Nine years ago you collaborated with Michael Matt of The Remnant and John Vennari of Catholic Family News to publish the book We Resist You to the Face which was a respectful invitation to engage the heretic Karol Wojtyla aka John Paul II in dialogue on how he had deviated from what the perennial Magisterium of the Church taught. Outside of the accolades from the Traditional community, all you received for that was flak. No dialogue was ever established for you cannot dialogue with the devil. To engage the deceitful conciliarists in honest dialogue is an oxymoron. It is fruitless as has been proven time and time again, even though Bishop Bernard Fellay seems to believe in Pollyannna.

    While there is no hope in engaging those who are opposed to truth, we do believe there is hope in engaging traditionalists in coming to a meeting of the minds in an effort to strengthen our ranks and unify against the barbarian pirates who have usurped the Fortress, raising the Jolly Roger of Modernism while ravaging souls lo and woe these past 50 years. We are in agreement in so many things, but one thing divides us and it is something that must be addressed, must be settled if we are all to survive and save souls. While this is specifically addressed to our dear friends Atila Sinke Guimaraes and Dr. Marian Therese Horvat because they are both of good will and honest, we are also including Matt and Vennari for they were, and I emphasize "were" a strong voice in the traditional movement when that book was published. Since that time, both have lost credibility in many things because they have been forced, by their own agenda or others governing them (we can't say for sure which), to straddle the fence as the Society of St. Pius X has done, which leads one to lose direction and equilibrium. Both were long strong critics of one Father Joseph Ratzinger until..., yes, until he was named Benedict XVI in the conciliar conclave four years and one month ago. Since then, rather than being objective journalists, they have become giddy cheerleaders for the very man they once scoriated.

    To Atila and Marian's credit, they have remained objective; perhaps too objective in the face of the manifest heresy so evident in this man who has run roughshod over the Faith since his early days in Germany.

    Thus, Atila and Marian, we have seen what you have seen which you posted on your site on Monday, May 18 under Church Revolution in Pictures. This service, proving the axiom that indeed one picture is worth a thousand words, is one you have been so vigilant on over the years, providing proof that what passes today as the "Catholic" Church is, in effect, the counterfeit church of conciliarism. Viewers throughout the world have seen these photos. They are worldwide. Specifically the one you captured Monday illustrating so clearly the universal, manifest scandal that is nothing new but a continuation of manifest heresy that has been blatantly obvious for over 40 years, but never moreso than recently. In the picture to the right we have enlarged the feet to show no one was holding a gun to the head of one Joseph Ratzinger when he entered and participated in the Islam custom and religion by removing his precious red shoes to honor Islam, something that saints died for rather than offering even one ounce of incense to a false god or pagan religion or any religion that denied Jesus Christ's one True Church He founded upon the Rock of Peter. But that didn't stop the Hegelian syncretist from proclaiming to the world that he has "deep respect for Islam." Oh, the devil must be giggling wildly.

   But, as you know so well and have noted many times as well as documenting in your excellent series of books, Fr. Ratzinger has participated in Jewish ceremonies and universally declared that Christ's life, death and resurrection doesn't have to mean anything to the Jews. They can continue to wait. For what? The New World Order! You yourself, Atila, and, Marian in your translations, were the first to pounce on the anathema Ratzinger as head of the CDF proclaimed in the PBC's The Biblical Commission on the Jews: Changes in Doctrine and New Anathemas that you provided first on our site back in May of 2002 in your series Defending Catholic Truth and Tradition. It was your pointing out the anathemas, that prompted me to begin connecting the dots, so to speak. As you yourself wrote:

    I respond by transcribing some of the perennial teaching of the Church.

Contrary to the position of Ratzinger and the PBC, the Council of Trent officially stated this against the Protestants: "In order to curb impudent clever persons, the synod decrees that no one who relies on his own judgment in matters of Faith and Morals, which pertain to the structure of Christian doctrine, and that no one who distorts the Sacred Scripture according to his own opinions, shall dare to interpret the said Sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which is held by Holy Mother Church, whose duty it is to judge regarding the true sense and interpretation of Holy Scriptures, or even [shall dare to interpret it] contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers, even if interpretations of this kind were never intended to be brought to light" (Council of Trent, Session 4, n. 786).

First Vatican Council taught against the liberals: "Indeed, these books of the Old and New Testament, whole with all their parts, just as they were enumerated in the decree of the same Council, are contained in the older Vulgate edition, and are to be accepted as sacred and canonical. But the Church holds these books as sacred and canonical, not because, having been put together by man alone, they were then approved by her authority; nor because they contain Revelation without error; but because, having been written by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God as their author and, as such, they have been handed down to the Church herself" (Vatican Council I, Constitution De Ecclesia, n. 1787).

St. Pius X taught against the Modernists: "Now, then, we think that it is clear of what sort of method the modernists employ in the field of history. The philosopher goes ahead; the historian succeeds him; right behind, in order, comes criticism, both internal and textual. And since it is characteristic of the first cause to communicate its power to its consequences, it becomes evident that such criticism is not criticism at all; that it is rightly called agnostic, immanentist, and evolutionist; and that being so, he who professes it and uses it, professes the errors implicit in the same and opposes Catholic doctrine (Pascendi Dominici gregis, n. 34).

Pius XII taught against the Progressivists: "For some go so far as to pervert the sense of [First] Vatican Council's definition that God is the author of Holy Scripture, and they put forward the opinion, already often condemned, which asserts that immunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters …. In interpreting Scripture, they take no account of the analogy of Faith and the Tradition of the Church. Thus they say that the doctrine of the Fathers and of the Magisterium of the Church has to be judged by the norm of Holy Scripture explained by the purely human reason of exegetes, instead of explaining Holy Scripture according to the mind of the Church, which Christ Our Lord has appointed guardian and interpreter of the whole deposit of divinely revealed truth" (Humani generis, n. 22).

    If this teaching that reflects the unanimous mind of the Church in the last 400 years before Vatican II is true, which it is, then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and the Pontifical Biblical Commission, by virtue of the theses that they defend in The Hebrew People, should be considered to have adopted a false method of interpretation of Holy Scriptures, a method that was condemned by prior Popes and Councils as Protestant, Liberal, Modernist, and Progressivist. Insofar as it is Modernist, it also incurs condemnation as agnostic, immanentist, and evolutionist.

    And why did they adopt this method? In order to officially offer the Jewish religion an honorific place and an invitation to orient the teaching of Holy Scriptures within the sacred flock of the Catholic Church.

This position was also condemned by the Third Ecumenical Lateran Council (1179), which pronounced an anathema on those who, "preferring the Jews to the Christians, would receive the testimony of Jews against Christians and not that of Christians against Jews" (Decree 2, 20, 21).[27]
[ 27. Apud F. Vernet, entry Juifs et chrétiens, Dictionnaire apologétique de la Foi Catholique, Paris: Beauchesne, 1924, vol. 2, col. 1744.]

    Whosoever has eyes to see, let him see what this represents in the ensemble of the History of the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church.

    It was this very anathema that Saint Paul so clearly alerted us of in Galatians 1: 8-10 that raised the red flag that Ratzinger had apostasized from the true Church long before. The fact he had been the fox placed in charge of the henhouse by John Paul II with no censure for this blatant anathema only indemnified the latter more. Since neither had repented of their apostasy, we realized there was no way Ratzinger could ever be pope despite the world's adulation of this so-called "conservative" German whom you identified beaucoup times as a progressivist with a Hegelian mindset, in and of itself a heresy, as you pointed out.

    If he were a true pope, then Christ's promise was in vain as were the deaths of countless saints and martyrs. What would be the use of being Catholic if we could just go down to the closest Lutheran or Methodist or New Age Church since all religions are the same and there "subsists in" each a measure of salvation? Those not knowing the faith could easily get caught up in this claptrap con and indeed have as the statistics prove out and the bad fruits continue to multiply because there can be no good fruits. We have that on Our Lord's Own words in St. Matthew 7: 15-21.

    Proof that he is not a true pope is evident in the fact that he has erred grievously many times over. That is because the Holy Ghost has withdrawn His protection because, after all, why guard a barbarian who has usurped your master? No longer under divine protection, no longer guided by the infallible dogmatic councils and Papal decrees of previous reliable true Popes who truly had the welfare of souls as their primary objective, Ratzinger and his barbarian amoral ilk are free to do whatever they please to please man while veering farther away from all things Catholic, all things pertaining to Christ and the perennial Magisterium of the Church.

    You point out the mission of Tradition in Action is "committed to defend the perennial Magisterium of Holy Mother Church and Catholic traditions. TIA also works for a restoration of Christian civilization, adapted to contemporary historical circumstances." [editor's emphasis]. You have pointed out anathema after anathema committed by Ratzinger over the years. Did he repent publicly for those anathemas when we weren't looking or something? Not that the mainstream drive-by Pravda media would ever cover such a thing, but at least the "resist and recognize" cabal would. But they have not. No, Ratzinger continues his anathemas, increasing them ever moreso and causing untold scandals in diverting the mission Christ charged for His Church by converting the modern Modernist conciliar church into a humanistic institution that cares only for peace in this world for the "common good" with no concern for the consequences of such in the next.

    By the very definition consistent manifest heresy puts one outside the Church, making it impossible for Joseph Ratzinger to have any authority as Sovereign Pontiff. He is, by your very own admission, in apostasy as you wrote "With this we are far removed from the Catholic Faith..." Atila, you who are, of those alive today, one of the most respected and knowledgeable writers on Vatican II, must surely realize that you can no longer remain on the fence in avoiding the fact that Benedict cannot possibly be a true pope. To do so is akin to placing yourself in the category so aptly described in the Book of the Apocalypse 3: 16, "But, because thou are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of My mouth." Surely you don't want that kind of reputation, but that is the perception of those in the "resist and recognize" camp who cast aspersions on every prelate they can but give the top man a pass as Michael Matt so amazingly continues to do in his latest piece on May 17, titled The Wintertime of Vatican II in which he illustrates how he himself is frostbit by the numbing logic he fails to see.

    Consider some of the inane statments made in that article as we now turn our challenge to him on what he posted on Tuesday, May 19:

I write these words on May 17, 2009—a day that will surely go down in infamy in the annals of the once mighty Catholic Church in America.

    No, Michael, the day that will forever go down in infamy was not Pearl Harbor nor May 17 at Notre Dame. The day that will go down in infamy was January 25, 1959 when John XXIII made his "impromptu" announcement of a Second Vatican Council. It would be the greatest revolution in the history of mankind as the statistics and lack of fruits have proven, not to mention the devastating causes and effects which have been chronicled so well by Atila in his series of books. Now let us continue with Matt's words.

In light of today’s scandal at Notre Dame perhaps it would have been more advantageous to the Church in America had the Holy [sic] Father stayed in Rome last year and drawn up the necessary decrees of excommunication for half the ‘Catholic’ politicians in this country and most of the ‘Catholic’ university heads—starting, of course, with Father John Jenkins of Notre Dame!

   Memo to Michael: A true Holy Father would have done so long ago. The fact this has been going on for forty years by your own admission only strengthens the argument that we have not had a "Holy" Father since His Holiness Pope Pius XII. It is Ratzinger from his earliest days as a disciple of Karl Rahner and that ilk who created the monster you lambast. Yet, you give a pass to the one responsible by making excuses for him as a 'victim' of the Modernists? Puhlease! While Matt went on about how Ratzinger was roped into participating and going along with the venue he has the audacity to write the following:

Setting aside whatever positive developments may have transpired while the Holy [sic] Father was in the Holy Land (the plight of the Palestinians, for example, was given more media attention during his short visit than in the past five years), we humbly beg the Holy [again, sic] Father to usher in true Catholic restoration by staying in Rome and governing the Church from now on. Benedict did more for souls, Catholic identity, and world peace on July 7, 2007, than all the inter-religious meetings and papal globetrotting combined. And it was Summorum Pontificum, let’s not forget, that earned him the wrath of the world.

   Memo again to Michael: And the wrath of God. When will you realize how this spider in white robes and red slippers has lured you into his web? For an illustration of this, see The Only Resistance Left is Right. Ask those good priests in the Society such as Prior Basilio Meramo, Fr. Floriano Abrahamowicz, Fr. Juan Carlos Ceriani, Abbe Jean de Morgon and several others why they were expelled by Bishop Bernard Fellay. Were they in apostasy or schism? Did they violate the First Commandment as Ratzinger did? No, they stood up for Catholic truth. Where's your defense of them? It's all fine and good to defend Fr. Weslin the 80 year-old presbyter arrested at Notre Dame, but your words echo hollow if you remain silent in the coup Fellay is pulling off in hijacking the SSPX as one of Ratzinger's baubles to silence Traditional Resistance. And in your words "positive developments" what kind of Kool-Aid are you drinking? It was a total surrender of Catholicism to those forces opposed to Christ and His true Church. The proof is in the pudding as documented by Dr. Thomas A. Droleskey at Christ or chaos.com.

    By the way, Tom once wrote for your publication, Michael, providing literary excellence to your pages until you made him persona non grata when he was honest enough to connect the dots and not hide the fact of his ultimate conclusion determined by Holy Mother Church not by individual opinion that a conciliarist could not possibly be a pope. You've ignored Tom without realizing the great sacrifice he made financially and psychologically to state the truth, the backbiting and rejection he experienced because he dared to speak the truth. Are you willing to do that? Would you or would you be afraid of losing your SSPX base? Could that have something to do with why several in the "resist and recognize" camps have avoided and evaded the inevitable conclusion for far too long? Hitching your wagon to Fellay's folly will only land you smack dab in the gulge, ambushed by conciliarists on the cliffs, intent on draining any influence you might still have and moving in for the massacre. Just look to Campos for evidence. It's Ratzinger's and the conciliar modus operandi orchestrated by the enemies of the Church. Be careful of following the messenger rather than the message which must remain the holy Gospel and infrangible doctrines of the Church.

    Michael, you made a big thing of pointing out Ratzinger's words that sounded so Catholic on his last day, but failed to mention he was preaching to the choir. That's the only time he mentioned Christ. Our Lord's name was not uttered in the presence of the Muslims or Jews. Was that because of his "respect" for those religions which he made a point to express more than once? If so, remember Christ's words in St. Matthew 7: 21, Not every one that saith to Me: Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of Heaven: but he that doeth the will of My Father, Who is in Heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of Heaven." Do you think Ratzinger was doing the will of the Father, Michael? Remember St. Paul's words: "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" (Galatians 1: 10). Ergo, if he is not a servant of Christ he cannot be a Vicar of Christ.

    Then you wrote,

Pray earnestly for Pope [sic] Benedict. Is he conflicted to some extent? It would seem so, as are we all. But powerful forces inside the Vatican and out are directing their considerable energies to the refashioning of the Holy [sic, yet again] Father in the spirit of the age. They’re even editing his teachings in order to make them less controversial. It would seem they’ve had enough of his Tradition-friendly reforms and, in the wake of the “last straw”— the Williamson affair—are doing all in their power to stop him from taking even one more step in the direction of Tradition.

   Yes, Michael, he is conflicted and has been since his early years as a Nazi youth cooperator or hadn't you read The Wanderer? If we are not mistaken the whole "Williamson affair" was orchestrated by Benedict answering to the Zionists by taking immediate action with the same Obama-like "unawareness" that he didn't know the quirky Society bishop doesn't buy into the exaggerated Zionist propaganda that intimidates others into being bullied if they do not surrender to the Jews that only they were victims, a monopoly that has garnered millions of dollars in sympathy. Quite an industry. Williamson was mere collateral damage and blew it himself when he had the opportunity to have a world-wide forum to speak up for the truth and call Ratzinger on the carpet for his heresies. The Brit blinked and forever lost his chance to alert the world of what's really going on. When will you admit, what you previously insisted during JP2's administration, that Ratzinger has no intention of taking a step in the direction of Tradition. That would be counterproductive to the entire agenda he helped forge when he formed Consilio.

Faithful Catholics must not bury their heads in the sand. The Church in the modern world does not need a rock star in Peter’s chair. She needs a priest, a holy man, perhaps even a martyr if there is to be any hope of true restoration.

   We couldn't agree more, Michael. Such a man hasn't existed since October 9, 1958.

The Holy [sic] Father is not a young man. We must pray that he resists the wolves that surround him, that he stays in Rome, that he governs his Church, and that at long last he recognizes the tragic—but increasingly obvious!—failure of the Second Vatican Council to usher in a new springtime for the Church and “contemporary man.”

    It is the case of the younger wolves turning on the old wolf. Jack London called it "survival of the fittest." Is it not ironic poetic justice that what goes around comes around? To mix metaphors but staying with predators, so apt considering we're speaking of Ratzinger, there is no way a leopard can change his spots, no way, as Atila wrote, that this tiger has any teeth.

What happened this day at Notre Dame proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that the springtime of Vatican II has never materialized, and that the papal hope for such a springtime was perhaps the most inexplicable delusion in human history. Darkness has covered the earth and winter’s frozen embrace paralyzes the Church—in America and throughout the whole world.

