Insight into the Catholic Faith presents the Catholic Tradition Newsletter

Vol 10 Issue 31  ~ Editor: Rev. Fr. Courtney Edward Krier
August 5, 2017 ~ Our Lady of the Snows
1. Is the Chair of Peter Vacant? An Argument for Sedevacantism
2. Ninth Sunday after Pentecost
3. Transfiguration of Our Lord Jesus Christ
4. Family and Marriage
5. Articles and notices
Dear Reader:

One of the first things I remember from the priest of where I was attending during the Second Vatican II and he was changing along with the spirit of Vatican II was to tell us that Latin is not the only language used in the Church since the time of the Apostles, that there has always been change and that we were just being stubborn in refusing to change. He had valid arguments and many finding out that their only argument was the language were convinced that it would be fine, then, to accept the Novus Ordo. Those who accepted that the Church changed and believed the Tridentine Mass was first developed by the Council of Trent under Pope St Pius V were convinced the Mass could change. Those who were stubborn still fight and now find themselves home-a-loners. Yet, this was not the argument at all. It was not the Latin, it was not the changes, or being stubborn—it was a change of faith. There are two articles this past week that still see this struggle within the Conciliar Church. The Rev. Longenecker, the poster boy for married priests in the Conciliar Church here in the United States, in his opposition to Catholics faithful to the faith, states:

