Vintage Ratzinger, All Right

Let me get straight to the point

The blindness of those who have been deluded into thinking that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI’s issuance of Summorum Pontificum on July 7, 2007, made this apostle Modernism, whose precepts were condemned by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907, by way of the “new theology” that was condemned by Pope Pius XII, August 12, 1950, and progenitor of the “Second” Vatican Council’s “new ecclesiology” into  a champion of “tradition” is nothing other than astounding.

Yet it is that some of those who have permitted themselves to be blinded by Summorum Pontificum continue to insist that the “Pope Emeritus” was a “merciful father” to those in the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism because of his supposed “generosity” both to “tradition” in general and to the four bishops of the Society of Saint Pius X who had been “excommunicated” by Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II after their episcopal consecration at the hands of the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and those of his co-consecrator, the late Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer, on June 30, 1988, in Econe, Switzerland.

Those who have permitted themselves to have Ratzinger/Benedict’s acid-induced blindness take away their ability to see things as they are and not as they want them to be must overlook the plain fact that their believed “pope emeritus” explained in his letter to the world’s conciliar “bishops” in 2009 that he had “lifted” the “excommunications” against the four Society of Saint Pius X bishops precisely to “break down” what he called “one-sided” positions and “rigidity.” Indeed, Ratzinger/Benedict, presaging the “flexibility” of Jorge Mario Bergoglio himself, pleaded with the conciliar “bishops” to  accept his own belief that the Society of Saint Pius X could be neutralized and thus brought into “broader vistas” just as effectively as other communities (e.g., Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter, Institute of Christ the King, Sovereign Priest, etc.) that were created following Wojtyla/John Paul II’s Ecclesia Dei Ad Afflicta motu proprio of July 1, 1988.

This is what Ratzinger/Benedict wrote nearly five years ago now as he explained his rationale for “lifting” the “excommunications” that had been imposed upon Bishop Bernard Fellay, who has become the Captain Queeg of the Society of Saint Pius X, and Bishops Bernard Williamson,  Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta, and Bernard Tissier de Mallerais:

Leading men and women to God, to the God Who speaks in the Bible: this is the supreme and fundamental priority of the Church and of the Successor of Peter at the present time. A logical consequence of this is that we must have at heart the unity of all believers. Their disunity, their disagreement among themselves, calls into question the credibility of their talk of God. Hence the effort to promote a common witness by Christians to their faith – ecumenism – is part of the supreme priority. Added to this is the need for all those who believe in God to join in seeking peace, to attempt to draw closer to one another, and to journey together, even with their differing images of God, towards the source of Light – this is inter-religious dialogue. Whoever proclaims that God is Love ‘to the end’ has to bear witness to love: in loving devotion to the suffering, in the rejection of hatred and enmity – this is the social dimension of the Christian faith, of which I spoke in the Encyclical ‘Deus caritas est’.

“So if the arduous task of working for faith, hope and love in the world is presently (and, in various ways, always) the Church’s real priority, then part of this is also made up of acts of reconciliation, small and not so small. That the quiet gesture of extending a hand gave rise to a huge uproar, and thus became exactly the opposite of a gesture of reconciliation, is a fact which we must accept. But I ask now: Was it, and is it, truly wrong in this case to meet half-way the brother who ‘has something against you’ and to seek reconciliation? Should not civil society also try to forestall forms of extremism and to incorporate their eventual adherents – to the extent possible – in the great currents shaping social life, and thus avoid their being segregated, with all its consequences?Can it be completely mistaken to work to break down obstinacy and narrowness, and to make space for what is positive and retrievable for the whole? I myself saw, in the years after 1988, how the return of communities which had been separated from Rome changed their interior attitudes; I saw how returning to the bigger and broader Church enabled them to move beyond one-sided positions and broke down rigidity so that positive energies could emerge for the whole. Can we be totally indifferent about a community which has 491 priests, 215 seminarians, 6 seminaries, 88 schools, 2 university-level institutes, 117 religious brothers, 164 religious sisters and thousands of lay faithful? Should we casually let them drift farther from the Church? I think for example of the 491 priests. We cannot know how mixed their motives may be. All the same, I do not think that they would have chosen the priesthood if, alongside various distorted and unhealthy elements, they did not have a love for Christ and a desire to proclaim Him and, with Him, the living God. Can we simply exclude them, as representatives of a radical fringe, from our pursuit of reconciliation and unity? What would then become of them?

