Appendix A
THE POPE CONDEMNS VATICAN II

We Catholics do not have to wait for some future reliable pope to come along and formally condemn the heretical implications and results of the Second Vatican Council. It so happens that many reliable popes have already spoken out quite clearly against the New (Novus Ordo) Religion even before its official creation at Vatican II. There is nothing miraculous about that. The Novus Ordo religion existed at least as far back as the French Revolution, both hiding inside the Church (in this century as the "Liturgical Movement"), and operating more openly outside the Church (primarily as the Old Catholics). It was only with the Second Vatican Council that official recognition and approval was given to a religion which had been systematically condemned by each and every reliable pope who ever faced any aspect of it. Let us hear a very small sampling of what the reliable popes have had to say about the Novus Ordo religion.

The most obvious aspect of the New Religion is the introduction of a new form, or order, of the Mass, coupled with a total rejection of the tridentine Mass. Hear what Session Seven of the council of Trent (confirmed by Pope Paul III) has to say about that:

If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, accustomed to be used in the administration of the sacraments, may be despised or omitted by the ministers without sin and at their pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor of the churches to other new ones, let him be anathema. (Canons on the Sacraments In General, Canon 13).

The phrase "any pastor," having no qualifiers, necessarily includes even the Supreme Pastor, namely the pope. Yet Paul VI both despised the approved rites of the Catholic Church by forbidding in 1974 their practice as "accustomed to be used in the administration of the sacraments" since long before the Council of Trent confirmed them, and also he changed all sacramental rites to new ones of doubtful validity. Paul VI therefore comes under the anathema of Paul III and the Holy Council of Trent.

Another phrase of interest in that quote is the reference to all rites "received and approved." Even were the new "mass" to be regarded as being "approved" because Paul VI and the John Paul's like it, it still doesn't come under this protection on account of the fact that it was never "received," only "invented." The Tridentine Mass was received by the early Church from Christ and the Apostles as a part of Revelation, but the Novus Ordo Missae was invented by Bugnini and the various Protestants whose work he plagiarized and was guided by.

Let us now see what Pope Saint Pius V had to say about the Roman Missal as promulgated in his day:

In perpetuity We grant and permit that they may by all means use this Missal in singing or reciting Mass in any church whatsoever without any scruple of conscience, without incurring any penalties, sentences, or censures; in order that they may be able to do this and be able to use this Missal freely and lawfully, We by virtue of Our Apostolic Office, and by virtue of the present document, We grant and permit this forever. No one may be required to offer Holy Mass in another way than has been determined by Us; no one, neither Pastors, Administrators, Canons, Chaplains, and other secular priests of whatever Order; and We likewise determine and declare that no one be compelled or pressured by anyone to change this Missal, or that this letter should ever be recalled or its effectiveness restrained but that it may always stand firm and strong in all its vigor.

... No one is allowed to go contrary to this letter which expresses Our permission, statute, regulation, mandate, precept, grant, Indult, declaration, or will and Our decree and prohibition; no one is allowed to act against it with rashness or temerity. But if anyone would presume to attempt this let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of Saints Peter and Paul, His Apostles (Quo Primum Decree).

Although he talks of reform in other parts of this decree, that reform was a mere smoothing out of local variations. In such-and-such a diocese, an extra prayer might be said at the end of the Mass; in so-and-so's parish, an extra chant might be sung before the reading of the Gospel; in another place some small rubric might be added or even deleted at some point in their Mass. The main thing Pope St. Pius V wanted to put a stop to was any tendency on the part of priests to compromise their liturgy in order to escape Protestant persecution. Certain priests in hostile lands were already starting to make various liturgical concessions to the surrounding Protestant culture. These minor variations were so subtle that few parishioners even noticed them at all, yet the damage they were causing to the Faith and the Mass was quite serious. What the reform of Pope Pius V did was enforce a uniform consensus of what the Mass had always been. Paul VI rashly and temerariously acted against this decree and thus incurs the wrath of Almighty God and His Apostles, Peter and Paul. May God have mercy on his soul?

Pope Saint Pius V also attempted to safeguard the words by which Jesus Christ confected the sacrament by saying:

Defects may arise in respect of the formula, if anything is wanting to complete the actual words of consecration. The words of consecration, which are the formative principle of this sacrament, are as follows: For this is My Body and: For this is the Chalice of My Blood, of the new and everlasting Testament, the Mystery of Faith, which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins. If any omission or alteration is made in the formula of consecration of the Body and Blood, involving a change in meaning, the consecration is invalid. An addition made without altering the meaning does not invalidate the consecration but the celebrant commits a mortal sin (De Defectibus Decree).

At best, the formula promulgated under Paul VI could be considered ambiguous, leaving one to wonder whether the priest in using the new formula means to say what the old formula said or not. Clearly, the priest who uses the Novus Ordo Missae formula sins mortally, and even the validity of the Mass he says is open to doubt. Witness also what the dogmatic Catechism of the Council of Trent (also approved by Pope Saint Pius V) has to say about the use of the Novus Ordo forms as promulgated in the vernacular versions:

The additional words for you and for many, are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God. They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion. For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race. When therefore (our Lord) said: For you, He meant either those who were present, or those chosen from among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. When He added, And for many, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews or Gentiles.

With reason, therefore, were the words for all not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation. And this is the purport of the Apostle when he says: Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many; and also of the words of our Lord in John: I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me, because they are thine. (Catechism of the Council of Trent, pages 227-228, TAN Books edition).

Pope Pius XII had a lot to say about certain attempts being made in the Liturgical Movement to enforce or promulgate false, primitivistic forms of the Mass:

It is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive table-form; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in the Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the Divine Redeemer's Body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See.

... Just as obviously unwise and mistaken is the zeal of one who in matters liturgical, would go back to the rites and usage of antiquity, discarding the new patterns introduced by disposition of Divine Providence to meet the changes of circumstance and situation.

This way of acting bids fair to revive the exaggerated and senseless antiquarianism to which the illegal Council of Pistoria gave rise. It likewise attempts to reinstate a series of errors which were responsible for the calling of that meeting as well as those resulting from it, with grievous harm to souls, and which the Church, the ever watchful guardian of the "deposit of faith" committed to her charge by her Divine Founder, had every right and reason to condemn. For perverse designs and ventures of this sort tend to paralyze and weaken that process of sanctification by which the sacred Liturgy directs the sons of adoption to their Heavenly Father for their soul's salvation (Mediator Dei, paragraphs 62, 63, 64).

