Catholic Tradition Newsletter A20: 4th Easter Sunday, Mary Mother, St Peter Celestine, Family

Image result for Saint Peter Celestine

Vol 12 Issue 20 ~  Editor: Rev. Fr. Courtney Edward Krier
May 18, 2019 ~ Saint Venantius, opn!

  1.      Mary, Our Mother
  2.      Fourth Sunday after Easter
  3.      Saint Peter Celestine
  4.      Family and Marriage
  5.      Articles and notices

Dear Reader:

On April 30, in the Life Site News ( a letter written to the Conciliar hierarchy asking that the Conciliar bishops charge Jorge Bergoglio with heresy was announced. No one would expect an activist organization for the Pro-Life movement would be the place to find such an article—and that is true. But no Conciliar Church site would reveal it, the only exception was the National Catholic Register did mention it as a side note since it had some known signers ( Originally published in the Catholic Family News site (—which has no serious readers and finds no publicity because of its connection with the SSPX. It spouts their opinions. As a result, the authors apparently could only convince the Life Site News to acknowledge the Letter’s existence. Since its initial release, though, it has ended basically in oblivion. The question might be asked: Why?

It is not that it is true. It is that you are asking the Conciliar Church to say that they themselves are not Catholics, that what they uphold is not Catholic, and that they are now to tell the people they are wrong. It brings to mind a scene from the movie, The Miracle of Fatima, where I believe it is the Prosecutor who tells the Mayor to let the children of Fatima go and the Mayor says basically that, “What? I am to tell the people that I was wrong in arresting the children.” I answered a parishioner at his inquiry about the Letter on its release:

Besides Nichols—and he is not top ranking—there is no one of stature on the list and so it will not be taken seriously—just as another Lefebvrist sympathizers’ list of complaints. They just don’t understand the Vatican II Church is not the Catholic Church and like all non-Catholic sects, is moving further and further away from the Truth—and they [the writers] are actually moving with it—just going a little too fast [for them].

Are the authors justified in claiming Jorge Bergoglio is a heretic? Of course. But this has been going on since Angelo Roncalli and Vatican II. Accusations of heresy—showing clear rejection of Catholic Faith—has been pointed out numerous times. Again, as I replied to the parishioner:

When Catholics, including Cardinals and Bishops during Vatican II as well as when the Novus Ordo was about to be imposed, wrote letters and protested, they were all ignored (by the media, too). The Ottaviani (and Bacci) Intervention was declared by Montini’s examiners (who were the same ones formulating the Novus Ordo) as not against Church teaching. If a bishop, like Schneider, jumps on the band wagon, they will respond as they have to his other letters: silence. Remember the “Dubia” was also disregarded even though signed by, I believe, seven Conciliar Cardinals. Right now might makes right [modern democracy] and the majority of Conciliar members would be told we want them to return to the dark ages, to the inquisition, to bread and water and enter convents and monasteries. That we will want to have Crusades again against the peace loving Mohammedans and pilgrams and holocausts against the Jews. That those who oppose Bergoglio don’t care about the poor and oppressed and have no love; and if you support such a strict interpretation of Catholic Dogma and morals you are condemning everyone to hell (besides, we might tell them to give up social media—nobody would be able to do that). With such attacks, who do you think will want to stand up for the faith? Which conciliar bishop do you think wants to rock the boat? lose his status? be mocked? ([Donald] Trump puts us all to shame because he is the most persecuted person today—and [he is] not even a Catholic).

Despite this, we all pray for a miracle—it is within nature to have hope. I therefore added to my response to the parishioner:

But that doesn’t mean we will not pray for a miracle and maybe someone, like Robert Sarah, will capsize the pirated ship and he and the captives will swim [back] to the barque of Peter, the true Church—though I think we may have already had to swim ashore with Peter to be with Christ, Who is there for those who believe in Him.

For the full copy of the open letter, one can find it at:  Here is a summary of the main heresies of Jorge Bergoglio the letter points out:

1.      A justified person has not the strength with God’s grace to carry out the objective demands of the divine law, as though any of the commandments of God are impossible for the justified; or as meaning that God’s grace, when it produces justification in an individual, does not invariably and of its nature produce conversion from all serious sin, or is not sufficient for conversion from all serious sin.

2.      A Christian believer can have full knowledge of a divine law and voluntarily choose to break it in a serious matter, but not be in a state of mortal sin as a result of this action.

3.      A person is able, while he obeys a divine prohibition, to sin against God by that very act of obedience.

4.      Conscience can truly and rightly judge that sexual acts between persons who have contracted a civil marriage with each other, although one or both of them is sacramentally married to another person, can sometimes be morally right, or requested or even commanded by God.

5.      It is false that the only sexual acts that are good of their kind and morally licit are acts between husband and wife.

6.      Moral principles and moral truths contained in divine revelation and in the natural law do not include negative prohibitions that absolutely forbid particular kinds of action, inasmuch as these are always gravely unlawful on account of their object. 

7.      God not only permits, but positively wills, the pluralism and diversity of religions, both Christian and non-Christian.

As always, enjoy the readings and commentaries provided for your benefit. —The Editor


Is Mary Mother of the Church?

2.      This title was introduced to replace Mary’s role as Mediatrix.

The Mariologists prior to Vatican II saw the role of Mary as spiritual Mother of the faithful in her being a) the new Eve, and b) in her intercessory role. They saw that Mary had an active role in mankind’s redemption (Consent) and she continues to play an active role in the salvation of mankind (Compassion). It flows from her being the Mother of Christ, which elicits from her maternal nature the accomplishment of her Son’s mission, the salvation of the world. (Cf. Solano, 471f.)

Vatican II accepted a new theology that would re-define Church and Salvation. The Council introduced a new concept of ecumenism that embraced all religions as true. The Council wanted Protestant Religions to join together and knew that any Catholic teaching the Protestants vehemently objected to would be an obstacle, and Mary as Mediatrix of All Graces was one such teaching.

The Council continued the schema on the Church by setting Mary not in the singular role of her participation in that of the redemptive act of her Divine Son as of necessity, but stressing her role as Mother of the Church in that of nurturing faith as a mother in apropos to that of Abraham as the father of faith—Father of the Jews—, that is a model of faith. Therefore, Mary was not to be attached to Christological theology, but the Church and her faith.

In January, 1963, following the close of the first session, the Co-ordinating Commission ruled at its first meeting that the schema “on the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of the Church, is to be treated independently of the schema on the Church.” Because of this decision, the schema was reprinted and distributed to the Council Fathers, together with eleven others, before the second session. The only difference was in the wording of the title. Originally the title had read, “On the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God and Mother of Men”; now it read, “On the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of the Church.” An additional note on the title page specified that “the text will be changed only after suggestions are made by the Council Fathers.”

When the German and Austrian Council Fathers received their copies of the schema, they asked Father Rahner to prepare comments on it for presentation at the forthcoming Fulda conference.

According to Father Rahner, whose written comments were distributed to all participants in the conference, the schema as then drafted was “a source of the greatest concern” for himself and for Fathers Grillmeier, Semmelroth, and Ratzinger, who had also examined it from a theological point of view. Were the text to be accepted as it stood, he contended, “unimaginable harm would result from an ecumenical point of view, in relation to both Orientals and Protestants.” It could not be too strongly stressed, he said, “that all the success achieved in the field of ecumenism through the Council and in connection with the Council will be rendered worthless by the retention of the schema as it stands.”

It would be too much to expect, continued Father Rahner, that the schema on the Blessed Virgin could be rejected as simply as the schema on the sources of revelation. It should therefore be urged “with all possible insistence” that the schema on the Blessed Virgin be made either a chapter or an epilogue of the schema on the Church. “This would be the easiest way to delete from the schema statements which, theologically, are not sufficiently developed and which could only do incalculable harm from an ecumenical point of view. It would also prevent bitter discussion.” (Wiltgen, 90-91)

“Not developed” for Rahner was “not acceptable” since there was no tradition for calling Mary Mother of the Church. As Hans Ur von Balthasar and Karl Rahner conceived it, Mary:

. . . [I]s “the mother of the members of Christ . . . having cooperated by charity that faithful might be born in the Church, who are members of that Head.” Wherefore she is hailed as a pre-eminent and singular member of the Church, and as its type and excellent exemplar in faith and charity.

. . . She stands out among the poor and humble of the Lord, who confidently hope for and receive salvation from Him. With her the exalted Daughter of Sion, and after a long expectation of the promise, the times are fulfilled and the new Economy established, when the Son of God took a human nature from her, that He might in the mysteries of His flesh free man from sin. (Lumen Gentium, cap. VIII)

Not that this is untrue, but that here New Modernists and non-Catholics formulated how Catholics were to understand the role of Mary: Model of faithful submission to Christ, not as actively participating in the Redemptive act. For example, John 2:4: And Jesus saith to her: Woman, what is that to me and to thee? my hour is not yet come. And her reponse: Whatsoever he shall say to you, do ye. (Ibid. 2:5)

In Mary The Church at the Source, Hans Ur von Balthasar writes:

For this reason, Mary raises Abraham’s faith in God’s promise to where it can become the fulfillment itself: her faith was the fulfilling Incarnation of God’s word of promise—though only, to be sure, because God himself wanted, in sovereign freedom, to become man in her, the lowly handmaiden. (139)

And later he continues:

This is true already from the first moment of the Incarnation. The conclusion to be drawn for our subject and for the whole conception of the Church is extremely important: the Church already existed from the time of the Incarnation. True, she was not institutional—only much later would Jesus call his twelve disciples and vest them with the authority to preach and dispense the sacraments—but then she was more perfect (“immaculata”: Eph 5:27) than she would ever be again. The realized Idea of the Church comes at the beginning; everything subsequent, even ecclesiastical office with its sacred functions, is secondary, if not unimportant, in comparison. After all, the Church exists to serve the ransom and retrieval of the sinful world. In Mary, the Church is embodied even before being organized in Peter. The Church is first—and this first is permanent—feminine before she receives a complementary male counterpart in the form of ecclesial office. (140)

