November is a month of hope, but only if we cooperate with the great Communion of Saints. The glories of the Church Triumphant, which we celebrate on the very first day of the eleventh month, is the goal we should all be striving towards not just on All Saints Day, but every day - every second, minute, hour of our life, and we are reminded of our mandatory duty the following day when we remember the Poor Souls in Purgatory on All Souls Day. Holy Mother Church, in her wisdom and true concern for souls, provides a beautiful means for us to assist the holy souls with the De Profundis Prayers provided in this issue with a different prayer for each day of the month. "From out of the depths" we pray for supplication from our Lord Jesus Christ each and everyday in helping souls. In addition, we provide this month the short works on Purgatory by the esteemed pre-Vatican II Irish priest Father Paul O'Sullivan entitled "How to Avoid Purgatory" and "Read Me or Rue It!" These, as well as the sermons of Saint John Marie Vianney are a wake-up call that we are not doing all we should in our necessary role as members of the Church Militant. There are consequences, severe ones for those abandoning their duty before God and their neighbor's plight in Purgatory.

    And speaking of a Church needing to be militant, this is the time to stand up and stand against the anti-Catholic campaign to do away with Limbo. In all charity, I must take editor Michael Matt and The Remnant to task in their October 15th issue for their seeming hypocrisy in the face of the obvious by blaming the media for the "false reports" that the International Theological Commission has launched a "trial balloon" to test the waters if those subscribing to the conciliar credo of a "new springtime" are willing to accept that Limbo is a figment of the imagination of medievalists. Keep in mind that Ratzinger did chastise the International Theological Commission, but couched it so because he was upset word had gotten out and reaction was negative from many sources. Again, it is a typical ploy of the conciliarists to test the waters by throwing the bait out with particular spin and if it doesn't bite, reel it back in and rework the rod and if so, even the bait until it is acceptable to man. Never mind what God thinks. That public relations tactic has been proven time and time again by the conciliarists from the "new mass" to "altar girls" to you name it...including the "new" Canon Law and "new" Catechism to cover up the heresies and innovations adopted with more modernist ambiguity that remains the benchmark of conciliarism, itself a heresy.

    Keep in mind also that the ITC is another of those conciliar innovations. In fact, it was established eight days following the official declaration of what Christ warned of in St. Matthew 24: 15, "the abomination of desolation" - the Novus Ordo Missae of Paul VI. The International Theological Commission was an idea proffered before the Council to empower ecumenism and collegiality and to diminish the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, so called in 1908 by His Holiness Pope St. Pius X after being the Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition since its creation by Pope Paul III in 1542 as part of the Counter-Reformation.

    In fact, one of the purposes of Paul VI's revamping of the Holy Office was to force out one of the thorns in Montini's modernist side - Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani - on January 6, 1968 and instill the Croatian Franjo Seper in his stead two days later until Father Joseph Ratzinger was appointed a quarter of a century ago this coming November 25th. It was an office he totally revised and Protestantized, if you will, until the death of Karol Wojtyla, when it had been transformed into such a toothless ecumenical post and turned so vanilla that Ratzinger saw fit to appoint the pro-sodomite potentate from Sodom by the Bay - otherwise known as San Francisco - in William Levada. Talk about the foxes guarding the hen-houses!

    Do not forget that in accord with the ITC founded in 1968, it was a short four years later that Ratzinger founded Communio, a journal to influence the ITC and made up of known Hegelian-minded heretics Hans Urs von Balthasar, Henri de Lubac, Karl Rahner and Walter Kasper; the former three along with Ratzinger were major players who made such a devastating impact at Vatican II along with Edward Scheellebeekx and John Courtney Murray. Oh, and did we mention Pierre Tielhard de Chardin? To this day the ITC is composed of thirty international liberal anti-traditional theologians elected to five-year terms (the present ITC serving out until 2009). So it should come as no surprise that this body of men and women are intent on eliminating anything that is truly Catholic and wiping out any memory of anything that happened before 1962. As a conservative Novus Ordo priest, whom we knew for many years, used to say, "Contrary to public opinion, the Church did not start in 1962." However the apostate conciliar church did, if not a few years even before that.