Keep in mind that the "usage of antiquity" of which he speaks is merely the hypothetical forms advocated by the Liturgical Movement, while the "new patterns introduced by disposition of Divine Providence" are those which were in use in his day (1947) and which had been used at least as far back as one finds any detailed description of Christian worship. One sees here the exact forms of the Novus Ordo Missae (the altar "restored" to its primitive table-form, black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments, destruction and forbidding of the use of sacred images and statues in the Churches, the crucifix so designed that the Divine Redeemer's Body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings) being condemned as being of grievous harm to souls.

The notion that any liturgical prayers could be arbitrarily changed as to content or meaning is indirectly condemned by Pope Pius XII in Mediator Dei when he wrote:

The entire Liturgy ... has the Catholic faith for its content, inasmuch as it bears public witness to the faith of the Church.

For this reason, whenever there was question of defining a truth revealed by God, the Sovereign Pontiff and the Councils in their recourse to the "theological sources," as they were called, have not seldom drawn many an argument from this sacred science of the Liturgy. For an example in point, Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Pius IX, so argued when he proclaimed the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary. Similarly during the discussion of a doubtful or controversial truth, the Church and the Holy Fathers have not failed to look to the age-old and age-honored sacred rites for enlightenment. Hence the well-known and venerable maxim: "Legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi" - - let the rule for prayer determine the rule of belief (Mediator Dei, paragraphs 47, 48).

What a grievous risk to Catholic teaching it would be if the liturgical prayers on which the indisputably infallible teaching of the Immaculate Conception are based on were to be changeable willy-nilly by any Church authority! Church doctors, theologians, and even popes have often quoted Liturgical prayers, basing their arguments on the exact turn of phrase they use, just as one might quote Scripture. Clearly, the one can be no more open to change than the other!

What about the "reconciliation service" which is increasingly taking the place of the Sacrament of Penance? While one may indeed find some devotional value or even remission of venial sins in such public prayers as the Confiteor recited at the beginning of the Mass (and also, in its modified Novus Ordo form, at the "reconciliation service"), that can be no substitute for individual Absolution from a priest. Pope Pius XII wrote of this:

The same result follows from the opinions of those who assert that little importance should be given to the frequent confession of venial sins. Far more important, they say, is that general confession which the Spouse of Christ, surrounded by her children in the Lord, makes each day by the mouth of the priest as he approaches the altar of God. As you well know, Venerable Brethren, it is true that venial sins may be expiated in many ways which are to be highly commended. But to ensure more rapid progress day by day in the path of virtue, We will that the pious practice of frequent confession, which was introduced into the Church by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, should be earnestly advocated. By it, genuine self-knowledge is increased, Christian humility grows, bad habits are corrected, spiritual neglect and tepidity are resisted, the conscience is purified, and grace is increased in virtue of the Sacrament itself. Let those, therefore, among the younger clergy who make light of or lessen esteem for frequent confession realize that what they are doing is alien to the Spirit of Christ and disastrous for the Mystical Body of our Savior. (Mystici Corporis, Paragraph 88).

For another example, let us look at the Sacrament of Extreme Unction. The Catechism of the Council of Trent teaches the following regarding the form of that Sacrament:

The form of the Sacrament is the word and solemn prayer which the priest uses at each anointing: By this Holy Unction may God pardon thee whatever sins thou hast committed by the evil use of sight, smell, or touch.

That this is the true form of this Sacrament we learn from these words of St. James: Let them pray over him . . . and the prayer of faith shall save the sick man. Hence we can see that the form is to be applied by way of prayer. The Apostle does not say of what particular words that prayer is to consist; but this form has been handed down to us by the faithful tradition of the Fathers, so that all the Churches retain the form observed by the Church of Rome, the mother and mistress of all Churches. (Catechism of the Council of Trent, pages 309, TAN Books edition).

Regarding the notion that the form could ever be changed, Session Fourteen of the council of Trent (confirmed by Pope Julius III) says:

If anyone says that the rite and usage of extreme unction which the holy Roman Church observes is at variance with the statement of the blessed Apostle James, and is therefore to be changed and may without sin be despised by Christians, let him be anathema. (Canons Concerning The Sacrament of Extreme Unction, Canon 3).

And yet the Novus Ordo religion despises that rite by deleting the form and changing it beyond recognition into a mythical "Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick."

Pope Pius XII also had something to say about the form required to perform a valid consecration of a bishop:

Regarding the matter and the form used in the conferring of each of the Orders, We, by the Apostolic Authority, ordain and decree the following: ... in the ordination or consecration of a bishop the matter is the imposition of the hands which is done by the bishop consecrator. The form consists in the words of the preface, of which the following are essential and therefore required for validity: Fulfill in Thy priest the completion of Thy ministry, and adorned in the ornaments of all glorification sanctify him with the moisture of heavenly unguent. (Sacramentum Ordinis).

What right has any man to attempt to change or improve upon what the pope has ordained and decreed?

Enough on the Sacraments. Anyone reading he documents of Vatican II would have to admit that they perfectly fit the description of books written by the Modernist heretics given by Pope Saint Pius X:

In their writings and addresses they seem not infrequently to advocate doctrines which are contrary one to the other, so that one would be disposed to regard their attitude as double and doubtful. But this is done deliberately and advisedly, and the reason of it is to be found in their opinion as to the mutual separation of science and faith. Thus in their books one finds some things which might well be approved by a Catholic, but on turning over the page one is confronted by other things which might well have been dictated by a rationalist. (Pascendi Dominici Gregis, paragraph 18, The Methods of Modernists).

Is that not a sufficiently perfect description of the documents of Vatican II so as to raise suspicion as to the intents of their authors? A close study of his encyclical Pascendi would reveal many similarities between the Modernists whose religion Pope Saint Pius X defines as "the synthesis of all heresies," (Pascendi Dominici Gregis, Paragraph 39) and the religion created and instituted as a result of Vatican II. For example:

It remains for Us now to say a few words about the Modernist as reformer. From all that has preceded, it is abundantly clear how great and how eager is the passion of such men for innovation. In all Catholicism there is absolutely nothing on which it does not fasten. They wish philosophy to be reformed ... Regarding worship, they say, the number of external devotions is to be reduced, and steps must be taken to prevent their further increase, though, indeed, some of the admirers of symbolism are disposed to be more indulgent on this head.