“Certainly, for some time now, and once again on this specific occasion, we have heard from some representatives of that community many unpleasant things – arrogance and presumptuousness, an obsession with one-sided positions, etc. Yet to tell the truth, I must add that I have also received a number of touching testimonials of gratitude which clearly showed an openness of heart. But should not the great Church also allow herself to be generous in the knowledge of her great breadth, in the knowledge of the promise made to her? Should not we, as good educators, also be capable of overlooking various faults and making every effort to open up broader vistas? And should we not admit that some unpleasant things have also emerged in Church circles? At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach them – in this case the Pope – he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint. (Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church concerning the remission of the excommunication of the four Bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre, March 10, 2009.)

The “broader vistas” to which Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict was referring are none other than full acceptance of “false ecumenism,” “inter-religious dialogue,” “inter-religious prayer” services, episcopal collegiality, “religious liberty,” “separation of Church and State, “the hermeneutic of continuity and discontinuity,” “the new ecclesiology,” and, of course, the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service. One report from a few years ago indicated that Ratzinger/Benedict personally told a leader of the Society of Saint Pius X that he wanted the “new theologians” (himself, Karl Rahner, Henri de Lubac, Maurice Blondel, Hans Urs von Balthasar) taught in the Society’s seminaries. “Broader vistas”? You decide.

Although Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is indeed hated by the “ultra-progressive” revolutionaries for having made the accommodations that he did to traditionally-minded Catholics even though he told us consistently after he had issued Summorum Pontificum that his rationale was based solely on his desire to “pacify the “spirits” of the poor, misguided souls who had yet come to recognize that the “Second” Vatican Councl and the “magisterium” of the conciliar “popes” could be “understood” according his philosophically absurd and dogmatically condemned “hermeneutic of continuity:”

Fr Federico Lombardi, S.J., Director of the Holy See Press Office: What do you say to those who, in France, fear that the “Motu proprio’ Summorum Pontificum signals a step backwards from the great insights of the Second Vatican Council? How can you reassure them?

Benedict XVI: Their fear is unfounded, for this “Motu Proprio’ is merely an act of tolerance, with a pastoral aim, for those people who were brought up with this liturgy, who love it, are familiar with it and want to live with this liturgy. They form a small group, because this presupposes a schooling in Latin, a training in a certain culture. Yet for these people, to have the love and tolerance to let them live with this liturgy seems to me a normal requirement of the faith and pastoral concern of any Bishop of our Church. There is no opposition between the liturgy renewed by the Second Vatican Council and this liturgy.

On each day [of the Council], the Council Fathers celebrated Mass in accordance with the ancient rite and, at the same time, they conceived of a natural development for the liturgy within the whole of this century, for the liturgy is a living reality that develops but, in its development, retains its identity. Thus, there are certainly different accents, but nevertheless [there remains] a fundamental identity that excludes a contradiction, an opposition between the renewed liturgy and the previous liturgy. In any case, I believe that there is an opportunity for the enrichment of both parties. On the one hand the friends of the old liturgy can and must know the new saints, the new prefaces of the liturgy, etc…. On the other, the new liturgy places greater emphasis on common participation, but it is not merely an assembly of a certain community, but rather always an act of the universal Church in communion with all believers of all times, and an act of worship. In this sense, it seems to me that there is a mutual enrichment, and it is clear that the renewed liturgy is the ordinary liturgy of our time. (Interview of the Holy Father during the flight to France, September 12, 2008.)