    That is a fact that even The Remnant agrees on with the excellent article in the same issue by Raymond B. Marcin, a Professor of Law at the "Catholic" University of America. Tell me, were you -like so many other Traditional Catholics - truly amazed at least a little that The Remnant is now relying on Novus Ordo professors to grace their front pages? Wasn't The Remnant enriched by the writings of Dr. Thomas A. Droleskey for the past few years until he withdrew his association in order to write more freely about what the the Church truly teaches and see without a shadow of doubt the obvious false, albeit absent fruits of the conciliar church, and realize that the conciliar popes cannot possibly be Catholic let alone true popes? It is a shame that he, a tireless apostle of Christ the King, must be treated as a non-person and that his body of work, which is uncompromisingly Catholic and quite arguably the most prolific of any Catholic author alive at this point, must be dismissed because he has reached conclusions that conciliarism is harmful to souls and that those who promote it, including Benedict XVI, are thus the enemies of souls. That is why Tom's rock-solid conclusions should be seriously considered by all.

    But back to The Remnant which, in truth, sadly, has become a carbon copy of the very publication it broke away from - The Wanderer - in the mid-sixties by giving credence to the conciliar popes. Though that excellent piece by Marcin pointed to the "great" moral flaw and shows the dichotomy so clearly, The Remnant, like the Society of St. Pius X, retreats. Why? Could it be because they dare not offend their subscribers. One has to wonder. What was that St. Paul says in Galatians 1: 6-11? specifically verse 10: "For do I now persuade men or God? Or do I seek to please men? If I did yet please men, I should not be the servant of Christ." It is not only the said October 15 issue I'm referring to, but so many other editions over the last few years. One article points out the obvious heresies of Benedict XVI and John Paul II before that, and yet, like Bishop Tissier de Mallerais shied away by saying, "I wouldn't call him a heretic" so also The Remnant as well as Father Nicholas Gruner's Fatima Crusader and John Vennari's Catholic Family News do the same. And yet they have before them in their very articles the proofs of the heresies. What will it take to convince these excellent, and devoted Traditional editors that have done so much good in bringing so much of the truth to starving Catholics to complete the repast by admitting the inevitable truth?

    In a most recent interview with Angelqueen, Bishop Richard Williamson identified two entities: The "Catholic religion centered on God" and the "Conciliar religion centered on man." Here is his quote below:

"One thing above all should always be remembered, in 2006, and for as long as this post-Conciliar crisis will last, namely that it consists in a war to the death between two directly opposed religions: the Catholic religion centered on God, and the Conciliar religion centered on man and the modern world. The Conciliar religion is a diabolically skilful [sic] counterfeit of the true religion. Between these two religions, as such, there can be no peace until one of them is dead."

In all respect, your Excellency, how can you justify Benedict as Catholic then when you have clearly identified the "Conciliar religion" which "is a diabolically skillful counterfeit of the true religion"? You've admitted it is both diabolical, counterfeit and at war with the Roman Catholic Church. How can the general of the enemy be the general of the good guys? Impossible. Why then the cowardice in not admitting the whole truth? Again, it boggles the mind. If Benedict is head of the former counterfeit church, then he cannot be head of the Catholic Church. Then he can't be Pope! Plain and simple. Sedevacantism is the only syllogism for it is an oxymoron to say he's the pope and yet he heads the enemy. Do you think Christ reasons this way? Please. Yes, we must love our enemy, but not put them in charge of us and usurp not only Christ but the august Office of the Primacy which He established. What it all boils down to is the undeniable truth that the conciliar popes cannot possibly be Catholic, ergo the Chair of Peter remains vacant until a true Catholic Pope occupies the Primacy once more - and it must be one who does not head up the very diametrically opposed entity defined by Bishop Williamson as "a diabolically skillful counterfeit of the true religion."