Over the last few years “rad trad” or “raddy traddy” was Catholic slang for the ultra traditionalist, Latin Mass, take no prisoners traditionalist. I like the rhyme, but I’m for standing this on its head. Let’s take “radical” and “tradition” and recognize something that is cool and constant in being a Catholic, and that is that if you are a Catholic you can be both establishment and rebellious at the same time. . . [cf.]
He goes on to announce:
To be “trad” is Benedict. To be “rad” is Francis. To be “trad” is Gregorian chant. To be “rad” is Taize chant. To be “trad” is incense, lace and solemn grace. To be “rad” is charismatic spirituality and healing grace. To be “trad” is “go and sin no more” To be “rad” is “neither do I condemn you.”
Perhaps the response to this being taken seriously, Longenecker extended his ideas in another article in Crux, where he writes:  Old Order Catholics and New Order Catholics behave differently because they believe differently. Can the chasm be bridged by liturgical rapprochement? [] And he goes on to say that if there was a mixture, i.e., a Latin Mass occasionally where there is the Novus Ordo, and a Novus Ordo occasionally where there is the Latin Mass, maybe the Old would understand the New and neither could claim to be distinct—the salad approach, where you just don’t have tomatoes on one dish and lettuce on another, but you combine them. Well, certainly he can be congratulated on recognizing that tomatoes are not lettuce, the old is not the new, that there is a difference, a difference in faith. And that is exactly the point I want to make even among those who claim to be faithful Roman Catholics.
Catholicism is not a mixture of liturgical practices, but a unity of faith. This unity is in the Li
turgical celebrations and the papacy has always been adamant that one does not depart from that unity. In the early Church, according to the time, there was what is now known as the Discipline of the Secret, i.e, the manner of administering the Sacraments was passed on by tradition and was not written lest the un-initiated (those not instructed and baptized) abuse the Sacraments. But, because it was not written, there were also many abuses. Saint Cyprian (+258) had to censure priests who were just using water in the chalice, explaining (and from which we know it was understood that he believed in Mass the wine became the Blood of Christ and the bread became the Body of Christ to be offered in Sacrifice):
For because Christ bore us all, in that He also bore our sins, we see that in the water is understood the people, but in the wine is showed the blood of Christ. But when the water is mingled in the cup with wine, the people is made one with Christ, and the assembly of believers is associated and conjoined with Him on whom it believes; which association and conjunction of water and wine is so mingled in the Lord’s cup, that that mixture cannot any more be separated. Whence, moreover, nothing can separate the Church— that is, the people established in the Church, faithfully and firmly persevering in that which they have believed— from Christ, in such a way as to prevent their undivided love from always abiding and adhering. Thus, therefore, in consecrating the cup of the Lord, water alone cannot be offered, even as wine alone cannot be offered. For if any one offer wine only, the blood of Christ is dissociated from us; but if the water be alone, the people are dissociated from Christ; but when both are mingled, and are joined with one another by a close union, there is completed a spiritual and heavenly sacrament. Thus the cup of the Lord is not indeed water alone, nor wine alone, unless each be mingled with the other; just as, on the other hand, the body of the Lord cannot be flour alone or water alone, unless both should be united and joined together and compacted in the mass of one bread; in which very sacrament our people are shown to be made one, so that in like manner as many grains, collected, and ground, and mixed together into one mass, make one bread; so in Christ, who is the heavenly bread, we may know that there is one body, with which our number is joined and united.
There is then no reason, dearest brother, for any one to think that the custom of certain persons is to be followed, who have thought in the past that water alone should be offered in the cup of the Lord. For we must inquire whom they themselves have followed. For if in the sacrifice which Christ offered none is to be followed but Christ, assuredly it behooves us to obey and do that which Christ did, and what He commanded to be done, since He Himself says in the Gospel, If you do whatsoever I command you, henceforth I call you not servants, but friends. John 15:14-15 And that Christ alone ought to be heard, the Father also testifies from heaven, saying, This is my well-beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear Him. Matthew 17:5 Wherefore, if Christ alone must be heard, we ought not to give heed to what another before us may have thought was to be done, but what Christ, who is before all, first did.(Epistle 63, 13 and 14).
In this same vein, one cannot understand those who insist on a liturgical custom that has been revised legitimately (i.e., by a Pope). I saw a web site [] with the mission statement: Preserving the liturgy of the pre-1955 Catholic church for the benefit of all Catholic souls. What nonsense! Nostalgia, but not the Catholic Faith and definitely why traditionalists find themselves in a precarious situation of defending their position. Yes, they may gather those yearning to be ostriches with their head in the sand, but they are rejecting the Catholic Faith by denying the authority of the papacy and the Church. As we see after the persecutions the Church defining and canonizing the faith and unifying the liturgy, she spent her energy to give us the Faith of Christ which the Apostles delivered. When the Protestants attempted to destroy that unity of faith and liturgy, she had the Council of Trent deliver a unity of faith and liturgy that would assure all Catholics they held the true faith and received valid sacraments. When Vatican II threw out the faith and liturgy, faithful Catholics knew it was not possible within the Catholic Church and therefore rejected the Council and its errors just as Catholics before rejected the Protestant innovators.
But, unfortunately there those traditionalists who fell into Gallicanism and believe that, instead of preserving the unity of the faith and liturgy, they could actually pick and choose what appeals to them and not accept what the Church teaches. This could be the denial of Baptism in water, blood or desire as one example; or the rejection of the Restored Holy Week liturgy (though they still celebrate the Feast of Pope St Pius X) as another example. Leave no doubt, if the faith is up to us, then it is not Divine faith, i.e., faith in Christ Jesus. Our cause is not to rebel, our cause is not to be stubborn, our life is to be Catholic.
As always, enjoy the readings and commentaries provided for your benefit. —The Editor
Is the Chair of Peter Vacant?
An Argument for Sedevacantism
by Rev. Courtney Edward Krier
Third Contradiction: One Church or Many?
For those Catholics who reject salvation outside the Church—and the statement, no salvation outside the Catholic Church, cannot be interpreted as simply applying to Catholics outside the Catholic Church—it has come to mean by the Conciliar Church that all are saved except those Catholics refusing to accept the Nouvelle Theologie of Vatican II. That is, the neo-Modernists were teaching that there is sanctification, or the working of God, in the errors of non-Catholic religions as opposed to the Catholic teaching that an individual soul may cooperate with actual grace despite the errors of the non-Catholic religion they adhere to—but, in corresponding to that actual grace, they reject the false religion and seek the true Church. This cooperation with actual grace—denied by Pelagians and modern Rationalists—is missing in this document. Ludwig Ott (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Bk. 4, Part II, The Church, 270ff.) clearly develops this concept as taught by Pius XII in his encyclical, Mystici Corporis (1943).
This false ecumenism that was developed by the Nouvelle Theologie was condemned by Pope Pius XI in his encyclical, Mortalium animos (January 6, 1928):
Is it not right, it is often repeated, indeed, even consonant with duty, that all who invoke the name of Christ should abstain from mutual reproaches and at long last be united in mutual charity? Who would dare to say that he loved Christ, unless he worked with all his might to carry out the desires of Him, Who asked His Father that His disciples might be “one.”[John xvii, 21.] And did not the same Christ will that His disciples should be marked out and distinguished from others by this characteristic, namely that they loved one another: “By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another”?[John xiii, 35] All Christians, they add, should be as “one”: for then they would be much more powerful in driving out the pest of irreligion, which like a serpent daily creeps further and becomes more widely spread, and prepares to rob the Gospel of its strength. These things and others that class of men who are known as pan-Christians continually repeat and amplify; and these men, so far from being quite few and scattered, have increased to the dimensions of an entire class, and have grouped themselves into widely spread societies, most of which are directed by non-Catholics, although they are imbued with varying doctrines concerning the things of faith. This undertaking is so actively promoted as in many places to win for itself the adhesion of a number of citizens, and it even takes possession of the minds of very many Catholics and allures them with the hope of bringing about such a union as would be agreeable to the desires of Holy Mother Church, who has indeed nothing more at heart than to recall her erring sons and to lead them back to her bosom. But in reality beneath these enticing words and blandishments lies hid a most grave error, by which the foundations of the Catholic faith are completely destroyed.
Pius XII, whom the New Modernists attempt to fall back on for authority, repeated what his predecessor said:
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 the 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.
Now if these only aimed at adapting ecclesiastical teaching and methods to modern conditions and requirements, through the introduction of some new explanations, there would be scarcely any reason for alarm. But some through enthusiasm for an imprudent “eirenism” seem to consider as an obstacle to the restoration of fraternal union, things founded on the laws and principles given by Christ and likewise on institutions founded by Him, or which are the defense and support of the integrity of the faith, and the removal of which would bring about the union of all, but only to their destruction. (Humani Generis, 1950, pars 11-12)
Even the Religious Life, the consecrated virgins and the monks, was to be snubbed in the acceptance of Americanism (cf. Leo XIII, Testem Benevolentiae, 22 January, 1899), for ecumenical reasons:
The position of the European alliance was based on the arguments advanced by Father Rahner and Monsignor Philips, and submitted to the German-speaking Fathers meeting in Munich in February, 1963. Those arguments were that the inclusion of the chapter on the religious life would “confirm Protestants in their objections, namely, that in the Church, through the religious state, there exist two essentially diverse paths to salvation; that the laity are not called to evangelical perfection and automatically are always on a lower level of sanctity; and that those who are members of religious orders are automatically considered better than those who are joined in marriage.” (Wiltgen, 103-104)
But for even the 108 Religious Superiors at the Council this was too much to be considered no different than a lay person unless they were a priest by the New Modernists. The practical stance of the Conciliar Church can be seen when one considers that immediately after Vatican II, not only did vocations to the Religious State practically cease, but the existing Orders found themselves loosing members. By their fruits you shall know them. (Matt. 7:16)
By the time the Second Session was coming to a close, it was clear the Council was no longer—even if it had meant to be—an Oecumenical Council, but a robber Council under control of formerly discredited New Modernists who had been rehabilitated to change the Church with the express support of Angelo Roncalli and, usurping the helm, Giovanni Montini. Wiltgen speaks of this group as follows:
The world alliance during the first session was an undercover group of five or six bishops and archbishops, representing national, regional, or continental episcopal conferences, who met periodically. From the beginning of the second session, when they considered themselves strong enough to act more openly, they held meetings at Domus Mariae each Friday evening and saw their membership grow to twenty-four bishops and archbishops, who represented approximately sixty-five episcopal conferences. The one who presided over the meetings was Coadjutor Archbishop Pierre Veuillot of Paris, whenever he was in Rome.
Although not juridically organized, the world alliance was able to determine the policy of the controlling liberal majority, and prepared sample letters which individual episcopal conferences then submitted to the Pope, requesting him to take specific action on specific issues. The secretaries of these twenty-four members held a meeting of their own every Tuesday night, thus making possible top level intercommunication twice every week. (op. cit., 129-130)
(To be continued)
Fr. Leonard Goffine
The Ecclesiastical Year (1880)


Implore God for help and protection against all temptations both visible and invisible, and say with the priest at the Introit: Behold, God is my helper, and the Lord is the protector of my soul: turn back the evils upon my enemies, and cut them off in thy truth, O Lord, my protector. (Ps. liii.) Save me, O God, by thy name, and deliver me in thy strength. Glory etc.
PRAYER OF THE CHURCH. Let the ears of Thy mercy, O Lord, be open to the prayers of Thy suppliants: and that Thou mayest grant them their desires, make them to ask such things as please Thee. Through etc.
EPISTLE. (i Cor. x. 6-13.) Brethren, Let us not covet evil things, as they also coveted. Neither become ye idolaters, as some of them: as it is written: The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play. Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed fornication, and there fell in one day three and twenty thousand. Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them tempted, and perished by the serpents. Neither do you murmur, as some of them murmured, and were destroyed by the destroyer. Now all these things happened to them in figure, and they are written for our correction, upon whom the ends of the world are come. Wherefore he that thinketh himself to stand, let him take heed lest he fall. Let no temptation take hold on you, but such as is human: and God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that which you are able but will make also with temptation issue that you may be able to bear it.
Can we sin by thought and desire?
Yes, if we desire evil and forbidden things, or voluntarily think of them with pleasure, for God prohibits not only evil deeds, but evil thoughts and desires in regard to our neighbor’s wife or goods. (Exod. xx. 17.) Christ says, (Matt. v. 28.) that he who looks upon a woman with evil desire, has already committed adultery. But wicked thoughts and imagination are sinful only when a person consents to, or entertains them deliberately. They become, however, an occasion of gaining merit, if we earnestly strive against them. For this reason God sometimes permits even the just to be tempted by them.
What is meant by tempting God?
Demanding presumptuously a mark or sign of divine omnipotence, goodness or justice. This sin is committed when without cause we desire that articles of faith sho

[Message clipped]  View entire message