[ultima ratio]

1. I do not define orthodoxy. Such a statement is absurd. When a group states that the Church has been wrong for 1500 years until Vatican II--which is tantamount to stating the Church has been abandoned by the Holy Spirit since the time of Constantine--it condemns itself. When it denies the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Holy Eucharist or the Real Presence, then it is clearly heretical.

2. The Pope is the servant of orthodoxy, not its master. He may clarify what it is, but he may not contradict any of its tenets. Vatican I made this clear: "For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the Successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith." It is up to the Pope to protect what has been handed-down to him, not to undermine it by supporting groups preaching heresy.

3. I do not lie when I state this papacy has acted in ways that oppose Catholic tradition. To say this is to belabor the obvious. Rome in recent years has made breathtaking innovations in every area of Catholic life. It never hesitated, for example, to break new ground in a radical ecumenicism no previous pope had ever promulgated. In fact there has been no aspect of traditional Catholicism that has not been radically undermined by this revolutionary papacy. Your saying I lie when I merely point this out doesn't make what I say less true. This pope is no friend to Catholic tradition. On the contrary, he subverts it.

[St.Chuck]

This pope is no friend to Catholic tradition. On the contrary, he subverts it.<

My main gripe about this papacy is the novel practice of not calling for a crusade against the infidels, wherever they may be. This innovation is scandalous and disrepects the piety of all his predecessors.