Follow the Logic

    I know that sounds bold in challenging a respected prelate of His Excellency's reputation and stature and I mean no disrespect to this member and other members of the Tower of Trent, but I ask every reader to follow the logic and ask why Bishop Williamson and the others above won't connect the final dot. Let's take Ratzinger. Consider, if one spouts error, he is considered an espouser of error and will continue in error until corrected. If one spouts errors of the Faith it constitutes heresy and no matter how large or small the heresy may be, if one continues stubbornly despite correction, than it becomes pertinacious. Now if one doesn't know better, than that person is a material heretic. That would apply to those not fully educated in the Faith or knowledgeable of Canon and Ecclesiastical Law and would encompass many of the laity. However a cleric has no such excuse as inculpable ignorance. Now would inculpable ignorance be applied to men like Archbishop Angelo Roncalli, Archbishop Giovanni Montini, Bishop Albino Luciani, Bishop Karol Wojtyla, or Father Joseph Ratzinger? But of course not. Why, because those who do know better are formal heretics per Canon 1325 #2. Canon 2314 states that ipso facto - "by that very fact" are to be considered infamous and are deposed. What? Deposed? That means deprived of office. That means holding no authority whatsoever. That means if the five men listed here were formal heretics, they could not hold ecclesiastical office as an ordinary or as a cardinal or as a pope.

    I know, I know, we've been down this path so many times, but hear the air-tight argument we offer to prove that they have abdicated their authority by their very own violation of their oaths. In this year's September issue of The Seraph, volume 27, no. 1, the question of oaths is featured in the editorial "The Profession of Faith." Bishop Louis Vezelis, O.F.M. asks, "Can God be mocked with impunity?" by taking lightly the vows made before Him and to Him? The Bishop directs his question to anyone who has made public promises and vows to God when entering upon positions of influence in the Roman Catholic Church. This includes religious, priests, bishops, cardinals and popes. Consider that every religious or cleric must profess vows. If one breaks those vows one must seek repentance and do reparation as the Church so deigns depending on the offense for it is a grave offense against God to go back on one's word to the Almighty. Remember our Lord's words in St. Luke 12: 48, "And unto whomsoever much is given, of him much shall be required: and to whom they have committed much, of him they will demand the more." Canon 2316 points out that such penalties are not vindictive, but medicinal in enforcing the discipline for healing the sinner against his material or formal errors. It is interesting to note that this was the exact purpose of the Holy Office of the Inquisition - today the conciliar Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - that the Inquisition was established as a deterrent against sin and to direct those who had offended to the proper methods of repentance and a failsafe against repeated offenses or spreading error.

    But those who are willing to violate an oath they made to God, are willing to do anything. Consider the gravity of this violation for it is a fact that every single clerical member, be they priest, bishop, cardinal or pope took the solemn vow at their diaconate before they were ordained as mandated by His Holiness Pope St. Pius X with the Sacrorum antistitum Oath Against Modernism. I repeat that: Every single clerical member of Vatican II took that oath! That means by participating in the heretical council overseen by a different "spirit" than the Holy Ghost that each and everyone of those participants excommunicated themselves ipso facto and would only be readmitted to the Church following public repentance since the Oath was made public. A private oath would only determine a private repentance such as the confessional, but a public oath would mandate a public disavowal of the error. Tell me, please, did anyone other than Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop Pierre Martin Ngo-dinh-Thuc and Father Michael Louis Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., can anyone name anyone else who publicly recanted of their error and violation of their oath? Though Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci vehemently opposed the Novus Ordo with the The Ottaviani Intervention which was actually composed by des Lauriers, neither of the aforementioned cardinals publicly recanted and pronounced the rest to do the same that I know of. Neither did Cardinal Giuseppe Siri. Because of their stature and status in the Church these men all knew the gravity of the Oath they had taken. They also identified the errors in the Intervention. Then why did they not publicly disavow and urge others to do so? Blame it on whatever you want - laxity, cowardice, fear of peers, whatever - the fact remains that only three signers of Vatican II actually repented publicly. The rest, like blind sheep went along with the program despite their own personal opinions and Catholic convictions. That does not speak very well for the backbone of the hierarchy in the early sixties, does it, and, if these men - cardinals - had violated their oath and incurred automatic excommunication, how could they have voted in the 1963 or 1978 or 2005 Conclaves?