And Schmaus:

The term is in any case a metaphor. . . The Church may be understood as a community which is prior to any individual member of it. Here Mary’s relationship is that of mother, because she gave birth to the head from whom flows the existence and life of the community, and also because she accompanies the life of the community by her fruitful intercession. (Rahner, 901)

Mary was not to be seen as that which she was in herself, but a type—a model of Christians who had faith. She was not one who one prayed to, but one who was to be followed—yes, she prayed to God for mankind, but not because mankind must ask her to, but because all pray. She needed redemption just as everyone else.—Definitely acceptable to the Protestants, but disposed of all the past Catholic teachings of Mary. And the Church, it becomes spiritual.

(To be continued)


The Sunday Sermons of the Great Fathers

M. F. Toal


John xvi. 5-14

At that time: Jesus said to his Disciples: I go to him that sent me, and none of you asketh me: Whither goest thou? But because I have spoken these things to you, sorrow hath filled your heart.

But I tell you the truth: it is expedient to you that I go: for if I go not, the Paraclete will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.

And when he is come, he will convince the world of sin, and of justice, and of judgement. Of sin: because they believed not in me. And of justice: because I go to the Father; and you shall see me no longer. And of judgement: because the prince of this world is already judged. I have yet many things to say to you: but you cannot bear them now. But when he, the Spirit of Truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall show you. He shall glorify me; because he shall receive of mine, and shall show it to you.


V. 5. And now I go to him that sent me . . .

CHRYSOSTOM, Hom. 77 in John: Because sorrow had cast down His Disciples, still not perfected, the Lord raises up their courage, and chides them, saying: And now I go to him that sent me, and none of you asketh me: whither goest thou? For when they heard Him say that whoever killed them would think He was doing a service to God, they became so despondent that they had not a word to say to Him. And so He adds:

V. 6. But because I have spoken these things to you, sorrow . . .

Even this was a little comfort to them: to know that the Lord knew how deeply they suffered, both over His going from them, and because of the evils they learn they must suffer; not knowing if they could suffer them manfully.

AUGUSTINE, Tract 94 in John: Or because earlier they had asked Him (xiii. 36) where He was going, and He had answered He was going where they could not come. Now He foretells that He will go in such a way that no one will ask Him where He is going, and this is what He means by the words: And none of you asketh me . . . For when He was actually ascending into heaven no one questioned Him with words, but their eyes followed Him upwards.

But the Lord saw what effect His words had on their heart; for not yet possessing that inward comfort they were to receive from the Holy Spirit, they were fearful of losing the visible Presence of Christ. And since they could because of His warning doubt they were to lose Him, their human affections were saddened because they were to be deprived of His Bodily appearance. And so there follows: Because I have said these things, sorrow hath filled your heart. But He knew what was best for them; for better for them was that inward vision with which the Holy Spirit was to comfort them. Hence:

V. 7. But I tell you the truth: it is expedient to you that I go . . .

CHRYSOSTOM as above: As though to say: though it grieve you beyond measure, yet you must accept that it is better for you that I go. How they shall gain He goes on to say: For if I go not, the Paraclete will not come; but if I go, I will send him to you.

AUGUSTINE, The Trinity, 1, 9: He said this, not because of any inequality between the Word of God and the Holy Spirit, but because the presence among them of the Son of man would be an obstacle to the corning of Him Who was not less than He. For He had not emptied Himself as the Son had, taking the form of a servant. It was therefore required that the form of the servant be taken from their sight; for seeing it they supposed that Christ was only that which they beheld with their eyes. Hence: But if I go, I will send him to you.

AUGUSTINE, Tract 94, 4: Could He not while here on earth send Him Who, as we know, descended on Him at His baptism, and remained upon him; indeed from Whom we know He was at no time separable? What then does He mean by saying: If I go not the Paraclete will not come to you, but that you cannot receive the Holy Ghost as long as you continue to know Christ as a man. But when Christ departed from them in His Body, not alone was the Holy Spirit present to them, but the Father also, and the Son.

GREGORY, Moral. 8, 13: As if He were openly to say: If I do not withdraw My Body from your bodily perception, I cannot through my consoling Spirit lead you to spiritual vision.

AUGUSTINE, Sermon 143, 3: The Holy Spirit the Comforter brought us this blessedness, that, the form of a servant, received in the womb of the Virgin Mary, being removed from the eyes of our body, the Lord was revealed to our purified inward vision in that form of God in which He remained equal to the Father, even when He stooped to appear to us in the Flesh.

CHRYSOSTOM: What do they say to this, they who have no proper belief in the Spirit? Is it correct that the Master should go so that the servant…

[Message clipped]  View entire message