They cry out that ecclesiastical government requires to be reformed in all its branches, but especially in its disciplinary and dogmatic departments. They insist that both outwardly and inwardly it must be brought into harmony with the modern conscience, which now wholly tends towards democracy; a share in ecclesiastical government should therefore be given to the lower ranks of the clergy, and even to the laity, and authority, which is much too concentrated, should be decentralized. The Roman Congregations, and especially the Index and the Holy Office, must be likewise modified. The ecclesiastical authority must alter its line of conduct in the social and political world; while keeping outside political organizations, it must adapt itself to them, in order to penetrate them with its spirit.

With regard to morals, they adopt the principle of the Americanists, that the active virtues are more important than the passive, and are to be encouraged in practice. They ask that the clergy should return to their primitive humility and poverty, and that in their ideas and action they should admit the principles of Modernism; and there are some who, gladly listening to the teaching of their Protestant masters, would desire the suppression of the celibacy of the clergy. What is there left in the Church which is not to be reformed by them and according to their principles? (Pascendi Dominici Gregis, paragraph 38, The Modernist as reformer).

Is that not the same as the dilution of authority mandated by Vatican II? "Popes" must share their authority with a "College of Bishops"; bishops no longer run their dioceses but must follow guidelines voted on in "Bishop's Congresses," parish priests must allow their parishes to be run by "parish councils" run by the laity. And whatever happened to the Index and the Holy Office?

The present confusion results from this decentralization of authority mandated at Vatican II, exactly what Pope Saint Pius X said was what the Modernists want. Let us see what else he had to say about Congresses of Priests and Bishops:

We have already mentioned congresses and public gatherings as among the means used by Modernists to propagate and defend their opinions. In the future, Bishops shall not permit congresses of priests except on very rare occasions. When they do permit them it shall only be on condition that matters appertaining to the Bishops or the Apostolic See be not treated in them, and that no resolutions or petitions be allowed that would imply a usurpation of sacred authority, and that absolutely nothing be said in them which savors of Modernism, presbyterianism, or laicism. At congresses of this kind, which can only be held after permission in writing has been obtained in due time and for each case, it shall not be lawful for priests of other dioceses to be present without the written permission of their Ordinary. Further, no priest must lose sight of the solemn recommendation of Leo XIII: "Let priests hold as sacred the authority of their pastors, let them take it for certain that the sacerdotal ministry, if not exercised under the guidance of the Bishops, can never be either holy, or very fruitful, or worthy of respect." (Pascendi Dominici Gregis, Paragraph 54, Congresses).

And see the rest of it! Philosophy is changed. External devotions are cut way back. Americanist principles of religious indifference are everywhere taught and imposed. The ceremonial pomp and circumstance of the clergy is stripped down to poor essentials (if even that much), and pressure is being put on them to cease being celibate. It is as if vandals have taken over, stripping the Church buildings themselves of the beauty they once had, as if they adhere to the notion condemned by Pius IX that:

The Church has not the innate and legitimate right of acquiring and holding property. (Syllabus of Errors, Condemned Proposition 26).

In the realm of philosophy, St. Thomas Aquinas, the Angelic Doctor, and patron Saint of Scholasticism has always been totally upheld by all reliable popes since his appearance. Pope Pius IX condemned those who were wanting to push aside the Angelic Doctor and his Scholasticism:

The method and principles according to which the ancient scholastic Doctors cultivated Theology are in no way suited to the necessities of our times and to the progress of the sciences. (Syllabus of Errors, Condemned Proposition 13).

And again, Pope Pius XII said:

If one considers all this well, he will easily see why the Church demands that future priests be instructed in philosophy "according to the method, doctrine, and principles of the Angelic doctor," (C. I. C., can. 1366, 2.) since, as we well know from the experience of centuries, the method of Aquinas is singularly preeminent both for teaching students and for bringing truth to light; his doctrine is on harmony with divine revelation, and is most effective both for safeguarding the foundation of the faith, and for reaping, safely and usefully, the fruits of sound progress. (A. A. S. Vol. 38, 1946, p. 387.)

How deplorable it is then that this philosophy, received and honored by the Church, is scorned by some, who shamelessly call it outmoded in form and rationalistic, as they say, in its method of thought. They say that this philosophy upholds the erroneous notion that there can be a metaphysic that is absolutely true; whereas in fact, they say, reality, especially transcendent reality, cannot better be expressed than by disparate teachings, which mutually complete each other, although they are in a way mutually opposed. Our traditional philosophy, then, with its clear exposition and solution of questions, its accurate definitions of terms, its clear-cut distinctions, can be, they concede, useful as a preparation for scholastic theology, a preparation quite in accord with medieval mentality; but this philosophy hardly offers a method of philosophizing suited to the needs of our modern culture. They allege, finally, that our perennial philosophy is only a philosophy of immutable essences, while the contemporary mind must look to the existence of things and to life, which is ever in flux. While scorning our philosophy, they extol other philosophies of all kinds, ancient and modern, oriental and occidental, by which they seem to imply that any kind of philosophy or theory, with a few additions and corrections if need be, can be reconciled with Catholic dogma. No Catholic can doubt how false this is, especially where there is a question of those fictitious theories they call immanentism, or idealism, or materialism, whether historic or dialectic, or even existentialism, whether atheistic or simply the type that denies the validity of reason in the field of metaphysics. (Humani Generis, Paragraphs 31,32).

And yet today, where alone is Thomistic theology taught, but in the traditional seminaries? Throwing aside the Angelic Doctor is barely the surface of the problem. At its base, the Novus Ordo religion rests upon a total denial of Divine Revelation. In the Novus Ordo religion, "truths" of religion owe their existence to the thinking processes of mankind, and God is merely a concept which evolves with the needs of man, a notion Pius IX condemned:

All the truths of religion have their origin in the innate vigor of the human reason: hence it follows that reason is the sovereign guide by which man can and ought to attain to the knowledge of all truths of every kind. (Syllabus of Errors, Condemned Proposition 4).

And again:

There exists no Supreme Being, perfect in His Wisdom and in His Providence and distinct from the universe. God is identical with nature and consequently subject to change. God is evolving in man and in the world, and all things are God and have the very substance of God. (Syllabus of Errors, Condemned Proposition 1).

As a result, they feel free to tamper with the sources of religious dogma, namely Divine Revelation. Pope Pius IX condemned the Novus Ordo teaching that:

Divine Revelation is imperfect and consequently subject to a continual and indefinite progress which corresponds to the progress of human reason. (Syllabus of Errors, Condemned Proposition 5).

And yet one sees that notion taught again and again in their treatment of Sacred Scripture, especially in the seminaries where the professors convey an attitude to their students, which was condemned by Pope Saint Pius X, to the effect that:

They display excessive simplicity or ignorance who believe that God is really the author of the Sacred Scriptures. (Lamentabili Sane, Condemned Proposition 9).

In the Novus Ordo seminaries, the condemned (by Pius X) claim is repeatedly taught as truth that:

Until the time the canon was defined and constituted, the Gospels were increased by additions and corrections. Therefore there remained in them only a faint and uncertain trace of the doctrine of Christ. (Lamentabili Sane, Condemned Proposition 15).

If the Bible were really written that way, and the Sacred Liturgy as well, why not change it willy-nilly to fit the "needs" of modern man? The Novus Ordo religion falsely accuses the early Church of doing what they themselves obviously feel free to do, an accusation already condemned by Pope Saint Pius X:

In many narrations the Evangelists recorded, not so much things that are true, as things which, even though false, they judged to be more profitable for their readers. (Lamentabili Sane, Condemned Proposition 14).

It is one thing to say that the early Church chose from among the Apostolic writings those which were most edifying for use in the Bible and the Sacred Liturgy, but quite another to claim that those Apostolic writings were written and modified at will by any Church authorities for such a purpose. To them, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Liturgy are nothing but tools of propaganda.

With nothing solid to stand on, even their basic dogmatic beliefs are subject to change, and therefore reduction. Pope Pius XII had the following to say about those in the Church who were already fomenting for the Novus Ordo religion:

In theology some want to reduce to a minimum the meaning of dogmas; and to free dogma itself from terminology long established in the Church and from philosophical concepts held by Catholic teachers, ... . They cherish the hope that when dogma is stripped of the elements which they hold to be extrinsic to divine revelation it will compare advantageously with the dogmatic opinions of those who are separated from the unity of the Church and that in this way they will gradually arrive at a mutual assimilation of Catholic dogma with the tenets of the dissidents.

Moreover they assert that when Catholic doctrine has been reduced to this condition, a way will be found to satisfy modern needs, that will permit of dogma being expressed by the concepts of modern philosophy, whether of immanentism or idealism or existentialism or any other system. Some more audacious affirm that this can and must be done, because they hold that the mysteries of faith are never expressed by truly adequate concepts but only by approximate and ever changeable notions, in which the truth is to some extent expressed, but is necessarily distorted. Wherefore they do not consider it absurd, but altogether necessary, that theology should substitute new concepts in place of the old ones in keeping with the various philosophies which in the course of time it uses as its instruments, so that it should give human expression to divine truths in various ways which are even somewhat opposed, but still equivalent, as they say. They add that the history of dogmas consists in the reporting of the various forms in which revealed truth has been clothed, forms that have succeeded one another in accordance with the different teachings and opinions that have arisen over the course of the centuries.

It is evident from what We have already said, that such tentatives not only lead to what they call dogmatic relativism, but that they actually contain it. The contempt of doctrine commonly taught and of the terms in which it is expressed strongly favor it. (Humani Generis, Paragraphs 14-16).

Little did he realize that the very persons he was speaking against would soon take over what many would mistake for the Church, and change it drastically. Pope Pius XI condemned the notion that the Church could ever be changed, when he wrote:

Hence, not only must the Church still exist today and continue always to exist, but it must ever be exactly the same as it was in the days of the Apostles. Otherwise we must say - - which God forbid - - that Christ has failed in His purpose, or that He erred when He asserted of His Church that the gates of hell should never prevail against it (Mt. 16:18) (Mortalium Animos, Paragraph 6).

Looking at the establishment ruled from the Vatican today, it obviously has been changed drastically. However, the traditional Catholic movement continues to be exactly the same as it was in the days of the Apostles, and is therefore the true fulfillment of Christ's prophecies and the lawful object of His purposes.

Some years later on, Pope Pius XI warned about those who were changing the religious conceptions in a similar manner to what the Novus Ordo religion would do:

You must be especially alert, Venerable Brethren, when fundamental religious conceptions are robbed of their intrinsic content and made to mean something else in a profane sense. (On the Church In Germany, Paragraph 23).

Despite the Pope's teaching, the members of the Novus Ordo hierarchy no longer feel answerable to the teachings contained in Divine Revelation, or established as dogmas, but feel free to do as they please, even to the point of attempting to change the organic constitution of the Church with their "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church," Lumen Gentium. Pope Saint Pius X has already condemned the very thought years in advance:

The organic constitution of the Church is not immutable. Like human society, Christian society is subject to a perpetual evolution. (Lamentabili Sane, Condemned Proposition 53).

The newly reconstituted Novus Ordo Church of the People of God has been totally redirected towards questionable social and political ends. They have supplanted the determined body of Christian doctrine applicable to all times and all men as they exploit the Church as merely a religious movement to be adapted to different times and places as suits their nefarious purposes, precisely what Pope Saint Pius X condemned:

Christ did not teach a determined body of doctrine applicable to all times and all men, but rather inaugurated a religious movement adapted or to be adapted to different times and places. (Lamentabili Sane, Condemned Proposition 59).

During the reign of Pope Pius X, a certain faction in the French Church known as the Sillon was already developing the Novus Ordo religion, and the Pope expressed his concerns about it:

We fear that worse is to come: the end result of this developing promiscuousness, the beneficiary of this cosmopolitan social action, can only be a Democracy which will be neither Catholic, nor Protestant, nor Jewish. It will be a religion (for Sillonism, so the leaders have said, is a religion) more universal than the Catholic Church, uniting all men to become brothers and comrades at last in the 'Kingdom of God', "We do not work for the Church, we work for mankind." (Our Apostolic Mandate, Paragraph 39).

Unfortunately, the Sillonists simply expanded and became a Socialist faction existing in so many more countries that Pope Pius XI had to say of them:

Accordingly, Venerable Brethren, you can well understand with what great sorrow We observe that not a few of Our sons, in certain regions especially, although We cannot be convinced that they have given up the true faith and right will, have deserted the camp of the Church and gone over to the ranks of Socialism, some to glory openly in the name of socialist and to profess socialist doctrines, others through thoughtlessness or even, almost against their wills to join associations which are socialist by profession or in fact. (Quadragesimo Anno, Paragraph 123).

How very like in the Novus Ordo, especially with its "Liberation Theology," to desert the camp of the Church for a bankrupt political philosophy. And many even have been dragged along somewhat against their wills, as for example, the conservative Novus Ordo believers who secretly would rather be Catholics, but who mistakenly feel that they have to follow their Non-Catholic diocesan "bishops," even into religious error.

Nor can one properly say that the Post-Vatican II Church has found a viable compromise between Socialism or Communism, and the true Faith. Of such an absurd notion, Pope Pius XI said:

Yet let no one think that all the socialist groups or factions that are not communist have, without exception, recovered their senses to this extent either in fact or in name. For the most part they do not reject the class struggle or the abolition of ownership, but only in some degree modify them. Now if these false principles are modified and to some extent erased from the program, the question arises, or rather is raised without warrant by some, whether the principles of Christian truth cannot perhaps be also modified to some degree and be tempered so as to meet Socialism half-way and, as it were, by a middle course, come to agreement with it. There are some allured by the foolish hope that socialists in this way will be drawn to us. A vain hope! Those who want to be apostles among socialists ought to profess Christian truth whole and entire, openly and sincerely, and not connive at error in any way. If they truly wish to be heralds of the Gospel, let them above all strive to show to socialists that socialist claims, so far as they are just, are far more strongly supported by the principles of Christian faith and much more effectively promoted through the power of Christian charity.

But what if Socialism has really been so tempered and modified as to the class struggle and private ownership that there is in it no longer anything to be censured on these points? Has it thereby renounced its contradictory nature to the Christian religion? ... We make this pronouncement: Whether considered as a doctrine, or an historical fact, or a movement, Socialism, if it remains truly Socialism, even after it has yielded to truth and justice on the points we have mentioned, cannot be reconciled with the teachings of the Catholic Church because its concept of society itself is utterly foreign to Christian truth. (Quadragesimo Anno, Paragraphs 116, 117).

And what was the ultimate goal of the Sillonists and those Socialists and Communists who followed in their footsteps? To get progressively higher and higher Vatican authorities to defect from the Faith, until even the Pope should become reconciled with the modernist errors, a notion which Pius IX condemned:

The Roman Pontiff can and ought to be reconciled and come to terms with Progress, Liberalism and modern Culture (or Civilization). (Syllabus of Errors, Condemned Proposition 80).

Alas for today's Catholics, John XXIII, Paul VI, and both the John Paul's have been completely reconciled and brought to terms with "Progress, Liberalism and modern Culture (or Civilization)." As the Pope feared, the Sillonists finally got their way.

No real defense for all of this manipulation and continual upset has ever been put forth, for it cannot be justified. It is a grave and ongoing injustice which the current hierarchy of the Vatican establishment indulges in for no other reason than the fact that they can, as if "Might makes Right," or:

Right consists in the material fact: all the duties of men are a word devoid of meaning and all human happenings have force of right. (Syllabus of Errors, Condemned Proposition 59).

Now let us take a look at what the popes have said about other religions, ecumenism with these other religions, and the duties of the State with regards true and false religions. I start here with Pope Gregory XVI:

We now come to another and most fruitful cause of the evils which at present afflict the Church and which We so bitterly deplore; We mean indifferentism, or that fatal opinion everywhere diffused by the craft of the wicked, that men can by the profession of any faith obtain the eternal salvation of their souls, provided their life conforms to justice and probity. But in a question so clear and evident it will undoubtedly be easy for Us to pluck up from amid the people confided to your care so pernicious an error. The apostle warns us of it: "One God, one faith, one baptism." Let them tremble then who imagine that every creed leads by an easy path to the port of felicity; and reflect seriously on the testimony of our Savior Himself, that those are against Christ who are not with Christ, and that they miserably scatter by the fact that they gather not with Him, and that consequently they will perish eternally without any doubt, if they do not hold to the Catholic Faith, and preserve it entire and without alteration. (Mirari Vos, paragraph 13).

This condemnation of indifferentism, or the treating of all religions, true and false, as if they were all of equal value, continued with Pope Pius IX who condemned the following heresies:

Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall have come to consider as true. (Syllabus of Errors, Condemned Proposition 15).

Men can find the way of eternal salvation and reach eternal salvation in any form of religious worship. (Syllabus of Errors, Condemned Proposition 16).

Protestantism is nothing else than a different form of the same True Christian Religion, and in it one can be as pleasing to God as in the Catholic Church. (Syllabus of Errors, Condemned Proposition 18).

Pope Pius X, in condemning Sillonism, also faulted Sillonism for committing the very same error, when he said:

What are we to think of this appeal to all heterodox, and to all the unbelievers, to prove the excellence of their convictions in the social sphere in a sort of apologetic contest? Has not this contest lasted for nineteen centuries in conditions less dangerous for the faith of Catholics? And was it not all to the credit of the Catholic Church? What are we to think of this respect for all errors, and of this strange invitation made by a Catholic to all the dissidents to strengthen their convictions through study so that they may have more and more abundant sources of fresh forces? What are we to think of an association in which all religions and even Free-Thought may express themselves openly and in complete freedom? For the Sillonists who, in public lectures and elsewhere, proudly proclaim their personal faith, certainly do not intend to silence others, nor do they intend to prevent a Protestant from asserting his Protestantism, and the skeptic from affirming his skepticism. Finally, what are we to think of a Catholic who, on entering his study group, leaves his Catholicism outside the door so as not to alarm his comrades ... ? ... [Therefore] the social action of the Sillon is no longer Catholic. (Our Apostolic Mandate, Paragraphs 37, 38).

Pope Pius XI continued this teaching against putting religious error on the level with truth in his Encyclical Mortalium Animos, which certainly bears reading straight through:

Assured that there exist few men who are entirely devoid of the religious sense, they seem to ground on this belief a hope that all nations, while differing indeed in religious matters, may yet without great difficulty be brought to fraternal agreement on certain points of doctrine which will form a common basis of the spiritual life. With this object, congresses, meetings, and addresses are arranged, attended by a large concourse of hearers, where all without distinction, unbelievers of every kind as well as Christians, even those who unhappily have rejected Christ and denied His divine nature or mission, are invited to join in the discussion. Now, such efforts can meet with no kind of approval among Catholics. They presuppose the erroneous view that all religions are more or less good and praiseworthy, inasmuch as all give expression, under various forms, to that innate sense which leads men to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Those who hold such a view are not only in error; they distort the true idea of religion, and thus reject it, falling gradually into naturalism and atheism. To favor this opinion, therefore, and to encourage such undertakings is tantamount to abandoning the religion revealed by God. (Mortalium Animos, Paragraph 2).

See how friendly meetings with unbelievers of every sort are not for Catholics to participate in. Yet Vatican II itself turned that principle on its head with all its talk of "dialogue." Pope Pius XI continues:

There are actually some, though few, who grant to the Roman Pontiff a primacy of honor and even a certain power or jurisdiction; this, however, they consider to arise not from divine law but merely from the consent of the faithful. Others, again, even go so far as to desire the Pontiff himself to preside over their mixed assemblies. For the rest, while you may hear many non-Catholics loudly preaching brotherly communion in Jesus Christ, yet not one will you find to whom it ever occurs with devout submission to obey the Vicar of Jesus Christ in his capacity of teacher or ruler. Meanwhile they assert their readiness to treat with the Church of Rome, but on equal terms, as equals with an equal. But even if they could so treat, there seems little doubt that they would do so only on condition that no pact into which they might enter should compel them to retract those opinions which still keep them outside the fold of Christ.

This being so, it is clear that the Apostolic See can by no means take part in these assemblies, nor is it in any way lawful for Catholics to give such enterprises their encouragement or support If they did so, they would be giving countenance to a false Christianity quite alien to the one Church of Christ. (Mortalium Animos, Paragraphs 8, 9).

As one can see, the idea of having the Supreme Pontiff lead or participate in such meetings is unthinkable, so how can one reconcile that with John Paul II's behavior at Assisi and many other occasions? Incidentally, Pope Pius IX also condemned the notion that the Church is at fault for the divisions of Christianity, such as between the Catholic Church and the schismatic East Orthodox:

The exorbitant pretension of the Roman Pontiffs contributed to the division of the Church into Eastern and Western. (Syllabus of Errors, Condemned Proposition 38).

And yet there goes John Paul II apologizing to the whole world on behalf of "the Church" for the alleged "sins" of the Church, such as causing division with the schismatic East Orthodox, the treatment of Galileo, or the persecution of the Jews at the hands of the Nazis. Never mind the fact that Galileo was well treated and only his theological conclusions were condemned, not his scientific theories, nor that Pope Pius XII sacrificed much to rescue as many Jews from Nazi tyranny as possible. The teaching of the Church against ecumenism and treating all religions alike whether true or false continues with Pope Pius XII:

Another danger is perceived which is all the more serious because it is more concealed beneath the mask of virtue. There are many who, deploring disagreement among men and intellectual confusion, through an imprudent zeal for souls, are urged by a great and ardent desire to do away with the barrier that divides good and honest men; these advocate an "eirenism" according to which, by setting aside the questions which divide men, they aim not only at joining forces to repel the attacks of atheism, but also at reconciling things opposed to one another in the field of dogma. And as in former times some questioned whether traditional apologetics of the Church did not constitute an obstacle rather than a help to the winning of souls for Christ, so today some are presumptive enough to question seriously whether theology and theological methods, such as with the approval of ecclesiastical authority are found in our schools, should not only be perfected, but also completely reformed, in order to promote the more efficacious propagation of the kingdom of Christ everywhere throughout the world among men of every culture and religious opinion (Humani Generis, paragraph 11).

It can therefore be safely concluded that the notion that all religions can be treated the same, or be valid means of salvation, or that dialogue and mixed assemblies between Catholic and unbeliever are a good thing can be regarded as totally condemned for all time. That is the constant teaching of the Church as demonstrated over an entire century. The same principle applies regarding the activity of secular States, namely that the secular State has a moral duty to the Church. Let us see some more notions condemned by Pope Pius IX:

The Ecclesiastical Power must not exercise its authority without permission and assent of the civil government. (Syllabus of Errors, Condemned Proposition 20).

Nay, more, even in clerical seminaries, the method to be adopted in studies is subject to the control of the civil authority. (Syllabus of Errors, Condemned Proposition 46).

The laws of morality do not require the divine sanction and there is absolutely no need that human laws should be in conformity with natural law or receive from God the power of obliging in conscience. (Syllabus of Errors, Condemned Proposition 56).

In (or by) natural law, the bond of matrimony is not indissoluble, and in various cases a divorce in the strict sense of the term can be sanctioned by the civil authority. (Syllabus of Errors, Condemned Proposition 67).

At the present day it is no longer advantageous that the Catholic religion should be considered as the only religion of the State to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. (Syllabus of Errors, Condemned Proposition 77).

Accordingly, it is a matter for commendation that, in certain Catholic countries, the law has provided that foreigners who come to live there enjoy the public exercise of their particular forms of religious worship. (Syllabus of Errors, Condemned Proposition 78).

Pope Leo XIII had the same thing to say about the relation between Church and State, and the necessity of the State to profess one religion, the true one:

This [mistaken] kind of liberty, if considered in relation to the State, clearly implies that there is no reason why the State should offer any homage to God, or should desire any public recognition of Him; that no one form of worship is to be preferred to another, but that all stand on an equal footing, no account being taken of the religion of the people, even if they profess the Catholic faith. But, to justify this, it must needs be taken as true that the State has no duties towards God, or that such duties, if they exist, can be abandoned with impunity, both of which assertions are manifestly false. For it cannot be doubted but that, by the will of God, men are united in civil society; whether its component parts be considered; or its form, which implies authority; or the object of its existence; or the abundance of the vast services which it renders to man. God it is who has made man for society, and has placed him in the company of others like himself, so that what was wanting to his nature, and beyond his attainment if left to his own resources, he might obtain by association with others. Wherefore, civil society must acknowledge God as its Founder and Parent, and must obey and reverence His power and authority. Justice therefore forbids, and reason itself forbids, the State to be godless; or to adopt a line of action which would end in godlessness - - namely, to treat the various religions (as they call them) alike, and to bestow upon them promiscuously equal rights and privileges. Since, then, the profession of one religion is necessary in the State, that religion must be professed which alone is true, and which can be recognized without difficulty, especially in the Catholic States, because the marks of truth are, as it were, engraven upon it. This religion, therefore, the rulers of the State must preserve and protect, if they would provide - - as they should do - - with prudence and usefulness for the good of the community. For public authority exists for the welfare of those whom it governs; and, although its proximate end is to lead men to the prosperity found in this life, yet, in so doing, it ought not diminish, but rather to increase, man's capability of attaining to the supreme good in which his everlasting happiness consists: which can never be attained if religion be disregarded. (Libertas Praestantissimum, Paragraph 21).

And again:

His empire [Christ's] includes not only Catholic nations, not only baptized persons who, though of right belonging to the Church, have been led astray by error, or have been cut off from her by schism, but also all those who are outside the Christian faith; so that truly the whole of mankind is subject to the power of Jesus Christ. (Annum Sacrum, Paragraph 3)

Pope Pius XI clearly agreed with his predecessors Pope Pius IX and Pope Leo XIII when he wrote that:

If We ordain that the whole Catholic world shall revere Christ as King, We shall minister to the need of the present day, and at the same time provide an excellent remedy for the plague which now infects society. We refer to the plague of secularism, its errors and impious activities. This evil spirit, as you are well aware, Venerable Brethren, has not come into being in one day; it has long lurked beneath the surface. The empire of Christ over all nations was rejected. The right which the Church has from Christ Himself, to teach mankind, to make laws, to govern peoples in all that pertains to their eternal salvation, that right was denied. Then gradually the religion of Christ came to be likened to false religions and to be placed ignominiously on the same level with them. It was then put under the power of the State and tolerated more or less at the whim of princes and rulers. Some men went further, and wished to set up in the place of God's religion a natural religion consisting in some instinctive affection of the heart. There were even some nations who thought they could dispense with God, and that their religion should consist in impiety and the neglect of God. The rebellion of individuals and of nations against the authority of Christ has produced deplorable effects. We lamented these in the Encyclical Ubi arcano; We lament them to-day: the seeds of discord sown far and wide; those bitter enmities and rivalries between nations, which still hinder so much the cause of peace; that insatiable greed which is so often hidden under a pretense of public spirit and patriotism, and gives rise to so many private quarrels; a blind and immoderate selfishness, making men seek nothing but their own comfort and advantage, and measure everything by these; no peace in the home, because men have forgotten, or neglect their duty; the unity and stability of the family undermined; society, in a word, shaken to its foundations and on the way to ruin. (Quas Primas, Paragraph 24).

Pope Pius XI displayed a tremendous amount of depth and wisdom when he wrote about nations making their religion impiety and neglect of God, in other words, making Atheism a religion. Atheism is a religion, even if most people don't know that, but here we see that the pope has so declared it. He also shows here the root source of the present social disorder. It is inevitable that nations which put all religions on the same level are all shaken to their foundations. Pope Pius XII also speaks of the duties of nations toward the true religion:

But on the other hand, to tear the law of nations from its anchor in Divine law, to base it on the autonomous will of States, is to dethrone that very law and deprive it of its noblest and strongest qualities. Thus it would stand abandoned to the fatal drive of private interest and collective selfishness exclusively intent on the assertion of its own rights and ignoring those of others. (Summi Pontificatus, Paragraph 76).

I know this may sound somewhat unpatriotic, but it is the truth: Americanism is a heresy. In particular, the separation, or "wall," between Church and State is not only wrong, but complete nonsense. Every nation necessarily draws its ethos from its actual religion, be that Catholicism, Protestantism, Islam, Judaism, Atheism, or anything else. See what notion Pope Pius IX condemned:

The Church should be separated from the State and the State from the Church. (Syllabus of Errors, Condemned Proposition 55).

Another aspect of the Americanist heresy is the notion that people should be free to say or print anything that strikes their fancy, without any reality check. Pope Leo XIII here points out quite clearly and firmly the folly of that position:

We must now consider briefly liberty of speech, and liberty of the press. It is hardly necessary to say that there can be no such right as this, if it be not used in moderation, and if it pass beyond the bounds and end of all true liberty. For right is a moral power which - - as We have before said and must again and again repeat - - it is absurd to suppose that nature has accorded indifferently to truth and falsehood, to justice and injustice. Men have a right freely and prudently to propagate throughout the State what things soever are true and honorable, so that as many as possible may possess them; but lying opinions, than which no mental plague is greater, and vices which corrupt the heart and moral life, should be diligently repressed by public authority, lest they insidiously work the ruin of the State. The excesses of an unbridled intellect, which unfailingly end in the oppression of the untutored multitude, are no less rightly controlled by the authority of the law than are the injuries inflicted by violence upon the weak. And this all the more surely, because by far the greater part of the community is either absolutely unable, or able only with great difficulty, to escape from the illusions and deceitful subtleties, especially such as flatter the passions. If unbridled license of speech and of writing be granted to all, nothing will remain sacred and inviolate; even the highest and truest mandates of natures, justly held to be the common and noblest heritage of the human race, will not be spared. Thus, truth being gradually obscured by darkness, pernicious and manifold error, as too often happens, will easily prevail. Thus, too, license will gain what liberty loses; for liberty will ever be more free and secure in proportion as license is kept in fuller restraint. In regard, however, to all matters of opinion which God leaves to man's free discussion, full liberty of thought and of speech is naturally within the right of every one; for such liberty never leads men to suppress the truth, but often to discover it and make it known. (Libertas Praestantissimum, Paragraph 23).

Once again, the constant teaching of the Church is seen saying that secular nations have no right to attach themselves to false religions nor to treat all religions as equals. How does one reconcile that teaching with the activities of Paul VI and John Paul II in their signing of Concordats with the various nations, even the nations already Catholic, to the effect that all religions must be treated equally, and that religious information in the public forum is no longer to be checked for accuracy the way that public commercial information (advertising) is checked?

It is bad enough that nations have been doing this on their own, but it is unthinkable to these faithful and reliable popes that the Church could ever direct nations to commit such a sin. Truly, almost every effect and consequence of Vatican II has been already systematically condemned by these indisputably reliable popes, and who are we to disagree with the Pope?

Furthermore, one cannot simply write these things off, saying "Well, none of those statements were spoken with the extraordinary and infallible authority of ex cathedra statements; therefore we can just ignore the published opinions of those popes." See what those same popes have to say about that opinion, starting with a notion which Pope Pius IX saw fit to condemn:

The obligation strictly incumbent on Catholic teachers and writers is limited to those points which have been defined by the infallible judgment of the Church as dogmas of faith to be believed by all. (Syllabus of Errors, Condemned Proposition 22).

And yet again, by Pope Pius XII:

Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth Me"; (Lk. 10:16) and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians. (Humani Generis, Paragraph 20).

Even with all that the reliable popes have taught, the problems had become so great that Pope Saint Pius X instituted the following Anti-Modernist Oath to be taken by every new priest who is being ordained, a law which Paul VI rescinded:

I (Name) firmly embrace and accept all and everything that has been defined, affirmed, and declared by the unerring magisterium of the Church, especially those chief doctrines which are directly opposed to the errors of this time.