    I refer you to an excellent short dissertation On the Oath Against Modernism by His Excellency Bishop Mark Pivarunas, CMRI written on the occasion of the 41st anniversary of the Feast of St. Pius X. In it he details where one would be offending God and how the reforms of Vatican II were just that. Also, let's continue in this vein on oaths. Not only did every priest before he was ordained from 1910 to 1968 pledge his unyielding fidelity to God and His Church with the Oath, but His Excellency Pope St. Agatho established a Solemn Pontifical Oath that every Sovereign Pontiff took up until John Paul I. Consider Roncalli. He said before God the following at his Coronation Mass in 1958:

   "I vow to change nothing of the received Tradition, and nothing thereof I have found before me guarded by my God-pleasing predecessors, to encroach upon, to alter, or to permit any innovation therein;

    To the contrary: with glowing affection as her truly faithful student and successor, to safeguard reverently the passed-on good, with my whole strength and utmost effort;

    To cleanse all that is in contradiction to the canonical order, should such appear; to guard the Holy Canons and Decrees of our Popes as if they were the divine ordinance of Heaven, because I am conscious of Thee, whose place I take through the Grace of God, whose Vicarship I possess with Thy support, being subject to severest accounting before Thy Divine Tribunal over all that I shall confess;

    I swear to God Almighty and the Savior Jesus Christ that I will keep whatever has been revealed through Christ and His Successors and whatever the first councils and my predecessors have defined and declared.

    I will keep without sacrifice to itself the discipline and the rite of the Church. I will put outside the Church whoever dares to go against this oath, may it be somebody else or I.

    If I should undertake to act in anything of contrary sense, or should permit that it will be executed, Thou willst not be merciful to me on the dreadful Day of Divine Justice.

    Accordingly, without exclusion, We subject to severest excommunication anyone -- be it Ourselves or be it another -- who would dare to undertake anything new in contradiction to this constituted evangelic Tradition and the purity of the orthodox Faith and the Christian religion, or would seek to change anything by his opposing efforts, or would agree with those who undertake such a blasphemous venture." (Papal Coronation Oath)

    Note the words in that last paragraph. It is already then an established fact of the ordinary Magisterium of the Church - the infallible, perennial Magisterium that a pope can be excommunicated ipso facto and would be if he dared "to undertake anything new in contradiction to this constituted evangelic Tradition and the purity of the orthodox Faith and the Christian religion, or would seek to change anything by his opposing efforts, or would agree with those who undertake such a blasphemous venture." There you have it for Vatican II was a blasphemous venture, especially when it was John XXIII who threw out the collected schemas and allowed to be rushed into place the meticulously malicious documents the modernists had prepared parallel to the original schemas. So, if he had not separated himself latae sententiae from the Church as a member of the Sillon or the Freemasons (both of which possibilities of innocence were highly doubtful), then he surely did subject himself to "the severest excommunication" by authorizing the liberal, modernist schemas of Vatican II. Remember those words above which the man taking the oath admitted as well. Ergo, he lost his office if he ever had it in the first place.

         

Again, no one knows what exactly occurred in the Conclave of October 25-28, 1958, but there is a remote possibility that when the above picture on the left was taken of him celebrating a solemn pontifical High Mass that he was still a valid priest and a Catholic. But the photo above left was taken in the early 60's when the unadulterated Latin Mass was still in effect and was quite possibly the last Pontifical High Mass celebrated in St. Peter's since with the True Rite. Since then we all know the fate of the True Mass, and yet, for those who think it has gone the way of the dinosaur, look again at the above photo on the right of Bishop Pivarunas celebrating the same pontifical High Mass on the high altar of Mount St. Michael's on the 89th Anniversary of the final Apparition at Fatima and the feast of Saint Edward the Confessor this year. Ergo, while the conciliar church has changed, the Catholic Church and her main and only true means of worship pleasing to God remains the same now and forever.

