topic written by an Italian priest. You can read its full text online here:

On Feb. 26, 2016 our friends at True Restoration released an episode of their “Spiritual Life” series on Restoration Radio about Perfect Contrition, in which the Benedictine monk Fr. Bernard Uttley explains in an easy-to-follow manner the nature, mechanism, effects, and importance of Perfect Contrition. You can listen to this 105-minute episode in its entirety, free of charge here:

If we examine closely the Act of Contrition we are supposed to pray at least once a day, we see that Holy Mother Church tries very much to instill in our souls the necessary dispositions for obtaining Perfect Contrition:

O my God! I am heartily sorry for having offended Thee; and I detest all my sins, because I dread the loss of heaven and the pains of hell, but most of all because they offend Thee, my God, Who art all good, and deserving of all my love. I firmly resolve, with the help of Thy grace, to confess my sins, to do penance, and to amend my life. Amen.

(Act of Contrition)

Perfect Contrition is an immense source of grace in this life and is of special importance at the time of death. All Catholics ought to be familiar with it and join it daily to their Acts of FaithHope, and Charity.

Whether you have a confessor available or not, make sure you are always perfectly contrite for your sins, and you will never be without sanctifying grace. The gates of Heaven will be open to you, and you will never again be tempted to despair.

The primary effect of Perfect Contrition being the recovery of sanctifying grace outside of the sacrament of Confession, this extraordinary means shows the great mercy, generosity, and magnanimity of Almighty God towards His sinful human creatures. After all, it is clear that we cannot always and everywhere have a priest at our disposal, and the availability of God’s forgiveness throughout the history of the New Covenant would be seriously curtailed if it depended strictly on the presence of priests wherever there are sinners.

Please do not ignore, neglect, or make light of this most important topic. For a great many of us, Perfect Contrition may one day make an eternal difference.

“Wherefore I say to thee: Many sins are forgiven her, because she hath loved much.”
(Luke 7:47)

Modernism’s Foe, Our Friend | Pope Saint Pius X

Original Post on Christ or Chaos

Modernism’s Eternal Foe, Our Eternal Friend

by Thomas A. Droleskey

The Modernists who came into their own during the false reign of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII (see Two For The Price Of One, part one and Francis: The Latest In A Long Line Of Ecclesiastical Tyrant) knew that they had to find some way to contradict and then to heap scorn on the work and the memory of the only pope in the previous four hundred years to have been canonized, the farm boy from Riese, Italy, who walked barefoot four miles to school each day, Giuseppe Melchiorre Sarto, Pope Saint Pius X. The “Second” Vatican Council had to become the mechanism by which the following condemnation of their Modernist theories and innovations, contained in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907, could be buried once and for all:

It remains for Us now to say a few words about the Modernist as reformer. From all that has preceded, it is abundantly clear how great and how eager is the passion of such men for innovation. In all Catholicism there is absolutely nothing on which it does not fasten. They wish philosophy to be reformed, especially in the ecclesiastical seminariesThey wish the scholastic philosophy to be relegated to the history of philosophy and to be classed among absolute systems, and the young men to be taught modern philosophy which alone is true and suited to the times in which we live. They desire the reform of theology: rational theology is to have modern philosophy for its foundation, and positive theology is to be founded on the history of dogma. As for history, it must be written and taught only according to their methods and modern principles. Dogmas and their evolution, they affirm, are to be harmonized with science and history. In the Catechism no dogmas are to be inserted except those that have been reformed and are within the capacity of the people. Regarding worship, they say, the number of external devotions is to be reduced, and steps must be taken to prevent their further increase, though, indeed, some of the admirers of symbolism are disposed to be more indulgent on this head. They cry out that ecclesiastical government requires to be reformed in all its branches, but especially in its disciplinary and dogmatic departments They insist that both outwardly and inwardly it must be brought into harmony with the modern conscience which now wholly tends towards democracy; a share in ecclesiastical government should therefore be given to the lower ranks of the clergy and even to the laity and authority which is too much concentrated should be decentralized The Roman Congregations and especially the index and the Holy Office, must be likewise modified The ecclesiastical authority must alter its line of conduct in the social and political world; while keeping outside political organizations it must adapt itself to them in order to penetrate them with its spirit. With regard to morals, they adopt the principle of the Americanists, that the active virtues are more important than the passive, and are to be more encouraged in practice. They ask that the clergy should return to their primitive humility and poverty, and that in their ideas and action they should admit the principles of Modernism; and there are some who, gladly listening to the teaching of their Protestant masters, would desire the suppression of the celibacy of the clergy. What is there left in the Church which is not to be reformed by them and according to their principles?  (Pascendi Dominici Gregis, No. 38)

