1. Is the Chair of Peter Vacant? An Argument for Sedevacantism
2. Twenty-third Sunday after Pentecost
3. Saint Martin, Pope
4. Family and Marriage
5. Articles and notices
It may be asked, if in rejecting the Vatican II modernists’ call to “read the signs of the times” because of it being a reference to looking at the spirit of world and conform to that spirit, then what did Christ mean by these words? The meaning is the opposite of the modernists’ interpretation. The passage, taken from Matthew, Chapter 16, which reads:
And there came to him the Pharisees and Sadducees tempting: and they asked him to shew them a sign from heaven. But he answered and said to them: When it is evening, you say, It will be fair weather, for the sky is red. And in the morning: Today there will be a storm, for the sky is red and lowering. You know then how to discern the face of the sky: and can you not know the signs of the times? A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign: and a sign shall not be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet. And he left them, and went away. And when his disciples were come over the water, they had forgotten to take bread. (Verses 1-4)
With the parallel in Luke, chapter 12, that reads:
And he said also to the multitudes: When you see a cloud rising from the west, presently you say: A shower is coming: and so it happeneth: And when ye see the south wind blow, you say: There will be heat: and it cometh to pass. You hypocrites, you know how to discern the face of the heaven and of the earth: but how is it that you do not discern this time? (Verses 54-56)
One turns to the commentaries by the Fathers of the Church, which correspond to the literal meaning in its context, and here one finds that they agree it is that the materially minded Jews could predict worldly matters; but, though pretending to be masters of the Law (Scriptures), they could not see that Christ was fulfilling all the prophecies in those Scriptures in front of their very eyes, and, in fact, they themselves were making the prophecies come true by their rejection but at the same time denied they were doing even that.
The Jews rejected Christ because they wanted deliverance not from sin, but from the Romans—even though the Prophets spoke of deliverance from sin by the Messias. The Jews rejected Christ because they wanted material wealth and Christ only promised the kingdom of heaven (eternal life) as the Messias reign would be everlasting.
In the same way, the Modernists rejected Christ because they wanted deliverance from His Church with its faith and morality; and they teach the people what they believe: to seek deliverance not from sin but from governments that curtail them from sinning. Popes Pius X, Pius XI and Pius XII warned the Clergy and faithful not to fall into the errors of liberal Protestantism and Secularism that had taken up the banner of liberty, fraternity and equality as its spirit; but the Modernists at Vatican II convinced them to leave the hard sayings of Christ and embraced the world with its liberty, fraternity and equality.
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
Fifth Contradiction: Church: Indefectible or Defectible?
1965 was to be the beginning of the Great Society. Lyndon B. Johnson announced this on his January 4, 1965, State of the Union Address, where, among other Social Gospel utopian utterances, he declares:
. . . We seek the unity of man with the world that he has built—with the knowledge that can save or destroy him—with the cities which can stimulate or stifle him—with the wealth and the machines which can enrich or menace his spirit.
We seek to establish a harmony between man and society which will allow each of us to enlarge the meaning of his life and all of us to elevate the quality of our civilization. This is the search that we begin tonight.
. . . . These are some of the goals of the American Nation in the world in which we live.
For ourselves we seek neither praise nor blame, neither gratitude nor obedience.
We seek peace.
We seek freedom.
We seek to enrich the life of man.
For that is the world in which we will flourish and that is the world that we mean for all men to ultimately have.
. . . We are in the midst of the greatest upward surge of economic well-being in the history of any nation.
Our flourishing progress has been marked by price stability that is unequalled in the world. Our balance of payments deficit has declined and the soundness of our dollar is unquestioned. I pledge to keep it that way and I urge business and labor to cooperate to that end.
We worked for two centuries to climb this peak of prosperity. But we are only at the beginning of the road to the Great Society. Ahead now is a summit where freedom from the wants of the body can help fulfill the needs of the spirit.
We built this Nation to serve its people.
We want to grow and build and create, but we want progress to be the servant and not the master of man.
We do not intend to live in the midst of abundance, isolated from neighbors and nature, confined by blighted cities and bleak suburbs, stunted by a poverty of learning and an emptiness of leisure.
The Great Society asks not how much, but how good; not only how to create wealth but how to use it; not only how fast we are going, but where we are headed. . . .
Johnson then goes on to explain how: Establish social programs that tax those who have and give to those who have not, i.e., a re-distribution of wealth. By giving an average (at that time) $4000 dollars to each man and women below the poverty level, they were supposedly no longer poor—but it did not take them out of poverty—it rather paid them to be poor. The supposed success was that less people were under the poverty level (because they received assistance), but the reality was more people were receiving assistance because they realized the benefits of not working. Such was the Great Society envisioned by the Democratic party then and even now (when, as of July 2016, the National deficit is $19.3 trillion). This spirit of a Great Society seemed to be the universal theme of 1965 and the standard bearer was to be the United Nations. Johnson, in the same speech said:
Finally, we renew our commitment to the continued growth and the effectiveness of the United Nations. The frustrations of the United Nations are a product of the world that we live in, and not of the institution which gives them voice. It is far better to throw these differences open to the assembly of nations than to permit them to fester in silent danger.