    Now let's look at John XXIII's successor Paul VI. He, too, took the very same oath. This was, in reality, heaping blasphemy upon blasphemy for he had taken the Oath Against Modernism in 1920 before an open Tabernacle with our Lord and Savior truly present to witness his vow. Yet, he was one of those who participated in Vatican II and prior to that had dealings with the Freemasons, not to mention other unsavory activities in Milan and before that in his diplomatic trysts as has been documented by Atila Sinke Guimarães in his book, "Vatican II, Homosexuality, and Pedophilia" and reinforced and detailed even further by Randy Engel in "The Rite of Sodomy". Ergo by his very actions either before his elevation, but certainly upon his elevation he violated the Solemn Pontifical Oath. Thus, there is no doubt he severely excommunicated himself from the holy Catholic Church and therefore had no authority in whatever he decreed.

    Think of the impact of that last statement. That means Vatican II is still in Limbo (pun intended) and nothing authorized by Paul VI is valid before God or man. No wonder the conciliarists want to do away with the concept of Limbo. That also means that the man-made "sacraments" Montini established are absolutely null and void and no canon law or degree of heresy is necessary to bicker that point. That means, folks, that anyone not ordained in the true sacrament of Holy Orders as established by Holy Mother Church and re-fortified according to the tenets and words mandated by His Holiness Pope Pius XII in his Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis, is not a real priest, not a valid Catholic priest, but akin to a Protestant minister for the conciliar church is - besides being "a diabolically skillful counterfeit of the true religion" - just that, my friends, Protestant! In that respect, other than the trappings, please tell me the difference between the conciliar church and the church of England at the time of Henry VIII who rejected the Catholic faith and oath before God and fell into schism and apostasy by his rejection of eternal Rome. The only difference is that it took longer for people to see the differences for Henry VIII changed none of the rubrics in the canon of the Mass or the sanctuary, unlike the conciliarists who within a decade of Vatican II had ransacked the sanctuary and, just as King Antiochus did in the time of the Macchabees, set up a table up against the true altar, but apart. Henry VIII was not even as bold as Paul VI for though he mandated allegiance to himself rather than Rome, he did not replace the Tabernacle. Montini did. So any questions regarding his validity as an authentic pope dissipate with the fact that he, too, excommunicated himself several times ipso facto. End of discussion on this man whom Marcin quoted on page 7 from Montini's Address to Lombard College on December 7, 1968 as saying:

" We looked forward to a flowering, a serene expansion of concepts which matured in the great sessions of the Council...[Instead. i](sic) t is as if the Church were destroying herself."

"We have the impression that through some cracks in the wall the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God...doubt, uncertainty, questioning, dissatisfaction, confrontation...We thought that after the Council a day of sunshine would have dawned for the history of the Church. What dawned, instead, was a day of clouds and storms of darkness, of searching and uncertainties."

"The tail of the devil is functioning in the disintegration of the Catholic world. The darkness of Satan has entered and spread throughout the Catholic Church even to its summit. Apostasy, the loss of the faith, is spreading throughout the world and into the highest levels within the Church."

    Consider those words carefully, folks. He was admitting that the apostasy had penetrated the "highest" level. The highest level is the papal chair. He was admitting that and reinforced that twice with the words "summit" and "highest." And yet, he did not turn back but went forward with all haste and intention to destroy the Church and her divinely-ordained liturgy. He was therefore an enabler of satan and his words were basically a bold boast. This summation is conclusive when you consider all Montini did to destroy the faith of souls everywhere by pandering to man. Yes, it was boastful by one who had sold out to the devil and the one who headed that very "diabolically skillful counterfeit of the true religion" and proudly sported that fact with the hidden 666 in his miter, the papal gardens, and making public the satanic crooked cross, which his predecessors John Paul II and Benedict XVI continued to publicly carry, rather than the Bishop of Rome's crosier. With such boldness and audacity as these men have exhibited, is it not apparent that satan is in charge of the conciliar church? What other conclusion can anyone come to than that? "No man can serve two masters...You cannot serve God and mammon." (St. Matthew 6: 24).