The list of “reforms” that Pope Saint Pius X knew that the Modernists wanted to implement stands out as a prophetic warning as to the agenda that was formed by Modernist theologians in the years before the “Second” Vatican Council and became the fundamental basis for the whole ethos of conciliarism. Consider the prophetic nature of Pope Saint Pius X’s list of “reforms” that the Modernists wanted to implement:

1) The passion for innovation. Innovation, which the Church has always eschewed, has become the very foundation of conciliarism. Indeed, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has praised novelty and innovation repeatedly, doing so during his now infamous December 22, 2005, Christmas address to his conciliar curia. Since when has this been the case in the history of the Catholic Church? It is standard practice in the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

2) “They wish the scholastic philosophy to be relegated to the history of philosophy and to be classed among absolute systems, and the young men to be taught modern philosophy which alone is true and suited to the times in which we live.” This is a cogent summary of the belief of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI himself, which he outlined in Principles of Catholic Theology and in his own autobiography, Milestones.

3) “Dogmas and their evolution, they affirm, are to harmonized with science and history.” Thus it is, of course, that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI told us, both before and during his false “pontificate,” that such things as Pope Pius IX’s The Syllabus of Errors and even Pope Saint Pius X’s Pascendi Dominci Gregis, among other encyclical letters and papal pronouncements (see Witness Against Benedict XVI: The Oath Against Modernism) itself served a useful purpose at one point in history but lose their binding force over time. In other words, we must harmonize Catholicism with the events of history (the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King, the institutionalization of Protestant “churches,” the rise of the secular state) and not be “tied down” by a “time-centered” view of the Faith. As repetition is the mother of learning, perhaps it is good to repeat once again that this Modernist view of dogma was specifically condemned by the [First] Vatican Council. No Catholic is free to ignore these binding words and remain a Catholic in good standing:

  •  
    For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4) “Regarding worship, they say, the number of external devotions is to be reduced, and steps must be taken to prevent their further increase, though, indeed, some of the admirers of symbolism are disposed to be more indulgent on this head.” This describes the liturgical thrust of conciliarism quite accurately. Indeed, the last sentence in this sentence has particular application to Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who was somewhat disposed to be “indulgent” to the symbolism of the liturgy but was nevertheless committed to “reforming” the conciliar “reform” Obviously, Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis comes from a more “liberated” background than his predecessor. The modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition can have its place, according to the falsehoods he published in Summorum Pontificum, July 7, 2007, for those who are “attached” to it. Bergoglio/Francis has made sure, of course, that there is no turning back on the “reform” itself, including the reduction of the saints commemorated on conciliarism’s universal calendar. Indeed, then Cardinal Ratzinger wrote the following in Principles of Catholic Theology in 1982:

Among the more obvious phenomena of the last years must be counted the increasing number of integralist groups in which the desire for piety, for the sense of mystery, is finding satisfaction. We must be on our guard against minimizing these movements. Without a doubt, they represent a sectarian zealotry that is the antithesis of Catholicity. We cannot resist them too firmly. (pp. 389-390)

 

5) “They cry out that ecclesiastical government requires to be reformed in all its branches, but especially in its disciplinary and dogmatic departments They insist that both outwardly and inwardly it must be brought into harmony with the modern conscience which now wholly tends towards democracy; a share in ecclesiastical government should therefore be given to the lower ranks of the clergy and even to the laity and authority which is too much concentrated should be decentralized The Roman Congregations and especially the index and the Holy Office, must be likewise modified.” The conciliarists have summarized Pope Saint Pius X’s description of their Modernist view of Church governance very succinctly: Collegiality. It is no accident that Giovanni Montini/Paul VI gave away the Papal Tiara, which is on display in the crypt of the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C., and that Albino Luciani/John Paul I and Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II and Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI each refused to be crowned. This was quite symbolic, perhaps in ways that they did not even intend to signify as I have come to realize in the last three and one-half years. Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has gone so far as to remove the tiara from his coat-of-arms, which is reflective of episcopal collegiality with his own bishops and a gesture in the direction of those steeped in the heresies of Photius, the Orthodox.

6) “The ecclesiastical authority must alter its line of conduct in the social and political world; while keeping outside political organizations it must adapt itself to them in order to penetrate them with its spirit.” This is of the essence of Gaudium et Spes, December 7, 1965. And it is of the essence of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI’s belief that the the “Second” Vatican Council represented an “official reconciliation” with the principles of 1789. Just as a little reminder so that readers with short memories do not think that I am misrepresenting the thought of the man who does not believe it to be the mission of the Catholic Church to seek with urgency the conversion of Protestants and Jews and the Orthodox and all others who are outside her maternal bosom:

Let us be content to say here that the text 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. From this perspective, too, we can understand the different emphases with which the individual parts of the Church entered into the discussion of the text. While German theologians were satisfied that their exegetical and ecumenical concepts had been incorporated, representatives of Latin American countries, in particular, felt that their concerns, too, had been addressed, topics proposed by Anglo-Saxon theologians likewise found strong expression, and representatives of Third World countries saw, in the emphasis on social questions, a consideration of their particular problems. (Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, pp. 381-382)

Pope Saint Pius X wrote the following in Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906 about those who would dare to contend that the Church had to “reconcile” herself to the separation of Church and State, which the Catholic Church condemned repeatedly and vigorously throughout her history prior to the “Second” Vatican Council:

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. Our illustrious predecessor, Leo XIII, especially, has frequently and magnificently expounded Catholic teaching on the relations which should subsist between the two societies. “Between them,” he says, “there must necessarily be a suitable union, which may not improperly be compared with that existing between body and soul.-“Quaedam intercedat necesse est ordinata colligatio (inter illas) quae quidem conjunctioni non immerito comparatur, per quam anima et corpus in homine copulantur.” He proceeds: “Human societies cannot, without becoming criminal, act as if God did not exist or refuse to concern themselves with religion, as though it were something foreign to them, or of no purpose to them…. As for the Church, which has God Himself for its author, to exclude her from the active life of the nation, from the laws, the education of the young, the family, is to commit a great and pernicious error. — “Civitates non possunt, citra scellus, gerere se tamquam si Deus omnino non esset, aut curam religionis velut alienam nihilque profuturam abjicere…. Ecclesiam vero, quam Deus ipse constituit, ab actione vitae excludere, a legibus, ab institutione adolescentium, a societate domestica, magnus et perniciousus est error.” (Pope Saint Pius X, Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906.)

Pope Saint Pius X condemned as “absolutely false” the thesis that the State must be separated from the Church. Absolutely false. Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI accepts as true and good that which a canonized pope, repeating the consistent teaching of the Catholic Church, which no one has any authority to contradict, condemned as absolutely false. Are you beginning to see, possibly, that there is a problem with the conciliarism in its entirety? Are you beginning to see, possibly, that there is no reconciling the unprecedented novelties of conciliarism and conciliarists, including one of the chief conciliarists, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, with the consistent teaching of the Catholic Church?

In addition to the above-noted paragraph in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, Pope Saint Pius X went on to note the arrogance of the Modernists in their desire for novelty and in their contempt for scholastic theology and their efforts to view the Fathers in light of their own Modernist predilections:

Would that they had but displayed less zeal and energy in propagating it! But such is their activity and such their unwearying labor on behalf of their cause, that one cannot but be pained to see them waste such energy in endeavoring to ruin the Church when they might have been of such service to her had their efforts been better directed. Their artifices to delude men’s minds are of two kinds, the first to remove obstacles from their path, the second to devise and apply actively and patiently every resource that can serve their purpose. They recognize that the three chief difficulties which stand in their way are the scholastic method of philosophy, the authority and tradition of the Fathers, and the magisterium of the Church, and on these they wage unrelenting war. Against scholastic philosophy and theology they use the weapons of ridicule and contempt. Whether it is ignorance or fear, or both, that inspires this conduct in them, certain it is that the passion for novelty is always united in them with hatred of scholasticism, and there is no surer sign that a man is tending to Modernism than when he begins to show his dislike for the scholastic method. Let the Modernists and their admirers remember the proposition condemned by Pius IX: “The method and principles which have served the ancient doctors of scholasticism when treating of theology no longer correspond with the exigencies of our time or the progress of science.” They exercise all their ingenuity in an effort to weaken the force and falsify the character of tradition, so as to rob it of all its weight and authority. But for Catholics nothing will remove the authority of the second Council of Nicea, where it condemns those “who dare, after the impious fashion of heretics, to deride the ecclesiastical traditions, to invent novelties of some kind…or endeavor by malice or craft to overthrow any one of the legitimate traditions of the Catholic Church”; nor that of the declaration of the fourth Council of Constantinople: “We therefore profess to preserve and guard the rules bequeathed to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, by the Holy and most illustrious Apostles, by the orthodox Councils, both general and local, and by everyone of those divine interpreters, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church.” Wherefore the Roman Pontiffs, Pius IV and Pius IX, ordered the insertion in the profession of faith of the following declaration: “I most firmly admit and embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and other observances and constitutions of the Church.”  (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907, No. 42)

This paragraph is a ringing condemnation of the work of conciliarism and of its progenitors, the so-called “new theologians” (Henri de Lubac, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Karl Rahner, Joseph Ratzinger, et al.). Look at how Pope Saint Pius X zeroed in on the three things that Joseph Ratzinger spent nearly 400 pages trying to deconstruct and explain away in Principles of Catholic Theology: (1) The Scholastic Method of Philosophy; (2) The Authority and Tradition of the Fathers; and (3) the Magisterium of the Church  The then “Cardinal” Ratzinger had to rely upon his Hegelian view of the world to explain away dogmatic pronouncements and articles contained in the Deposit of Faith that constituted part of the Church’s Ordinary Magisterium. The Syllabus of Errors? Well, right for its time perhaps, Ratzinger and other conciliarists say, but we can see now that it was a “hasty” and “superficial” overreaction to events of the day.