    When, Michael, will you admit that the Four Horsemen of the Apocalpyse have already galloped across the soul of man? To millions upon millions, the beacon of hope had long stood above the swirling sewer of the synthesis of all heresies, extending her beam universally, offering refuge to the wanderer, to the lost. The Lighthouse Keeper, vigilant through the centuries, has been infiltrated. Fifth columnists gained control causing the rays to become dimmer as the storm grew stronger through the rise of Freemasonry and two world wars. Over the last century misdirection allowed their entry. In the last 50 years, maintenance of the Lighthouse has been neglected, purposely. Obvious cracks gradually appeared in the walls. The once impenetrable Fortress on the Rock began showing stress signs. The stable Gate buckled, and with Vatican II the seams became a sieve. The structure has since wavered as apostate waves have lashed against her foundation. Countless abandoned souls have abandoned the Rock. There is no "Holy Father" in sight for a true Pope would never abandon his post. Yet, crippled and caring, proud and poor, indigenous and infinite, She will not and cannot fall though presently She is leaning perilously to port. She is wavering on the edge of the precipice, prevented from plunging by Christ's promise in St. Matthew 16: 19 and the unyielding small Rock, symbolized as the Catacomb Church where the True Apostolic Mass of All Ages, the Traditional Latin Mass is said and no concession of any kind or recognition is given to the counterfeit church of conciliarism. That and the perennial, infallible Magisterium of the Church brace it from toppling.

    You conclude your article with four words:

God save the Pope.

   No, Michael, rather God save the Papacy.

    John Vennari, writing on the same subject, Obama, Notre Dame and the Counter-Syllabus this week, does all but pin the blame on the one who's really responsible: the top man Ratzinger. Thus we now address you, John. While justifiably lambasting Resident Barack Hussein Obama as the "Abortionist-in-Chief", you fail to connect the dots even when you write:

The scandal at Notre Dame is the effect of the diabolic disorientation of the upper hierarchy now the norm in the Church due to the Second Vatican Council. One cannot praise the Council as the "counter-syllabus" it truly was, and then complain of the disastrous effect that such a reverse necessarily produces.

  This Modernist reverse encompasses the destruction of sound philosophy, the perversion of doctrine and the corruption of moral theology.[1] Anarchy now reigns to the point that the average Catholic university is a destroyer of the Faith rather than its guardian and advocate.

  In 1960, when neo-Modernism was rising to the crescendo that would be the Council, the eminent American theologian Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton warned, “No one has ever been as well placed to harm the true Church and to counteract its essential work as a priest in good standing. If such a man, by his preaching, his teaching, or his writing, actually sets forth the kind of teaching condemned in the anti- Modernist documents Lamentabile sane exitu and Pascendi dominici gregis, or if he works to discredit the loyal defenders of Catholic dogma without receiving any repudiation or reproof from those to whom the apostolic deposit of divine revelation has been entrusted, the Catholic people are in grave danger of being deceived.” [2] [original emphasis]

  In the name of the Council’s aggiornamento, which effectively advanced the Modernist principle that a portion of Catholic doctrine can change over time,[3] priests and bishops have propounded teaching condemned by St. Pius X’s anti-Modernist documents, and have discredited loyal defenders of Catholic dogma. These priests and bishops have received no “repudiation or reproof from those to whom the apostolic deposit of divine revelation has been entrusted.”

  The destruction of the Faith has taken place, and continues, by “priests in good standing”. Thus, what the clear-sighted Msgr. Fenton predicted in 1960 has come to pass, though he may not have envisioned the massive number now deceived. Obama was enthroned in the once-holy place of Notre Dame because Modernism has been enthroned in the highest echelons of the Church for more than forty years, due to the Second Vatican Council.

  The liberal Cardinal Suenens praised the Council as the “French Revolution of the Church”, and the second generation of that revolution has just graduated from Notre Dame chanting “Yes We Can!” to one of the most anti-Christ leaders on the planet.

    Now, John, you nailed the problem but have forgotten just a few things like who has ruled over the highest echelon of the Church for more than forty years? That would be Angelo Roncalli, Giovanni Montini, Albino Luciani, Karol Wojtyla and now Joseph Ratzinger. These men were the ones who enabled St. Pius X's the Modernisism condemned by the holy Pontiff and therefore the perennial Magisterium of the Church. If condemned, and it was as you admit yourself, how then can you recognize those condemned as having any authority? You know very well you can't for Holy Mother has ruled on this often, most notably in Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio and Satis Cognitum and Mortalium Animos, not to mention Pascendi Dominici Gregis and the Oath Against Modernism. In addition, I would strongly recommend Dr. Droleskey's latest essay "Revising" the Faith in order to be Free of Christ the King in documenting specifics on Ratzinger's apostasy, anathema and heresies. And we can't pass this opportunity to not remind you of the excellent treatise of Griff Ruby in pinpointing Lumen Gentium as the breaking point in his magnificent opus Down the Yellow Brick Road to Apostasy: The Lumen Gentium Syndrome .

    While Matt goes to any length to defend Ratzinger where before he castigated him relentlessly, you, John, seem to avoid him as if you cannot see the elephant in the room. When will you and the rest of the "resist and recognize" camp realize both the emperor in D.C. and the one in Rome are not wearing any clothes? The headlines daily show the inevitable collapse of the conciliar church and Traditio, on a regular basis, brings this home, especially in the case of the SSPX which is imploding because they dared to compromise with the con men running the conciliar church. When will the "resist and recognize" camp realize both Obama and Ratzinger are "antichrists" in the truest sense of Saint John the Evangelist's words in 1 St. John 2: 18 and 22? Ergo, one who is an antichrist can never be a Vicar of Christ. Thus, you have the syllogism of sedevacantism. There are no two ways about it. To deny it is to deny Christ's words in St. Matthew 16: 18-19. As the mystical Bride of Christ, the Church cannot err. She cannot mislead souls for Christ, as we pray every day, cannot deceive nor be deceived. The very fact we have been deceived by the deceivers sitting on the throne of Peter over the past four decades plus proves they are not Catholic and therefore cannot have been or be true Popes. Case closed.

   We would now like to return to Atila and Marian. If you recall, it was your challenge to this editor several years ago that set us on the path to discovering the truth through the grace of God. We still thank you and pray for you both daily for your constant charity and good will towards us over these many years. Now, in all Christ's love, we must challenge you both, as well as Michael and John if they are honest, to face the facts and call a spade a spade. Declare the fact that the Church is in a state of sedevacantism for you know very well the Chair is vacant. It has been for many years, and the particulars of that we can discuss at a later time, but we'll accept your just admitting that it's empty now. You, along with the SSPX, and the other "resist and recognize" groups can no longer ignore or rationalize away what became so evident and manifested so blatantly last week by Ratzinger's behavior before the world in Jordan and Jerusalem. To continue to deny the obvious is a great disloyalty to your readers and will lead to the very same predicament the Society now finds itself facing, not to mention the soft-shoe shuffle Matt and Vennari are scrambling to improvise along with Fellay in trying to justify a "holy" father who has proven himself an UNHOLY father in the eyes of the heavenly Father, God the Son and the Holy Ghost as you yourself have admitted several times.

    Marian, you know very well that in your research of the excellent work you have compiled on Our Lady of Good Success - Prophecies for Our Times where you have uncovered many things that prove we are in the time of the Great Apostasy that the Blessed Mother warned of several centuries ago in Quito, Ecuador to Mother Mariana de Jesus Torres and again a century and a half ago at La Salette and then again nearly a century ago at Fatima. This is the time. Heaven has seen to it. Heaven confirms that Rome has lost the faith. What Ratzinger did last week was the final straw to prove to the world that Rome is now the seat of the antichrist.

    You, Atila, and Tom are two of the finest, most honest Catholic writers in the world today. It has been an honor over the years to work with both of you and to remain good friends. Now it's time to come together, to work together, and admit that Tom and the nine priests (asterisk indicates they are now consecrated valid bishops) who realized the truths of the current situation in the conciliar church - Fathers Daniel Dolan*, Donald Sanborn*, Anthony Cekada, William Jenkins, Joseph Collins, Clarence Kelly*, Thomas Zapp, William Berry and Martin Skierka who left the Society in 1983 were right. History and the succeeding events since have proved that fact. Now all we ask of those still on the fence is to come down on the right side, the side of truth. There was a very effective old commercial for either Fram or Purolator oil filters that went "You can pay me now or pay me later." The implication was that the longer you waited and didn't take care of your car, the more it would cost. So also for those who have straddled the fence for so long. You can come to the logical and right decision that the Chair of Peter is empty now, or you can come to that conclusion later, but sooner or later you're going to come to that very conclusion. Why waste time? Considering what's at stake, shouldn't you put that as your top priority? Let's all work together for that goal for the greater honor and glory of God, for the salvation of souls...for time is indeed running out. We will all be accountable for what we did with the time God affords us on this earth to be good stewards of the true Faith. Until you realize the urgency of that fact, we must respectfully and respectively continue to resist you to the face.

For past CATHOLIC PewPOINT editorials, see Archives

Catholic PewPOINT Wednesday, May 20, 2009, Volume 20, no. 140