    We then have John Paul I in the person of Albino Luciani who flatly refused to take the Oath. After all, his predecessor in the conciliar church had sold off the papal tiara and the tri-regno rule it represents. Perhaps Luciani already knew he had violated his Oath Against Modernism and therefore why compound the blasphemy even further? Considering his own modernist background and acceptance of birth control regardless of the circumstances, he also excommunicated himself ipso facto and therefore, even for the short 33 days, held no authority whatsoever. That's three down and two to go, hopefully, God-willing, that will be all before Catholics wake up and realize those subscribing to conciliarism cannot possibly be Catholic.

    We all know about Karol Wojtyla and his part in Vatican II and thanks to the documentation provided by several books, most notably Atila Sinke Guimarães' "The Murky Waters of Vatican II" and the "Animus Delendi I" and "Animus Delendi II" as well as Romano Amerio's "Iota Unum", Father Ralph Wiltgen's "The Rhine Flows Into The Tiber" and, most recently, the excellent book we highly recommend by Fathers Dominic and Francisco Radecki, CMRI, "Tumultuous Times", not to mention more revealed actualities about Wojtyla's ties to Communism, Theosophism, and Zionism, it is only too evident that the man the world loved was an enemy of the Church, though like "Good Pope John" he could do no wrong as long as he catered to what the world clamored for. Wojtyla cemented his own heresies in his best selling "Crossing the Threshold" in which he openly embraced ecumenism, humanism, and universal salvation.

    That brings us to the man who quite possibly is the most dangerous of them all, if that indeed were possible considering the deconstruction instrumented by Montini and Wojtyla. That is one Joseph Ratzinger who, as has been pointed out, had long ago veered. Those who are not familiar with his heresies, and yes, ladies and gentlemen, they are heresies and never recanted, need only read his published work "Principles of Catholic Theology" which Marcin also cited. Considering the facts previously determined as to the total invalidity of ordinations, the fact that Montini also changed the rubrics of the Rite of Consecration for a bishop, thus making their consecrations null and void. Thus, folks, you have a man who sits on the Chair of Peter in his Gucci red shoes and stylish wardrobe who is not even a bishop, let alone a pope and that is only too evident by his constant manifestation of the heresies of ecumenism, humanism, religious liberty, universal salvation, modernism, you name it. He has made public his agenda for ecumenism. He has made public his abhorence of all proclaimed by Pope Pius IX in his Syllabus of Errors and Pope St. Pius X's encyclical against Modernism with Pascendi domenici gregis. If that is not heresy, folks, pertinacious, manifest, and formal heresy no less, than what is? Does not two plus two still equal four?

    Mr. Marcin even admits in his article these obvious heresies of Ratzinger while not, mind you, calling them "heresies", in The Remnant on pages 6 and 7 and he even cites St. Matthew 7: 19-20 to affirm such. While various writers contributing to The Remnant as well as Robert Sungenis in his most recent debate, persisted in dismissing Pope Paul IV's infallible papal bull Cum ex Apostolatus officio as merely "disciplinary" and only an ecclesiastical law that can be modified or even changed, But the facts are that what His Holiness was enforcing on February 15, 1559 were not contingent on ecclesiastical law or disciplinary only, but reinforcing DIVINE LAW and therefore infallible in the matters of faith and morals as the only valid Vatican Council declared in Pastor Aeternus. It is a dogma of the Church that "outside the Church there is no salvation" and since Benedict XVI has persisted in preaching universal salvation universally he has allowed himself to become anathema and therefore could in no way be considered a legitimate successor of Peter even if one were to argue that his pertinacious heresies, prior to his elevation, were only "private opinions," of which such a vapid argument would be impossible to accept considering the wide circulation of his works.

    It is also a fact - the Prima Salus, no less - that the Apostolic See cannot lead the faithful into error and which, as we profess in the Act of Faith we say "we believe these and all the truths which the holy Catholic Church teaches because Thou hast revealed them who canst neither deceive nor be deceived." Since the faithful have been led into error by the men occupying the seat of Peter since the death of Pope Pius XII, what conclusion can we possibly draw than these men are not Catholic and do not represent the true Roman Catholic Church? They are, as Patrick Henry Omlor so succinctly labeled them, "Robber Barons" who have stolen in and are thieves as Christ identifies in St. John 10: 12-16,

"The thief cometh not, but to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I am come that they may have life, and may have it more abundantly. I am the Good Shepherd. The Good Shepherd giveth His life for His sheep. But the hireling, and he that is not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf snatcheth, and scattereth the sheep: and the hireling fleeth, because he is a hireling: and he hath no care for the sheep. I am the good shepherd, and I know Mine, and Mine know Me. As the Father knoweth Me, and I know the Father, and I lay down My life for My sheep. And other sheep I have, that are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear My voice, and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd."