Liturgical worship is the supreme expression of priestly and episcopal life, just as it is of catechetical teaching. Your duty to sanctify the faithful people, dear Brothers, is indispensable for the growth of the Church. In the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum”, I was led to set out the conditions in which this duty is to be exercised, with regard to the possibility of using the missal of Blessed John XXIII (1962) in addition to that of Pope Paul VI (1970). Some fruits of these new arrangements have already been seen, and I hope that, thanks be to God, the necessary pacification of spirits is already taking place. I am aware of your difficulties, but I do not doubt that, within a reasonable time, you can find solutions satisfactory for all, lest the seamless tunic of Christ be further torn. Everyone has a place in the Church. Every person, without exception, should be able to feel at home, and never rejected. God, who loves all men and women and wishes none to be lost, entrusts us with this mission by appointing us shepherds of his sheep. We can only thank him for the honour and the trust that he has placed in us. Let us therefore strive always to be servants of unity! (Meeting with the French Bishops in the Hemicycle Sainte-Bernadette, Lourdes, 14 September 2008.)

Thus it is that those who praise Ratzinger/Benedict’s 2009 explanatory letter to the conciliar “bishops” about the bishops of the Society of Saint Pius are living in a complete and utter fantasy world. Among those who live in this world is Ratzinger/Benedict’s dutifully affectionate secretary and admirer, “Archbishop” Georg Ganswein, who has praised that 2009 letter as “Ratzinger in a pure state” (see RORATE CÆLI).

Alas, “Ratzinger in a pure state” means nothing other than Ratzinger committed to the “pacification” of those he labeled in Principles of Catholic Theology as “integralists” who could not be resisted too firmly:

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/Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, pp. 389-390)

Joseph Ratzinger chose to resist the “integralists” with his supposed kindness, which was designed to purchase silence from traditionally-minded Catholics in exchange for having access to a modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition that is staged, at least for the most part, by men who are not truly ordained priests.

It thus very much aside the point for scholars such as Dr. Antonio Socci to argue that the Bergoglians hate the “pope of tradition” (see Ratzinger is the true target of the New Inquisitors) as this hatred is nothing other than that of the Jacobins for the Girondists during the French Revolution of 1789 and of the Bolsheviks for the Mesheviks prior to and during the Russian Revolution of 1917. The hatred of the Bergoglians for Ratzinger and those in the conciliar structures who supported him is based upon the belief that Ratzinger sought to control the path of the conciliar revolution.

To the extent that this is true, however, it is Ratzinger himself who is to blame as that which is false can never be “controlled” from realizing its ultimate end consequences, something that is as true of the false principles of the American founding, of which Barack Hussein Obama/ Barry Soetoro is an ultimate end product, as of conciliarism itself. Revolutionaries always eat their own. Always. Joseph Ratzinger had no more ability to control the path of the conciliar revolution he helped to engineer than Martin Luther could control the path of his diabolical Protestant Revolution that is still unraveling into scores of thousands of disparate sects.

Endless numbers of articles, to be cataloged at some point in the next few weeks in a special “The Ratzinger Files” page on this current home of Christ or Chaos, appeared on what is now the archive home of my work in cyberspace to chronicle Joseph Ratzinger’s career-long defections from the Catholic Faith, including the days when he appeared in a jacket-and-tie as a peritus at the “Second” Vatican Council.

One must culpably blind himself refusing to admit the imple fact that Joseph Ratzinger is a Modernist who is different from Jorge Mario Bergoglio only in terms of personal taste, forms of expression and areas of emphasis. Ratzinger’s revolutionary precepts stem from a mind warped by the Hegelianism of his late mentor, Father Hans Urs von Balthasar, whereas Bergoglio’s revolutionary commitment stems from the viscera of slogans he learned during his days as a seminarian in the revolutionized Society of Jesus.

Only the willfully blind in the Motu blogosphere could ignore Ratzinger/Benedict’s frank discussion of the reason he issued Summorum Pontificum. Ratzinger/Benedict was not personally devoted to the Immemorial Mass of Tradition as it enshrined a Faith, including an ecclesiology, that was counter to the alleged “needs” of his mythical “modern man.” He desired there to be a “synthesis” between the Missal of Pope Saint Pius V and that of the very unblessed Giovanni Montini/Paul The Sick.

 

Yet it is that the “strategists” in the “resist while recognize” movement chose to ignore their “restorer of Tradition’s” multiple defections from the Catholic Faith during his 2,873 days as the universal public face of apostasy that were summarized (mind you, only summarized) eleven and one-half months ago in Mister Asteroid Is Looking Pretty Good Right About Now. The omissions of fact from their newspapers and websites are glaring as they knew that their “pope’s” defections from the Faith, which were identical to the ones for which they had criticized Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II with relentless fury, were indefensible.

 

Consider the fact that Ratzinger/Benedict committed Mortal Sins against the First Commandment every time he put into question or has denied a dogma of the Faith or has praised a false religion or has entered a temple of false worship. He has done so every time he has staged the Protestant and Judeo- Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service.

 

Anyone who denies that entering into and treating with respect places of false worship without seeking the unconditional conversion of those adhere the devils worshiped therein is intellectually dishonest or bereft of the sensus Catholicus (thereby lacking any knowledge of the necessity of defending the honor and glory and majesty of the Most Blessed Trinity) or is a coward who is afraid to speak to the truth of the Faith for one reason or another.

 

God will not be mocked. The God of Revelation does not want members of the Catholic Church, no less those who believe themselves to be bishops and priests, to give even the slightest degree of credibility to any false religion. The God of Revelation, which consists of Sacred Scripture and Sacred (Apostolic) Tradition, hates each and every false religion. He has no respect for false religions, which have the power to save no one and are instruments of disorder in souls and thus of disorder and chaos within nations. Those who show respect for false religions by esteeming their symbols and praising their nonexistent “ability” to contribute to the “betterment” of nations and the world are themselves enemies of God as they find themselves condemned by these very words  of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ Himself:

But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe to the world because of scandals. For it must needs be that scandals come: but nevertheless woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh. And if thy hand, or thy foot scandalize thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee. It is better for thee to go into life maimed or lame, than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into everlasting fire. And if thy eye scandalize thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee. It is better for thee having one eye to enter into life, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire. See that you despise not one of these little ones: for I say to you, that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father who is in heaven. (Matthew 18: 6-10.)

We will soon be treated to the spectacle of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the utimate end-product of conciliarism, greeting the ultimate end-product of Americanism, Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro. Lest the Ratzingerians in the counterfeit church of conciliarism become all uppity about this outrage, it is good to remember that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict not only met with Obama/Soetoro on July 9, 2010, in the Apostolic Palace within the walls of the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber River, he wished a “blessing” upon him and “all his work.” Oh, just in case you have not noticed, the word of Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro includes making the chemical and surgical slaughter of the preborn a cornerstone of his administration’s takeover of the national health care industry and promoting “marriage equality” for those engaged in perverse sins against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments.

Here is just a little reminder:

At the end of the meeting, Pope Benedict told the president: “A blessing on all your work and also for you.” (Benedict XVI meets Obama – Catholic Herald Online; also see A “Blessing” on a Murderer and His Work.)

Two believers in one world governance.

Mind you, the Obama/Soetoro meeting with Ratzinger/Benedict took place less than two months after the former was permitted to speak at the commencement ceremonies of the University of Notre Dame, from which I received a Master of Arts degree in political science on January 10, 1974 (forty years ago now?–how is this possible?), despite his militant stance in support of the slaughter of the innocent preborn under cover of the civil law. (See (Our Lady Does Not Honor Pro-Aborts, No “Common Ground” Between Truth and Error and Persecuting Those Who Defended Our Lady’s Honor.)

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI would have been just as welcoming of the scandalous, pro-abortion, pro-perversity French President Francois Hollande as was Jorge Mario Bergoglio on Friday, January 24, 2014, the Feast of Saint Timothy. For in addition to having greeted pro-abortion, pro-perversity leaders repeatedly during his time as the universal public face of apostasy, Ratzinger/Benedict specifically and categorically reiterated his support for that which Pope Saint Pius X termed a “thesis absolutely false,” the separation of Church and State, going so far as to directly contradict the last true pope to be canonized thus far concerning the evils of such a separation in Portugal.

Here is what Ratzinger/Benedict said in 2010, followed by what Pope Saint Pius X had written ninety-nine years before:

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

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

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

What has been the fruit of the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s “reconciliation” with the thesis deemed “absolutely false” by Pope Saint Pius X in Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906?

 

Portugal, long a bastion of Judeo-Masonry, has enacted legislation to “legalize”  divorce, contraception, sterilization, abortion and, among other evils, perversity as “rights” that must be “recognized” and protected by the civil law. “Gay marriage” and the surgical execution of children were already “legal” in Portugal when Ratzinger/Benedict XVI visit in 2010.

For its part, France, now in the fifty-sixth year of the Fourth Republic, has in Francois Hollande just as much an ultimate expression of its own revolution against Christ the King and His Catholic Church as Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro is an ultimate expression of the false, anti-Incarnational, religiously indifferentist, naturalistic and Pelagian principles underlying the American founding.

Yet it is that neither Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI or Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis recognizes this as they keep greeting such men with a false spirit of camaraderie based on “shared interests” while overlooking the fact that those who support sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance can never be just instruments in the pursuit of the common temporal good, which must be subordinated to man’s Last End, the possession of the glory of the Beatific Vision of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost for all eternity in Heaven.

What Antonio Socci and the pseudonymous bloggers at Rorate Caeli refused to admit, perhaps even to themselves, is that there is no space between Ratzinger and Bergoglio on matters of theological substance, including that of the separation of Church and State. Neither the Girondist/Menshevk Ratzinger or the Jacobin/Bolshevik Bergoglio accept the following words of Pope Saint Pius X, written at the time that the law of separation was promulgated in France, represent the teaching of the Catholic Church even though our sainted pontiff wrote that our popes had always condemned the separation of Church and State when the cicumstances required them to do so:

Our soul is full of sorrowful solicitude and Our heart overflows with grief, when Our thoughts dwell upon you. How, indeed, could it be otherwise, immediately after the promulgation of that law which, by sundering violently the old ties that linked your nation with the Apostolic See, creates for the Catholic Church in France a situation unworthy of her and ever to be lamented? That is, beyond question, an event of the gravest import, and one that must be deplored by all the right-minded, for it is as disastrous to society as it is to religion; but it is an event which can have surprised nobody who has paid any attention to the religious policy followed in France of late years. For you, Venerable Brethren, it will certainly have been nothing new or strange, witnesses as you have been of the many dreadful blows aimed from time to time by the public authority at religion. You have seen the sanctity and the inviolability of Christian marriage outraged by legislative acts in formal contradiction with them; the schools and hospitals laicized; clerics torn from their studies and from ecclesiastical discipline to be subjected to military service; the religious congregations dispersed and despoiled, and their members for the most part reduced to the last stage of destitution. Other legal measures which you all know have followed: the law ordaining public prayers at the beginning of each Parliamentary Session and of the assizes has been abolished; the signs of mourning traditionally observed on board the ships on Good Friday suppressed; the religious character effaced from the judicial oath; all actions and emblems serving in any way to recall the idea of religion banished from the courts, the schools, the army, the navy, and in a word from all public establishments. These measures and others still which, one after another really separated the Church from the State, were but so many steps designedly made to arrive at complete and official separation, as the authors of them have publicly and frequently admitted.

 

2. On the other hand the Holy See has spared absolutely no means to avert this great calamity. While it was untiring in warning those who were at the head of affairs in France, and in conjuring them over and over again to weigh well the immensity of the evils that would infallibly result from their separatist policy, it at the same time lavished upon France the most striking proofs of indulgent affection. It has then reason to hope that gratitude would have stayed those politicians on their downward path, and brought them at last to relinquish their designs. But all has been in vain-the attentions, good offices, and efforts of Our Predecessor and Ourself. The enemies of religion have succeeded at last in effecting by violence what they have long desired, in defiance of your rights as a Catholic nation and of the wishes of all who think rightly. At a moment of such gravity for the Church, therefore, filled with the sense of Our Apostolic responsibility, We have considered it Our duty to raise Our voice and to open Our heart to you, Venerable Brethren, and to your clergy and people-to all of you whom We have ever cherished with special affection but whom We now, as is only right, love more tenderly than ever.

3. 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.)

As was his wont throughout his priestly life of absolute fidelity to Christ the King, Pope Saint Pius X minced no words when addressing himself to the injustice done both to God and to the nation of France itself by the law of separation. Our sainted pontiff decried the effect of French laws on marriage, family and the education, and he stated in no uncertain terms that at the separation of Church and State is a “thesis absolutely false.” Something that is false in 1906 does not become “true” at a later point by the invocation of a “hermeneutic of continuity” (or “living tradition”).

Paragraph Three of Vehementer Nos, which has been cited on these pages so many, many times in the past, makes it clear that the Roman Pontiffs “have never ceased, as circumstances required, to refute and condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State.” That the conciliar “pontiffs” have embraced and promoted this falsehood is just another proof of the fact that they have not been true and legitimate Successors of Saint Peter as Vicars of Christ cannot teach that which has been condemned in the past.

Much unlike Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who endorsed state religious “neutrality” when he met with Archbishop Marcel Lefevbre on July 14, 1987 (see Then, Now and Always: Viva Cristo Rey!, part two and Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Pope Saint Pius X explained why the law of separation was particularly unjust in France:

4. And if it is true that any Christian State does something eminently disastrous and reprehensible in separating itself from the Church, how much more deplorable is it that France, of all nations in the world, would have entered on this policy; France which has been during the course of centuries the object of such great and special predilection on the part of the Apostolic See whose fortunes and glories have ever been closely bound up with the practice of Christian virtue and respect for religion. Leo XIII had truly good reason to say: “France cannot forget that Providence has united its destiny with the Holy See by ties too strong and too old that she should ever wish to break them. And it is this union that has been the source of her real greatness and her purest glories…. To disturb this traditional union would be to deprive the nation of part of her moral force and great influence in the world.”. (Pope Saint Pius X, Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906.)

With prophetic insight, Pope Saint Pius X saw the evil consequences that befall France as a result of the law of separation:

13. Hence, mindful of Our Apostolic charge and conscious of the imperious duty incumbent upon Us of defending and preserving against all assaults the full and absolute integrity of the sacred and inviolable rights of the Church, We do, by virtue of the supreme authority which God has confided to Us, and on the grounds above set forth, reprove and condemn the law voted in France for the separation of Church and State, as deeply unjust to God whom it denies, and as laying down the principle that the Republic recognizes no cult. We reprove and condemn it as violating the natural law, the law of nations, and fidelity to treaties; as contrary to the Divine constitution of the Church, to her essential rights and to her liberty; as destroying justice and trampling underfoot the rights of property which the Church has acquired by many titles and, in addition, by virtue of the Concordat. We reprove and condemn it as gravely offensive to the dignity of this Apostolic See, to Our own person, to the Episcopacy, and to the clergy and all the Catholics of France. Therefore, We protest solemnly and with all Our strength against the introduction, the voting and the promulgation of this law, declaring that it can never be alleged against the imprescriptible rights of the Church.

14. We had to address these grave words to you, Venerable Brethren, to the people of France and of the whole Christian world, in order to make known in its true light what has been done. Deep indeed is Our distress when We look into the future and see there the evils that this law is about to bring upon a people so tenderly loved by Us. And We are still more grievously affected by the thought of the trials, sufferings and tribulations of all kinds that are to be visited on you, Venerable Brethren, and on all your clergy. Yet, in the midst of these crushing cares, We are saved from excessive affliction and discouragement when Our mind turns to Divine Providence, so rich in mercies, and to the hope, a thousand times verified, that Jesus Christ will not abandon His Church or ever deprive her of His unfailing support. We are, then, far from feeling any fear for the Church. Her strength and her stability are Divine, as the experience of ages triumphantly proves. The world knows of the endless calamities, each more terrible than the last, that have fallen upon her during this long course of time — but where all purely human institutions must inevitably have succumbed, the Church has drawn from her trials only fresh strength and richer fruitfulness. As to the persecuting laws passed against her, history teaches, even in recent times, and France itself confirms the lesson, that though forged by hatred, they are always at last wisely abrogated, when they are found to be prejudicial to the interests of the State. God grant those who are at present in power in France may soon follow the example set for them in this matter by their predecessors. God grant that they may, amid the applause of all good people, make haste to restore to religion, the source of civilization and prosperity, the honor which is due to her together with her liberty. (Pope Saint Pius X, Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906.)

This is how true popes wrote. This is how true popes governed. There was not an ounce of “diplomacy” within the episcopal soul of Giuseppe Melchiorre Sarto. The farm boy from Riese, Italy, was direct and to the point. No compromise with evil. No “understanding” of the “circumstances of the moment. No “nuances.” No thought of teaching a doctrine that was “time-conditioned.” Not a hint of any assertion that the formulation of doctrines is so fraught with complexity that it can never be expressed adequately at any one time. No surrender to the supposed “impossibility” of converting men such Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro or Francois Hollande.

No, Pope Saint Pius X explained himself directly. Readers can judge for themselves that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI Jorge Mario Bergoglio have been antipopes because they are figures of Antichrist, men who have followed the paths of  their predecessors by daring to endorse and promote propositions that have been condemned by the Catholic Church and that even history itself has shown to be detrimental to men and their nations.

Indeed, Pope Saint Pius X stated in Une Fois Encore, January 6, 1907, that he would leave it to history to decide how damaging the law of separation of Church and State would be to France over time:

17. The vague and ambiguous-wording of some of its articles places the end pursued by our enemies in a new light. Their object is, as we have already pointed out, the destruction of the Church and the dechristianization of France, but without people’s attending to it or even noticing it. If their enterprise had been really popular, as they pretend it to be, they would not have hesitated to pursue it with visor raised and to take the whole responsibility. But instead of assuming that responsibility, they try to clear themselves of it and deny it, and in order to succeed the better, fling it upon the Church their victim. This is the most striking of all the proofs that their evil work does not respond to the wishes of the country.

18. It is in vain that after driving Us to the cruel necessity of rejecting the laws that have been made — seeing the evils they have drawn down upon the country, and feeling the universal reprobation which, like a slow tide, is rising round them — they seek to lead public opinion astray and to make the responsibility for these evils fall upon Us. Their attempt will not succeed.

19. As for Ourselves, We have accomplished Our duty, as every other Roman Pontiff would have done. The high charge with which it has pleased Heaven to invest Us, in spite of Our unworthiness, as also the Christian faith itself, which you profess with Us, dictated to Us Our conduct. We could not have acted otherwise without trampling under foot Our conscience, without being false to the oath which We took on mounting the chair of Peter, and without violating the Catholic hierarchy, the foundation given to the Church by our Savior Jesus Christ.

We await, then, without fear, the verdict of history. History will tell how We, with Our eyes fixed immutably upon the defense of the higher rights of God, have neither wished to humiliate the civil power, nor to combat a form of government, but to safeguard the inviolable work of Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ. It will say that We have defended you, Our beloved sons, with all the strength of Our great love; that what We have demanded and now demand for the Church, of which the French Church is the elder daughter and an integral part, is respect for its hierarchy and inviolability of its property and liberty; that if Our demand had been granted religious peace would not have been troubled in France, and that, the day it is listened to that peace so much desired will be restored in the country.

20. And, lastly, history will say, that if, sure beforehand of your magnanimous generosity. We have not hesitated to tell you that the hour for sacrifice had struck, it is to remind the world, in the name of the Master of all things, that men here below should feed their minds upon thoughts of a higher sort than those of the perishable contingencies of life, and that the supreme and intangible joy of the human soul on earth is that of duty supernaturally carried out, cost what it may and so God honored, served and loved, in spite of all. (Pope Saint Pius X, Une Fois Encore, January 6, 1907.)

The verdict of history is clearly on the side of the great Pope Saint Pius X, and no amount of rhetorical tricks from defenders of the alleged “orthodoxy” of Joseph Ratzinger can change that verdict. Pope Saint Pius X manfully defended the Social Reign of Christ the King that has been abandoned and flushed down the Orwellian memory hole by the conciliar revolutionaries. All that Ratzinger/Benedict did from April 19, 2005, to February 28, 2013, and that Bergoglio has been doing since March 13, 2013, is to celebrate the “victory” of what they think has been “progress” in the world even though the world is collapsing all around them.

Giuseppe Cardinal Sarto said the following when he became the Patriarch of Venice in 1893,  a year before he could take canonical possession of this see:

Three days later, on the Feast of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin, Cardinal Sarto addressed his first pastoral letter to the clergy of Venice; the letter was also addressed to the clergy of Mantua as a kind of pastoral last testament. Since he had many weeks to prepare it, it was not an occasional writing but a long exhortation, as well as a warning against Catholic liberalism which seemed, to the Patriarch of Venice, to be spreading more and  more at the heart of the Church. In it, the new Patriarch of Venice called priests to be united in fidelity to the Holy See: “…the Bishop alone is the guardian and interpreter of the Sovereign Pontiff’s commands, and the priests must be intimately united to the Bishop…” This unity is more indispensable than ever, because, in our days, the Church “practically at every moment has to fight to defend her liberty, her dignity and her rights.” The Church’s enemies are “the baneful sects” and “rotten materialism,” but they would not have so much success if certain people, under the cover of the glorious name of Catholic, did not come to their aid.” These “liberal Catholics” (cattolici-liberali) “dream of a kind of peace, or rather, a conciliation between light and darkness”: they stigmatize “all Catholics who think differently from them as ‘the clerical party,'” and they say that “in all things that concern the State, the civil authority ought to have the pre-eminence over the authority of the Church” and “under the pretext of liberty they permit the license of irreligion and insult.” These liberal Catholics, wrote Cardinal Sarto again, “always preach charity and prudence, as if it were charitable to let the wolf devour the lam, and as if it were a virtue to cultivate this prudence of the flesh, which God has condemned, as it is written: I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the prudence of the prudent I will thwart (1 Cor 1:19).” Liberal Catholics are “wolves in sheep’s clothing; it is more important than anything else that murky designs should be exposed to the light and denounced.” (Yves Chiron, Saint Pius X: Restorer of the Church. Translated by Graham Harrison. Angelus Press, 2002, pp. 87-88.)

Thus stands condemned Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI’s “official reconciliation” with the principles “inaugurated” with the shedding of Catholic blood at the beginning of the French Revolution on July 14, 1789.

Thus stands condemned Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s attacks on the “clerical party.”

Indeed, Pope Leo XIII wrote the following about such reconciling with the principles of the revolution just ten months before he promoted the Bishop of Mantua, Giuseppe Melchiorre Sarto, to be the Patriarch of Venice:

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, Custodi Di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892.)

We must use the spiritual weapon that Our Lord has given us through His Most Blessed Mother to defeat the enemies of our salvation at the very gates of our soul this day and every day our lives as we lift high the standard of His Most Holy Cross, which is adorned to every Rosary of His Most Blessed Mother, as we seek to spread devotion to this paramount weapon against all sin and heresy.

The world is in the state that it is because of the infidelity of men.

We must beseech Our Lady to help us remain faithful to the point of our dying breaths, especially by beseeching her through her Most Holy Rosary and by making sure that we offer our daily penances and prayers to her Divine Son’s Most Sacred Heart through her own Immaculate Heart. She will help us to see the world clearly through the eyes of the true Faith as we exclaim with love the great words that bespeak of our allegiance to her Divine Son, the King of our hearts, the King of the world that is now very much in the grip of those who advance evil after evil as they give professional courtesy to each other.

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us!

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

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