As Pope Saint Pius X noted; “They exercise all their ingenuity in an effort to weaken the force and falsify the character of tradition, so as to rob it of all of its weight and authority.” This is so very important. Benedict’s use of the word “tradition” does not mean what the Church has always taught it to mean. He desires to “weaken the force” and to “falsify the character of tradition” precisely so as to “rob it of all its weight and authority,” considering the word “tradition” to be an empty vessel into which he can pour whatever meaning he believes is appropriate for “modern man.”

Joseph Ratzinger was born thirteen years after the following letter was written by Gaetano Cardinal De Lai in 1914 to Father Angelo Roncalli–and Jorge Mario Bergoglio was born just twenty-two years thereafter:

According to information that has come my way, I knew that you had been a reader of Duchesne [whose book, History of the Early Church, had been placed on the Index of Forbidden Books and used in Roncalli’s seminary lectures] 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. (quoted in Fathers Francisco and Dominic Radecki, Tumultuous Times, p. 297)

Do you see a pattern here?

Is it any wonder that the conciliarists, to show their utter contempt for Pope Saint Pius X, erected a mural of Angelo Roncalli to the right of the altar under which rests the sarcophagus of Pope Saint Pius X? It was their way of saying to the eternal foe of Modernism, “We win! We spit on you!”

As we know, their “victory” is only temporary. Our Lady will come to throw them out and to have them declared for what they have been and continue to be: enemies of the Catholic Faith who have been, whether wittingly or unwittingly, in league with the eternal enemy of God and thus of the welfare of the souls created in His image and likeness, the devil. There is no middle ground here at all.

To take the views of Roncalli, Montini, Luciani, Wojtyla, Ratzinger and Bergoglio is to reject the Catholic Faith. Pope Leo XIII made it abundantly clear in Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896, that a person who deviates from one part of the Faith falls from the Faith in its entirety.

In other words, ladies and gentlemen, Pope Saint Pius X provided us with a road map as to how Modernists think and how they must “tear down the bastions” of the Church, including Scholastic Theology and the Authority and Tradition of the Fathers and the Magisterium of the Church, to attempt to convince Catholics that their innovations are perfectly in accord with the patrimony of the Catholic Church. Modernists must seek to make complex that which is simple in order to make it appear as though they, the “experts,” have the key to unlocking the “truth” as they seek it out in “common” with Protestants and Jews, denying the Divine Constitution of the Catholic Church (that she has exclusive custody of and the ability to pronounce upon the Deposit of Faith) in the process.

Pope Saint Pius X went on to state in Pascendi Dominci Gregis that the Modernists must heap scorn upon those who defend the Faith as it has been handed down to us through the centuries under the infallible guidance of the Holy Ghost, the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity:

The Modernists pass judgment on the holy Fathers of the Church even as they do upon tradition. With consummate temerity they assure the public that the Fathers, while personally most worthy of all veneration, were entirely ignorant of history and criticism, for which they are only excusable on account of the time in which they lived. Finally, the Modernists try in every way to diminish and weaken the authority of the ecclesiastical magisterium itself by sacrilegiously falsifying its origin, character, and rights, and by freely repeating the calumnies of its adversaries. To the entire band of Modernists may be applied those words which Our predecessor sorrowfully wrote: “To bring contempt and odium on the mystic Spouse of Christ, who is the true light, the children of darkness have been wont to cast in her face before the world a stupid calumny, and perverting the meaning and force of things and words, to depict her as the friend of darkness and ignorance, and the enemy of light, science, and progress.” This being so, Venerable Brethren, there is little reason to wonder that the Modernists vent all their bitterness and hatred on Catholics who zealously fight the battles of the Church. There is no species of insult which they do not heap upon them, but their usual course is to charge them with ignorance or obstinacy. When an adversary rises up against them with an erudition and force that renders them redoubtable, they seek to make a conspiracy of silence around him to nullify the effects of his attack. This policy towards Catholics is the more invidious in that they belaud with admiration which knows no bounds the writers who range themselves on their side, hailing their works, exuding novelty in every page, with a chorus of applause. For them the scholarship of a writer is in direct proportion to the recklessness of his attacks on antiquity, and of his efforts to undermine tradition and the ecclesiastical magisterium. When one of their number falls under the condemnations of the Church the rest of them, to the disgust of good Catholics, gather round him, loudly and publicly applaud him, and hold him up in veneration as almost a martyr for truth. The young, excited and confused by all this clamor of praise and abuse, some of them afraid of being branded as ignorant, others ambitious to rank among the learned, and both classes goaded internally by curiosity and pride, not infrequently surrender and give themselves up to Modernism. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

It might be instructive at this point to review the now retired Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI’s own view of those who resist the novelties of the “Second” Vatican Council (repetition, yes, repetition, did you get that, repetition, is the mother of learning):

Among the more obvious phenomena of the last years must be counted the increasing number of integralist groups in which the desire for piety, for the sense of mystery, is finding satisfaction. We must be on our guard against minimizing these movements. Without a doubt, they represent a sectarian zealotry that is the antithesis of Catholicity. We cannot resist them too firmly. (Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, pp. 389-390)

 

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI viewed Catholicity in a sense much different than the word Catholicism. “Catholicity,” Ratzinger/Benedict wrote, is that sense of “openness” to the “movement” of the “spirit” in the midst of the larger “church,” which includes Protestant “churches” and the Orthodox. Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and his successor as the head of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis, believe that those who want to whack them over the head with the “time-bound” writings of Pope Saint Pius X, for example, do not have a broad understanding of the word “Catholicity” and are thus a threat to the “growth” of the “Church” in response to the promptings of the “spirit” as various “theses” and “propositions” clash with each other.

The “two-headed ‘pope’ monster” and their fellow revolutionaries must resort to the very tactics described by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis to denounce those who adhere to the dogmatic pronouncements of the Church and the reiteration of the Church’s consistent teaching by the popes of the Nineteenth and early Twentieth Centuries.

Pope Saint Pius X was no ecumenist. He was unafraid to recall those outside of the Church to her maternal bosom, as he reminded the founder of Zionism, Theodore Herzl, on January 25, 1904:

HERZL: Yesterday I was with the Pope [Pius X]. . . . I arrived ten minutes ahead of time, and without having to wait I was conducted through a number of small reception rooms to the Pope. He received me standing and held out his hand, which I did not kiss. Lippay had told me I had to do it, but I didn’t. I believe this spoiled my chances with him, for everyone who visits him kneels and at least kisses his hand. This hand kiss had worried me a great deal and I was glad when it was out of the way.

He seated himself in an armchair, a throne for minor affairs, and invited me to sit by his side. He smiled in kindly anticipation. I began:

HERZL: I thank Your Holiness for the favor of granting me this audience. [I begged him to excuse my miserable Italian, but he said:

POPE: No, Signor Commander, you speak very well.

HERZL: [He is an honest, rough-hewn village priest, to whom Christianity has remained a living thing even in the Vatican. I briefly laid my request before him. But annoyed perhaps by my refusal to kiss his hand, he answered in a stern categorical manner.

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

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

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

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

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

HERZL: [It was on the tip of my tongue to remark, “It happens in every family: no one believes in his own relative.” But, instead, I said:] Terror and persecution were not precisely the best means for converting the Jews. [His reply had an element of grandeur in its simplicity:]

POPE: Our Lord came without power. He came in peace. He persecuted no one. He was abandoned even by his apostles. It was only later that he attained stature. It took three centuries for the Church to evolve. The Jews therefore had plenty of time in which to accept his divinity without duress or pressure. But they chose not to do so, and they have not done it yet.

HERZL: But, Holy Father, the Jews are in a terrible plight. I do not know if Your Holiness is aware of the full extent of their tragedy. We need a land for these harried people.

POPE: Must it be Jerusalem?

HERZL: We are not asking for Jerusalem, but for Palestine—for only the secular land.

POPE: We cannot be in favor of it.

[Editor Lowenthal interjects here] Here unrelenting replacement theology is plainly upheld as the norm of the Roman Catholic Church. Further, this confession, along with the whole tone of the Pope in his meeting with Herzl, indicates the perpetuation of a doctrinal emphasis that has resulted in centuries of degrading behavior toward the Jews. However, this response has the “grandeur” of total avoidance of that which Herzl had intimated, namely that the abusive reputation of Roman Catholicism toward the Jews was unlikely to foster conversion. Further, if, “It took three centuries for the Church to evolve,” it was that very same period of time that it took for the Church to consolidate and launch its thrust of anti-Semitism through the following centuries.

HERZL: Does Your Holiness know the situation of the Jews?

POPE: Yes, from my days in Mantua, where there are Jews. I have always been in friendly relations with Jews. Only the other evening two Jews were here to see me. There are other bonds than those of religion: social intercourse, for example, and philanthropy. Such bonds we do not refuse to maintain with the Jews. Indeed we also pray for them, that their spirit see the light. This very day the Church is celebrating the feast of an unbeliever who became converted in a miraculous manner—on the road to Damascus. And so if you come to Palestine and settle your people there, we will be ready with churches and priests to baptize all of you.

HERZL: [At this point Conte Lippay had himself announced. The Pope bade him be admitted. The Conte kneeled, kissed his hand, and joined in the conversation by telling of our “miraculous” meeting in the Bauer beerhall at Venice. The miracle was that he had originally intended to stay overnight in Padua, and instead, it turned out that he was given to hear me express the wish to kiss the Holy Father’s foot. At this the Pope made no movement, for I hadn’t even kissed his hand. Lippay proceeded to tell how I had expiated on the noble qualities of Jesus Christ. The Pope listened, and now and then took a pinch of snuff and sneezed into a big red cotton handkerchief. It is these peasant touches which I like about him best and which most of all compel my respect. Lippay, it would appear, wanted to account for his introducing me, and perhaps ward off a word of reproach. But the Pope said:

POPE: On the contrary, I am glad you brought me the Signor Commendatore.

HERZL: [As to the real business, he repeated what he had told me, until he dismissed us:]

POPE: Not possible!

HERZL: [Lippay stayed on his knees for an unconscionable time and never seemed to tire of kissing his hand. It was apparent that this was what the Pope liked. But on taking leave, I contented myself with shaking his hand warmly and bowing deeply. The audience lasted about twenty-five minutes. While spending the last hour in the Raphael gallery, I saw a picture of an Emperor kneeling before a seated Pope and receiving the crown from his hands. That’s how Rome wants it.]   (Marvin Lowenthal, Diaries of Theodore Herzl, pp. 427- 430.)

Not exactly how the conciliar “popes” have spoken to the adherents of the Talmud as two of them–so far!– have been treated as inferiors in Talmudic synagogues and as Talmudic choirs have sung about how the Talmudic Jews of today are “waiting for the Messiah,” now is it?

Oh, no. Pope Saint Pius X sought the conversion of souls, making no accommodations to the nonexistent legitimacy of false religions. JorgeMario Bergoglio/Francis was a regular visit of Talmudic synagogues in Argentina, and Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI visited three of them, including one in Rome itself (see Saint Peter and Anti-Peter).

Writing in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910, Pope Saint Pius X gave us yet another prophetic warning, which has been oft-quoted on this site, of where the new religion he was fighting with all of the might that Our Lady could give him: the One-World Ecumenical Church:

And now, overwhelmed with the deepest sadness, We ask Ourselves, Venerable Brethren, what has become of the Catholicism of the Sillon? Alas! this organization which formerly afforded such promising expectations, this limpid and impetuous stream, has been harnessed in its course by the modern enemies of the Church, and is now no more than a miserable affluent of the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would bring back to the world (if such a Church could overcome) the reign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak, and of all those who toil and suffer. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)

The humble farm boy from Riese, Italy, who served in the cattle trading center of Tombolo, Italy, and used his gentle demeanor to extract from the men in that rough and tumble community a promise to refrain from cursing and using God’s name in vain in exchange for his running a night school to teach them how to read and write, noted in his first encyclical letter, E Supremi, October 4, 1903, that he wanted to use gentleness in dealing with the problems of the day.

Faced with the obstinate boldness of the Modernists, however, Pope Saint Pius X, the pope of early First Communion and frequent Communions thereafter, the pope who loved children and wanted to see them instructed by means of the Catechism whose production he supervised, yes, this gentle pastor of souls, had to resort to the full force of the papacy to assess and to denounce the errors of Modernists and Modernism.

Pope Saint Pius X noted this precise point in Pascendi Dominici Gregis:

Once indeed We had hopes of recalling them to a better mind, and to this end We first of all treated them with kindness as Our children, then with severity; and at last We have had recourse, though with great reluctance, to public reproof. It is known to you, Venerable Brethren, how unavailing have been Our efforts. For a moment they have bowed their head, only to lift it more arrogantly than before. If it were a matter which concerned them alone, We might perhaps have overlooked it; but the security of the Catholic name is at stake. Wherefore We must interrupt a silence which it would be criminal to prolong, that We may point out to the whole Church, as they really are, men who are badly disguised. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

Quite rightly did the sainted pontiff refer to Modernism as the “synthesis of all heresies:”

It may, perhaps, seem to some, Venerable Brethren, that We have dealt at too great length on this exposition of the doctrines of the Modernists. But it was necessary that We should do so, both in order to meet their customary charge that We do not understand their ideas, and to show that their system does not consist in scattered and unconnected theories, but, as it were, in a closely connected whole, so that it is not possible to admit one without admitting all. For this reason, too, We have had to give to this exposition a somewhat didactic form, and not to shrink from employing certain unwonted terms which the Modernists have brought into use. And now with Our eyes fixed upon the whole system, no one will be surprised that We should define it to be the synthesis of all heresies. Undoubtedly, were anyone to attempt the task of collecting together all the errors that have been broached against the faith and to concentrate into one the sap and substance of them all, he could not succeed in doing so better than the Modernists have done. Nay, they have gone farther than this, for, as We have already intimated, their system means the destruction not of the Catholic religion alone, but of all religion. Hence the rationalists are not wanting in their applause, and the most frank and sincere among them congratulate themselves on having found in the Modernists the most valuable of all allies. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

No, ladies and gentlemen, conciliarists such as Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI know full well what it is they are doing. Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has read Pascendi and he rejects it. The fact that a man has a “Modernist” mind does not mean he is not responsible for the consequences of his Modernism. Such a line of reasoning is as novel as the novelties of the day, indicative of a complete and total and manifest unwillingness to deal with the simple fact that conciliarism is heretical and that a counterfeit religion has been created that has been a detriment to the sanctification and salvation of souls. A Modernist who knows what the Church pronounced at the twenty councils preceding the dawning of the age of conciliarism cannot be excused on the grounds that he is confused. Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI knows what the Church has taught better than almost anyone else and he believes that his life mission has been precisely to use the methods described by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis (to reject Scholastic Philosophy, to attack the meaning of dogmatic truth and of Tradition and the teaching of the Magisterium) to create a “new synthesis of faith.” He knows full well what he is doing, and what he is doing was condemned in no uncertain terms by Pope Saint Pius X.

The Modernists did not cease and desist with the issuance of Pascendi Dominici Gregis. This forced Pope Saint Pius X to amplify the points made therein, issuing Praestantia Scripturae, just sixty-two days after Pascendi, on November 18, 1907

Moreover, in order to check the daily increasing audacity of many modernists who are endeavoring by all kinds of sophistry and devices to detract from the force and efficacy not only of the decree “Lamentabili sane exitu” (the so-called Syllabus), issued by our order by the Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition on July 3 of the present year, but also of our encyclical letters “Pascendi dominici gregis” given on September 8 of this same year, we do by our apostolic authority repeat and confirm both that decree of the Supreme Sacred Congregation and those encyclical letters of ours, adding the penalty of excommunication against their contradictors, and this we declare and decree that should anybody, which may God forbid, be so rash as to defend any one of the propositions, opinions or teachings condemned in these documents he falls, ipso facto, under the censure contained under the chapter “Docentes” of the constitution “Apostolicae Sedis,” which is the first among the excommunications latae sententiae, simply reserved to the Roman Pontiff. This excommunication is to be understood as salvis poenis, which may be incurred by those who have violated in any way the said documents, as propagators and defenders of heresies, when their propositions, opinions and teachings are heretical, as has happened more than once in the case of the adversaries of both these documents, especially when they advocate the errors of the modernists that is, the synthesis of all heresies. (Pope Saint Pius X, Praestantia Scripturae, November 18, 1907.)

Faithful Catholics loved Saint Pius X during his eleven year pontificate. They knew him to be a good and generous pastor of souls, a pope who had a great and an earnest zeal for souls, and a deep, tender love for the young, taking the case of Little Nellie of Holy God to heart as the sign that he needed to give permission for the reception of First Holy Communion to children at a young age.

Here is an account of how our sainted pontiff came to learn of Little Nellie Organ of God, that wonderful daughter of Saint Patrick’s Ireland:

Nellie had a great love for Holy God and she also had a great love for her neighbour.  She used to pray for all, and for the intentions of the Pope, whom she called, “My own Holy Pader.”

When the nurse told Nellie the story of the Passion and Sufferings of Our Lord, the little girl burst into tears, “Poor Holy God! Poor Holy God!” and later she would hold the Crucifix in her hands, and say, “Poor Holy God!”

Nellie’s life was quickly coming to and end.  In 1907, she celebrated Christmas by receiving Holy Communion.  She had a special name for Christmas and called it, “Holy God’s Birthday.”

She knew she was nearing the end. On January 30th, 1908 she said to the nurse, “Tell me, Mother, how do you feel today?” “Very well, Nellie,” she replied. “But tell me,” asked Nellie, “do you feel you are nearing Holy God? I do.”