    Now we've already seen from the innovation of collegiality that the conciliar popes have surrendered to the world the idea of one fold and one shepherd under the terms Christ defines. Now they call for globalism where all men live in humanistic peace with no more emphasis placed on conversion to the one Ark of Salvation. Therefore we can readily identify them as the thieves and hirelings who have stolen in and flee, destroying and killing souls whether they are the false shepherds or false prophets or the wolves themselves. Another sign from divine revelation which proves these conciliar "popes" cannot possibly be true shepherds is their persistent cover-ups and spreading of scandal by not harnessing those who offend Christ and His Mystical Body. By doing so they attack the Head and are outside the body of Christ literally. Keep in mind the words Jesus says in St. Matthew 18: 6-7:

"But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in Me, it were better for him that a mill-stone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depths of the sea. Wo to the world because of scandals. For it must needs be that scandals come: but, nevertheless wo to that man by whom the scandal cometh."

    Folks, can we see it any clearer? Jesus says "Wo to that man by whom the scandal cometh." We've all seen the very man who has scandalized and boasted of it by his persistence and appointments and refusal to do anything about it in his positions of authority over the last 47 years which translates to, as was determined by holy Mother Church above, that he holds no authority. Ergo, how could he ever be a valid pope? Impossible, folks, and the sooner Catholics come to that realization, the faster they'll realize the conciliar church is a false church, a man-made church, a tool of the devil in order to enable the diabolic disorientation of these times.

Reparation, Reconciliation and Recognition

    That brings us back to the reason why holy Mother Church has designated November the "Month of the Holy Souls" and urges us to pray for the countless souls who, because of their "inculpable ignorance and blind obedience", were hopefully preserved from the fires of hell. Yet, deprived of the true sacraments for so many decades, the graces were not there to be ushered quickly into Heaven. They must make reparation for temporal punishment in Purgatory. The duration of that depends on us. If we truly love God and our neighbor, we can best express that love by getting down on our knees and praying for the poor souls each and every day not only in this month, but everyday of our lives. In this age of exercising fads, there is only one lasting exercise that produces everlasting results and that is the exercise of prayer and fasting, penance and self-sacrifice as Christ has mandated and holy Mother Church has always upheld. Never mind the double-speak gibberish that continues to pour from the beast of modern Rome who has indeed fulfilled Our Lady's La Salette prophecy that that "Rome would lose the faith and become the seat of the antichrist." Eternal Rome will always remain faithful and we must remain faithful to eternal Rome by living as Catholics have from 33 A.D. to the beginning of the revolution of the sixties and the devil's revenge.

    In The Remnant's Open Letter to Pope (sic) Benedict XVI , editor Michael Matt reinforces that the Holy Ghost will not allow any new doctrine to be pronounced by the Successors of Peter, and yet is that not exactly what the conciliar Grand Masters have done in ransacking the patrimony of the holy Catholic Church? He states the risks and then says

"Only an infallible ex cathedra papal pronouncement declaring that there is no Limbo could provide the necessary surety in the matter. But such a pronouncement would be impossible for the very reason that there is no traditional teaching against Limbo, but only a tradition in favor of it, so that the 'abolition' of Limbo would be a doctrinal novelty the Church has no power to teach."