And first, I profess that God, the beginning and end of all things, can be certainly known and thus can also be demonstrated by the natural light of reason "by the things that are made" [cf. Rom. 1:20], that is, by the visible works of creation, as the cause by the effects.

Secondly, I admit and recognize the external arguments of revelation, that is, divine facts, and especially miracles and prophecies, as very certain signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion; and I hold that these same arguments have been especially accomodated to the intelligence of all ages and men, even of these times.

Thirdly, likewise, with a firm faith I believe that the Church, guardian and mistress of the revealed word, was instituted proximately and directly by the true and historical Christ Himself, while he sojourned among us, and that the same was built upon Peter, the chief of the apostolic hierarchy, and his successors until the end of time.

Fourthly, I accept sincerely the doctrine of faith transmitted from the apostles through the orthodox fathers, always in the same sense and interpretation, even to us; and so I reject the heretical invention of the evolution of dogmas, passing from one meaning to another, different from that which the Church first had; and likewise I reject all error whereby a philosophic fiction is substituted for the divine deposit, given over to the Spouse of Christ and to be guarded faithfully by her, or a creation of the human conscience formed gradually by the efforts of men and to be perfected by indefinite progress in the future.

Fifthly, I hold most certainly and profess sincerely that faith is not a blind religious feeling bursting forth from the recesses of the subconscious, unformed morally under the pressure of the heart and the impulse of a will, but the true assent of the intellect to the truth received extrinsically ex auditu, whereby we believe that what has been said, attested, and revealed by the personal God, our Creator and Lord, to be true on account of the authority of God the highest truth.

I also subject myself with the reverence which is proper, and I adhere with my whole soul to all the condemnations, declarations, and prescriptions which are contained in the Encyclical letter "Pascendi" and in the Decree, "Lamentabili", especially on that which is called the history of dogma.

In the same manner I disapprove the error of those who affirm that the faith proposed by the Church can be in conflict with history, and that Catholic dogmas, in the sense in which they are now understood, cannot be reconciled with the more authentic origins of the Christian religion.

I also condemn and reject the opinion of those who say that the more erudite Christian puts on a dual personality, one of the believer, the other of the historian, as if it were permitted the historian to hold what is in contradiction to the faith of the believer; or to establish premises which it follows that dogmas are either false or doubtful, provided they are not directly denied.

I disapprove likewise that method of studying and interpreting Sacred Scripture, which disregards the tradition of the Church, the analogy of faith, and the norms of the Apostolic See, and adheres to the fictions of the rationalists, and no less freely than boldly adopts textual criticism as the only and supreme rule.

Besides I reject the opinion of those who hold that to present the historical and thrological disciplines the teacher or the writer on these subjects must first divest himself of previously conceived opinion either on the supernatural origin of Catholic tradition, or on the aid promised by God for the perpetual preservation of every revealed truth; then that the writings of the individual Fathers are to be interpreted only by the principles of science, setting aside all divine authority, and by that freedom of judgment with which any profane document is customarily investigated.

Finally, in short, I profess to be utterly free of the error according to which the modernists hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or, what is far worse, admit this in the pantheistic sense, so that nothing remains but this bare and simple fact to ne assimilated with the common facts of history, namely, of men by their industry, skill, and genius continuing through subsequent ages the school inaugurated by Christ and His disciples.

So I retain most firmly the faith of the Fathers, and shall retain it until the final breath of life, regarding the certain gift of truth, which is, was, and will be always in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles, not so that what may seem better and more fitting according to each one's period of culture may be held, but so that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed otherwise, may never be understood otherwise.

All these things I promise that I shall faithfully, entirely, and sincerely keep and inviolably watch, never deviating from them in word and writing either while teaching or in any other pursuit. So I promise, so I swear, so help me God and this Holy Gospel.

When Abp. Lefebvre finally got his audience with Paul VI shortly after the Mass at Lille, Paul VI accused Lefebvre of having his seminarians take an Oath against the pope. The charge was false of course, but there may be a grain of truth to it after all, in the form of the Anti-Modernist Oath instituted by Pope Saint Pius X, which Abp. Lefebvre (as have all bishops who are truly Catholic) continued to insist all his seminarians take. If Paul VI were to have seen himself as Modernism personified, then he could quite reasonably interpret this Oath as being against himself personally. Such an admission would of course be a truly damning indictment of Paul VI and the position he took.

So there you have it, the teaching of pope after pope regarding the state of the modern Church. That is the teaching of all the popes, and therefore the teaching of any pope now or to come, insofar as that pope can be properly said to be reliably functioning as a truly Catholic pope. Given the large number of popes who have repeatedly reaffirmed the principle of having no share with those who walk in darkness or seek equality under law for truth and error, it should be quite clear that we are not dealing here with some single isolated statement from some single isolated pope, but a systematic doctrine most emphatically taught in the strongest possible terms by each and every reliable pope to whom the problem has been posed. The above papal quotes therefore represent the true and eternal teachings and principles of the Church, and no one, not even a pope, can deviate from the above without separating himself from the Barque of Peter.

"The Pope," whoever he is, or may yet come to be, must only affirm, enforce, and develop the teachings of the past reliable popes. No attempt to develop the teachings of the previous reliable popes could ever validly consist of, involve, nor entail in any way, the diminution, attenuation, or negation of anything taught by the previous reliable popes, including the above. And yet Vatican II seems to have somehow swept all of that away.

Allow me to conclude this section with the teaching of the First Vatican Council, as confirmed by Pope Pius IX:

And since, by the divine right of Apostolic primacy, one Roman pontiff is placed over the universal Church, We further teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all causes the decision of which belongs to the Church recourse may be had to his tribunal, but that none may re-open the judgment of the Apostolic See, than whose authority there is no greater, nor can any lawfully review his judgment. Wherefore they err from the right path of truth who assert that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council, as to an authority higher than that of the Roman pontiff (Vatican Council I, Session 4, Chapter 3).

Those who have implemented the New Religion have all done precisely what was condemned by the First Vatican Council and Pope Pius IX, namely "appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs [as sampled here in this chapter] to an ecumenical council [Vatican II], as to an authority higher than that of the Roman pontiff." It is as if Vatican I were a prophecy of Vatican II, and a warning against it!

Those who embrace the heresy of Collegialism may fondly imagine that a pope may have more authority when backed by an ecumenical council than when he acts alone, but as we see, both the First Vatican Council and Pope Pius IX have already condemned than notion. In the opinion of this writer, Rome has already spoken against the New Religion; the Novus Ordo cause is finished.