Little Nellie died on Candlemas, February 2nd, 1908.  As she lay dying, she saw something at the foot of her bed.  Her eyes followed it, and she moved her lips as if she was speaking to someone. Then she smiled and passed away.

Nellie was buried in the public cemetery, but a year afterwards her little body was removed to the Cemetery of the Good Shepherd Convent. The body was then found whole, except for the bone in the jaw which had been destroyed by disease. In regard to that decayed bone, it was declared that before she received her First Communion it gave off a terrible odor, but after that time the odor disappeared.  Many pilgrims go to visit her grave every year.

After Nellie’s death, the children of St. Finbar’s School made a special Novena that Little Nellie would obtain for them and all little children around the world, the great favour of receiving Holy Communion as near as possible to the age at which she received it.

When Pope St. Pius X was told about Little Nellie, and how she longed for Jesus in Holy Communion, and how lovingly she received Him, he said, “There! That is the sign for which I have been waiting.”  He also asked Little Nellie’s Bishop for a relic of her.

In 1910, the Pope Pius X made a Church Law stating that all children could receive Holy Communion at an early age.  The children of St. Finbar’s School then wrote a beautiful letter to Pope St. Pius X.   I will quote some parts:

“Dear Holy Father,

We, the little children of St. Finbar’s Industrial School, write, thanking Holy God for inspiring you to issue the First Holy Communion Decree.  We will never stop praying for you, and we will ask Holy God to take you into His Sacred Heart.  The wonderful favour, granted to the little children, of receiving Holy Communion at such an early age, is such a source of great joy to us…

We often wonder if your holiness has heard of our holy baby,  ‘Nellie,’ who received Holy Communion at the age of four years and three months….  She received Holy Communion on December 6, 1907…. Holy God and Holy God’s Mother came for her February 2, 1908.

We pray to her for everything we want, and she is almost sure to hear our prayers.  Twelve months ago we began a novena at night prayers that she would work six miracles, which would obtain for her little companions and all little children over the whole world, the great favour of receiving Holy Communion as near to the age that she received it as possible.  Would it be wrong for us to think that the Decree has been granted through her intercession and that it is to our darling little Nellie that we and all little children owe this great privilege?”

Pope St. Pius X received the letter of the children a few months after he had issued the Decree about the Communion of Children.  He wrote the following letter to the children of St. Finbar’s School:

To the beloved children of the School of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd in Cork, with sincere congratulations on the sentiments expressed in their pious address of true love for Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, with the warmest thanks for their prayers for the Holy Catholic Church and for Us, and with the wish that they may always keep as good as their companion Nellie, who was called to Heaven while still a child, where she is praying for them, for the comfort of their families, for the sisters, their dear Mistresses, for their Superiors, and especially for their very Venerable Bishop, to all of whom we earnestly impart the Apostolic Blessing.   (Little Nellie of Holy God.)

Is this doesn’t bring a tear to your eye and a smile to your Catholic face, good readers, nothing will do so.

Pope Saint Pius X, who taught catechism when he was the Bishop of Mantua, Italy, and when he was the Cardinal Archbishop of Venice, Italy, and as the Supreme Pontiff, supervised, as noted above, a catechism that is still teaching Catholics to this very day.

Faithful Catholics still love Saint Pius X. they know him to be the eternal foe of Modernism just as he is our eternal friend, especially in this days when a counterfeit religion that is the embodiment of Modernism has taken such hold over the minds and the hearts of so many Catholics. Faithful Catholics know that his devoted son of Our Lady and of her chaste spouse, Saint Joseph, whose very name he bore so admirably, is here to help us with his prayers and to teach us with his eternal words of wisdom that never–under any circumstances–lose their binding force.

May these words, which were inscribed on a metal plaque near the first resting place, in the crypt of the Basilica of Saint Peter, of Pope Saint Pius X’s mortal remains, inspire us to invoke his intercession to help “restore all things in Christ,” both in the Church and in the world, as we await the Triumph of Our Lady’s Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart:

Pope Pius X,

Poor and Yet Rich

Gentle and Humble of Heart

Unconquerable Champion of the Catholic Faith

Whose Constant Endeavor it was to Renew

All Things in Christ

Departed in Piety

On the Twentieth of August, 1914

 

 

Vivat Christus Rex!

Our Lady, Help of Christians, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Pope Saint Pius X, pray for us.

The Evil of Venial Sin

While it is mortal sin which damns a soul to Hell, venial sin still greatly offends God… and venial sins act as a gateway to mortal sins. We should strive for perfection, and keep heaven as our goal, instead of just getting by and being content with making it to purgatory.

Here is Father McGuire and the Evil of Venial Sin.