    First of all, there has been nothing proclaimed infallibly ex cathedra since November 1, 1950 when Pope Pius XII declared the Dogma of the Assumption. Since then nothing, nada. And why? Because the Holy Ghost will not allow it and cannot allow it per Christ's Own words in St. Matthew 16: 19 that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." In other words, the conciliar popes have no authority to do such from God because they excommunicated themselves and God will protect the Office of the Papacy - the Primacy of Peter by assuring these imposters cannot proclaim anything ex cathedra. The First Vatican Council codified this dogma. Matt goes on to quote a reporter that were Benedict to approve of the ITC's decision to abolish the concept of Limbo that it would "cast aside centuries of Catholic belief." Michael, dear Michael, has not ecumenism, humanism, universal salvation, religious tolerance, collegiality, altar girls, revised synthetic and syncretic "sacraments" done just that? Is waiting for the obvious nothing more than a limp excuse not to be honest with yourself and others that the syllogism points to one thing: the conciliar popes cannot possibly be Catholic? What will it take for The Remnant, Catholic Family News, the Fatima Crusader, and the SSPX to realize these conciliar Grand Masters have long ago sold out to Freemasonry and the Zionist agenda and cannot possibly be Catholic, let alone true popes?

    And before the above start refuting by raising the ambiguous "nuances" excuse as a defense against facing the unmitigated truth, listen closely to what His Holiness Pope Leo XIII reiterated 110 years ago in his encyclical Satis cognitum in reinforcing what Saint Augustine and several other Fathers and Doctors of the Church stated:

    "The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a certain portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. 'There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition' (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos).

    The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, and Theodore drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. 'No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic' (St. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88)." (editor's emphasis)

    This diffuses the flimsy, limp reasons why so many traditional writers and editors today hide behind the fact that if they were to agree, as proven by past true Popes, Councils and divine revelation, that the conciliar popes cannot possibly be Catholic, they would be ineffective in their present apologetics for they'd be considered "outside the Church" and could not be as effective within. Huh? What does being inside the conciliar church accomplish? Nothing but confusion and the loss of souls. Do they really want to remain associated with an apostate organization as the conciliar church? They do when they refer to Benedict as "Pope" or as "Holy Father." A Holy Father is first and foremost concerned for the welfare of souls - their salvation which can only be accomplished by remaining in the state of Sanctifying Grace. While good ol' Benedict pontificates at times on the need for adoration, etc. during his Wednesday audiences, it is what he says on Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays, Fridays and several times on weekends that illustrates undeniably that he poisons and infects "the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition." It is the conciliar mantra of deception characterized by the Grand Masters who have usurped the Chair of Peter from John XXIII through Benedict XVI. When will this madness end? By giving credence to a heretic by not daring not call him a heretic despite holy Mother Church's clear, concise definition of what constitutes such, is deceiving and confusing Catholics everywhere as well.

    In having hashed all this out over the past year, I agree with Dr. Droleskey as he stated at the conclusion of his cogent commentary on the debate Debating Past Each Other that we in the laity have said all we can. Now it is time to take it to the next stage and respectfully lobby the traditional Bishops and clergy to realize this point of division needs to be addressed so that we can stand as one against "a diabolically skillful counterfeit of the true religion." Such a coming together of consecrated minds will not occur in the near future, but I pray it will not be too long. Because the sooner the Bishops are of one mind, and the sooner those on the fence get off of it, the faster and stronger will the traditional movement grow and become a formidable ally against the "diabolically skillful counterfeit of the true religion." Until then, I would like to respectfully present an open challenge to The Remnant, Catholic Family News, Fr. Gruner of The Fatima Crusader and Fatima.org, to Christopher Ferrara who launched the first attack on the "Sedevacantist Enterprise", to Robert Sungenis - who considers the sacrilegious synthetic and syncretic Novus Ordo adequate and valid, to Father Brian Harrison, to His Excellencies Bishop Bernard Fellay, Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta, Bishop Richard Williamson and Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais to honestly and with an open heart to the prompting of the Holy Ghost, listen to Bishop Mark Pivarunas' talks on Sedevacantism and dare anyone (again respectfully and with the only goal of uniting Catholics for the good of the holy faith) to refute the points that he presented, which are all based on the infallible, perennial Magisterium of the Church, Sacred Scripture and true Popes who took their Papal Oath seriously and were truly concerned for the salvation of souls and believed in conversion, for, after all, Christ commanded such.

   They can listen to His Excellency's excellent airtight arguments from this past Fatima Conference through Traditional Catholic Sermons: