Insight into the Catholic Faith presents the Catholic Tradition Newsletter

Vol 10 Issue 44 ~ Editor: Rev. Fr. Courtney Edward Krier
November 4, 2017 ~ Saint Charles Borromeo, opn!

1. Is the Chair of Peter Vacant? An Argument for Sedevacantism
2. Twenty-second Sunday after Pentecost
3. Saints Zachary and Elizabeth
4. Family and Marriage
5. Articles and notices

Dear Reader:
A modernist bishop in Los Angeles wrote:

Friends, the famous call to “read the signs of the times” made by the fathers of the Second Vatican Council is based on the exhortation of Jesus in the Gospel of today. The followers of Jesus must look at the world clearly, to see what is happening, to be attentive. But this attention is of a particular kind. It is not the attention of a scientist or a philosopher or a politician—even when they may be included. It is rather the attention to the things of God. [Cf. Bishop Robert Barron” <wof@wordonfire.org> Reflexiones Diarias del Evangelio (10/27/2017), transl. by Google].

Vatican II did exactly that, that is, the modernist bishops and theologians looked to the affairs happening in the world and changed the idea of the church to conform to the spirit of the age: rejection of divine authority, the supernatural, order and grace. They placed God in the workings of the world, not as one who created and directs His creation toward the end He established, but as one in a world Who is always changing as the world changes, as though the world formed God and not God the world. This is based upon the modernist concept that God is consciousness in the subjective universal mind and it the totality of consciousness, that is, experience, God makes himself manifest—subject to a changing consciousness or understanding of reality. Instead of being stuck in an objective reality that does not change, that is, is static (absolute) which the Catholic Church held as the correct concept of being, the modernist theologians designed a church that opened its eyes to the world and its supposed consciousness of God, and developed a belief system that would evolve with this supposed consciousness of God revealed in all of nature. Therefore, since the world universally accepts divorce, so does this new Church. As the world accepts sodomy, aka homosexualism, so does this new Church because it is always, in its interpretation, “reading the signs of the times.” Everyone wants everyone to be happy in this world, so does this new Church. Everyone believes everyone is going to heaven, so does this new Church. Everyone believes you should take from the rich and give to the poor, so does this new Church. Everyone believes whatever and so does this new Church. What does the Church of Bergoglio believe? Ask yourself: What is the latest belief in the zeitgeist and you will have Bergoglio teaching it.
Now if you go back to the Roman Catholic Church as founded by Christ and implemented by the Apostles, it is guaranteed that whatever the world believed, the Roman Catholic Church opposed, and was hated and persecuted for opposing it—and it is still the same for the Roman Catholic Church today even with its distinctive prefix, “traditional”.
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

Fourth Contradiction: Unity or Disunity?
(Continued)
As in previous Councils, e.g., Constance, a pope that was guided by the Holy Ghost through the charism of Infallibility, would have rejected the documents. Giovanni Montini, uninspired, pushed for the rejection of past teaching and promoted the introduction of novelties.

Understandably, these decisions occasioned great disappointment in the minority groups concerned, both inside and outside the Commission. Complaints immediately began to reach the Pope through numerous channels. Some periti maintained that the schema as it stood contained serious doctrinal error. Bishops pleaded urgently for an authoritative intervention by the Pope. And still others assured the Pope that there was no cause for alarm, and that there was no danger that a false interpretation might be given to the schema. . . . (Ibid., 180)

The Decree on the Catholic Eastern Churches met the same approval on the 21 November, 1964, as did the other two documents—even though, again, there was enormous opposition to the document. The result was felt on December 7, 1965, when Giovanni Montini and the Orthodox Patriarch Athenagoras II mutually removed the excommunications imposed, the shock being that Montini did not request any profession of faith or rejection of heresy on the part of the Orthodox. It was ecumenism without one faith—and equality of error with error (for by this time many Catholics were understanding that Giovanni Montini was not upholding the Catholic Faith).
Another document was that of the Church in the Modern World. After being completely rejected Wiltgen provides the following procedure to forcibly get it passed:

Cardinal Suenens proceeded to call some periti to Belgium to prepare a new draft. Strangely enough, during the second session no action was taken by the joint commission responsible for the schema until November 29, 1963, the day on which eight liberal candidates proposed by the world alliance were added to the commission, making the liberals eight votes stronger. The new draft and the original draft were discussed at length on this day, but inconclusively. Finally, Bishop Pelletier of Trois-Rivieres, Canada, suggested that a central subcommission should be created to coordinate the work of five other subcommissions, which were to prepare further revisions of the five chapters of the supplement. This proposal was unanimously adopted.
The joint commission then elected the following six members for the central subcommission by secret ballot: Bishops Schroffer and Hengsbach of Eichstatt and Essen in Germany, Bishops Jacques Menager and Ancel of Meaux and Lyons in France, Auxiliary Bishop Mark McGrath of Panama City and Bishop Emilio Guano of Livorno, Italy. These six members were then authorized to add two others, and they chose Bishop Wright of Pittsburgh and Bishop Blomjous of Mwanza, Tanzania. Of these eight, all but Bishop McGrath had originally been elected to Commission seats as European alliance candidates; he had been associated with the alliance, however, from the very first days of the Council.
As a result of this meeting, the new schema was now completely in the hands of the European alliance policy-makers. And since the central subcommission wanted as little resistance as possible from conservative members of the Italian and Spanish hierarchies, it elected Italian-born Bishop Guano to serve as chairman and later to introduce the schema in the Council hall. The eight bishops then indicated the general lines of the new draft. A few days later, the session closed, and the bishops returned to their dioceses.
The bishops had chosen the liberal moral theologian, Father Bernard Haring, C.SS.R., as secretary. Under the chairmanship of Bishop Guano, Father Haring, Monsignor Achille Glorieux, Father Raymond Sigmond, O.P., and Father Roberto Tucci, S.J., met several times during the month of December and in the first part of January, 1964. They determined more exactly the spirit of the schema, the general lines which it should follow, its content, its purpose and the persons to whom it was to be directed. They decided that the first draft should be written in French by Father Sigmond.
. . . The joint commission met again between June 4 and 6, and still further corrections and changes were suggested. It began to look as though the schema and supplement would not be ready by the third session. Finally, it was decided to print the schema despite its imperfections, and circulate it to the Council Fathers. Pope Paul gave his approval on July 3. Because of its position on the official list, it came to be called “the thirteenth schema.” The supplement was still not ready. The liberal element was not yet strong enough to insert in the schema the teachings contained in the supplement, so it planned to have them inserted through speeches from the Council floor. Meanwhile, the periti began to work overtime on the supplement.
They worked so fast and so well that the 57-page supplement to the 29-page schema was ready for distribution to the Council Fathers on September 30, 1964, two weeks after the opening of the third session.
Queries were at once directed to Council authorities on the significance of the supplement and its origin. Since the front cover bore the official heading of Vatican II documents, and since inside was the statement that “the supplement is not to be discussed in the Council hall,” some explanation was called for. The Secretary General, upon instructions from the Council Presidency or the Moderators, announced that the supplement had been drawn up by the joint commission and “sent to the Secretariat for distribution as a purely private document, having no official status whatsoever.” It had been drawn up “to make known the mind of the commission.” In response to further queries, the Secretary General made a second announcement shortly after, which showed that the supplement had more authority than his initial announcement had indicated. “The supplement was drawn up by the joint commission,” he said, “at the request of the Coordinating Commission. . . However, it is not a Council document and therefore will not be discussed in the hall.”
When the press accused the Secretary General of conservative “intrigue” and “maneuvering” in making the first announcement, and stated that he had been obliged by the Cardinal Moderators to make the second one, he issued a communique calling these reports “inexact and tendentious.” As Secretary General he never spoke in his own name, he said, “but always in the name of the Moderators or of the Presidency.” In fact, the second announcement had been made on his initiative, after he had received the necessary “authorization of the Moderators.”
Three weeks later, on October 20, the schema finally came up for discussion. . . . The Moderators had postponed the discussion until that date, announcing . . . that the “introductory reports” were not yet ready. The fourth speaker on that first day of discussion was Cardinal Lercaro of Bologna, one of the Moderators. “It seems difficult or well-nigh impossible,” he said, “for a new revision of this schema and its final approval to take place during this session.” Large numbers of Council Fathers had given notice of their wish to speak, he said, and it was also most important and necessary that this schema, on the Church in the modern world, should be discussed in detail on the Council floor. “It is even doubtful that there will be sufficient time for the task if the fourth session takes place next year,” he said.
The enthusiastic applause which greeted this statement must have been most pleasing to Cardinal Suenens, to the eight bishops of the central subcommission and to their periti, for it meant that the Council Fathers were prepared to postpone final deliberation on the schema until the fourth session, an absolute necessity if the teachings contained in the supplement were to be incorporated in the schema itself. (Op. cit. 207-209)

Yet:

Archbishop Heenan of Westminster, England, who by this time had founded the opposition group known as St. Paul’s Conference, called the schema “unworthy of an Ecumenical Council of the Church.” He proposed that it should be taken away from the commission which was now handling it and referred to another commission, to be set up forthwith. “Then, after three or four years, let the fourth and final session of the Council be convened to discuss all the social problems,” he said. The Council, he predicted, which had spent so much time on “theological niceties,” would become “a laughingstock in the eyes of the world if it now rushed breathlessly through a debate on world hunger, nuclear war and family life.”
He also pointed out that, according to instructions, the schema was to be debated, while the supplement was to be passed over without comment in the Council hall. “But if we fail to scrutinize both documents with great care,” he said, “the mind of the Council will have to be interpreted to the world by the periti who helped the Fathers of the commission to draw up the documents. God forbid that this should happen! I fear periti when they are left to explain what the bishops meant. . . It is of no avail to talk about a College of Bishops if periti in articles, books and speeches contradict and pour scorn on what a body of bishops teaches.” He warned that “the theories of one or two theologians must not be mistaken for a general agreement among theologians. . . ” Only this “general agreement” enjoyed special authority, he said. (Ibid., 210)

In the presence of Giovanni Montini, on November 21, 1964, only three documents were able to be imposed on the Council to vote and, as expected, the Fathers cast their votes unanimously in favor of these documents, despite knowing they contradicted past doctrinal teaching: Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium); Decree on the Catholic Eastern Churches (Orientalium Ecclesiarum); and, Decree on Ecumenism (Unitatis reintegration). The Heart of the Church, the Holy Eucharist, was approved to be surgically removed; now the Mystical Body of Christ was to be recast into the Frankenstein that neo-Modernists envisioned the Church should look like in the twentieth century: A piece of this and a part of that—but leaving nothing of the beauty the Spouse of Christ had before they violated her. The neo-Modernist Church became an authoritarian monster that had no reason to be but pretended to be the only reason in and of itself (Divine Authority does not exist in a merely human corporation). This left 1964 with little hope for the future, but forebode a loss of faith that would soon take root in the hearts of Catholics and drastically end the flow of grace.
(To be continued)
————————–
Fr. Leonard Goffine
The Ecclesiastical Year (1880)

INSTRUCTION FOR THE TWENTY-SECOND SUNDAY AFTER PENTECOST

At the Introit of the Mass pray with the priest for the forgiveness of your sins: If thou shalt observe iniquities O Lord: Lord, who shall endure? for with thee is propitiation, O God of Israel. From the depths I have cried to thee, O Lord: Lord, hear my voice. (Ps. cxxix.) Glory etc.

PRAYER OF THE CHURCH. O God, our refuge and strength, who art the author of all goodness, hear, we beseech Thee, the devout prayers of Thy Church, and grant that what we faithfully ask we may effectually obtain. Thro’.

EPISTLE. (Philipp. i. 6-11.) Brethren, We are confident in the Lord Jesus, that he who hath begun a good work in you will perfect it unto the day of Christ Jesus. As it is meet for me to think this for you all, for that I have you in my heart, and that in my bands, and in the defence and confirmation of the gospel, you are all partakers of my joy. For God is my witness, how I long after you all in the bowels of Jesus Christ. And this I pray, that your charity may more and more abound in knowledge and in all understanding: that you may approve the better things; that you may be sincere and without offence unto the day of Christ, filled with the fruit of justice, through Jesus Christ, unto the glory and praise of God.

EXPLANATION. This epistle was written by St. Paul at Rome, where he was imprisoned for the faith, to the inhabitants of Philippi in Macedonia whom he had converted to the true faith. He congratulates them that they so willingly received and conscientiously obeyed the gospel which he had preached to them, and he says, he trusts in God to complete the good work which He has commenced, and to give them perseverance until the day of Christ, that is, until death.

GOSPEL. (Matt. xxii. 15-21.) At that time, The Pharisees went and consulted among themselves how to ensnare Jesus in his speech. And they sent to him their disciples, with the Herodians, saying: Master, we know that thou art a true speaker, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man, for thou dost not regard the person of men: tell us, therefore, what dost thou think? Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar or not? But Jesus knowing their wickedness, said: Why do you tempt me, ye hypocrites? Show me the coin of the tribute. And they offered him a penny. And Jesus saith to them: Whose image and inscription is this? They say to him: Caesar’s. Then he saith to them: Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.

Why did the Pharisees try to ensnare Jesus in His speech?
In order to find some reason to accuse Him before the emperor, or to make Him hated by the Jews; for had He denied tribute to Caesar, they would have accused Him before the emperor as guilty of high treason; had He, on the contrary made it obligatory to pay tribute, then they would have denounced Him as a destroyer of the liberty of the people, who considered themselves a free nation owing allegiance only to God. Like the Pharisees are all those who, under the appearance of friendship, only cause vexation and misfortune to their neighbor.

Who

[Message clipped] View entire message