He then continued with the words, quoted above that equated the goals of the United Nations with those of the United States of America.
Giovanni Montini did not fail to also pay his tribute to the Great Society and the United Nations as though some unrevealed obligation of all world leaders. The following is part of his speech on October 4 of the same year, which completely negates the role of Christ and the Church:
And we also make our own the voice of the poor, the disinherited, the suffering, of those who hunger and thirst for justice, for the dignity of life, for freedom, for well being and progress. The peoples of the earth turn to the United Nations as the last hope of concord and peace; we presume to present here, with their tribute of honor and hope, our own tribute also.
That is why this moment is great for you, also.
We feel that you are already aware of this. Hearken now to the continuation of our message. It becomes a message of good wishes for the future. The edifice which you have constructed must never fall; it must be perfected, and made equal to the needs which world history will present.
You mark a stage in the development of mankind from which retreat must never be admitted but from which it is necessary that advance be made.
To the pluralism of states, which can no longer ignore one another, you offer an extremely simple and fruitful formula of coexistence. (Los Angeles Times, October 5, 1965, p. 7)
For many Catholics, this was a public betrayal of Christ, a Judas kiss, which sold Christ to the powers of darkness.
This was 1965, and nothing good would come as a result of humanistic efforts, only the beginning of the withdrawal of Catholics from the true faith and the means of grace. It began the drop in Catholic attendance at Mass and loss of religious vocations; it was the beginning of religious leaving their orders and priest abandoning the priesthood.
For Americans, a war in South Vietnam that was promised not to be—for Kennedy was told that if Ngo Dinh Diem (a Catholic) was removed from office there would be peace—had become a full scale war with American soldiers involved. Johnson, who promised to promote peace, was promoting war; and the youth, the young men who would be sent to die, protested the deceit of a promised Great Society. The American adults, deceived by a Democratic President, felt torn between patriotism and seeing their sons needlessly sacrificed. The Blacks, supported by Marxists ideologues and Moscow, under the dissolute Martin Luther King, saw the opportunity to oppose the injustice of a segregated South held by Democrats. The riots and chaos that filled this year only distracted the public from what was really happening: The world was changing from Christ to anti-Christ.
For the children, it was moving into the Space age. Spaceship after spaceship was being launched into space and, for the most part, they were shielded from the horrors of the transition of faith to secularism as they believed they would one day go to space—little knowing they would wake up to a faithless society when they reached adulthood and never reach space.
For the neo-Modernists, 1965 was the final opportunity to see the transition of a Roman Catholic Church to an Ecumenical Church—based on a false rationalism and an invented sociology that coincided with the Modern World of disbelief and secularism—before their Robber Council ended.
The Council was set to open again on September 14 and to close on December 8, 1965. The opposition by the faithful Bishops and clergy that stopped passage of several erroneous documents in the previous session gave more time to the neo-Modernists time to propagate their ideas publicly without intervention from Giovanni Montini. Still, it also gave the Bishops defending the faith time to present their arguments and formally warn Montini of the errors of these neo-Modernists. Instead of heeding their warning, the master of deceit, Montini, had Cardinal Cicognani, the Vatican Secretary of State, admonish them for their opposition which he claimed was detrimental to the Council. This can be seen in Wiltgen’s words:
Cardinal Cicognani, Vatican Secretary of State, replied to Bishop Carli on August II, stating that Pope Paul had given careful attention to the proposals. “I must inform Your Excellency, however,” he went on, “that some surprise was occasioned by the fact that the request had been presented on behalf of an ‘International Group of Fathers, with similar views on theological and pastoral matters,’ that is, by a particular group within the Council. This initiative might be deemed to authorize the official foundation of other ‘alliances,’ to the detriment of the Council assembly. As Your Excellency can well understand, this would in fact take from Council Fathers that freedom of judgment and of choice which must be ensured over and above every particular interest. It would also lead to the accentuation of tendencies and divisions among the Council Fathers themselves, whereas everything possible should be done to minimize them for the sake of serenity, concord, the happy outcome of the Council and the honor of the Church. The enterprise, therefore, cannot in itself be approved, and it would be well for this ‘Group’ not to function as an organ representing the positions of the Council Fathers belonging to it.”
It should be recalled, in connection with this letter, that the Rules of Procedure of the Council as revised and approved by Pope Paul actually encouraged the formation of groups with similar views on theological and pastoral matters. Thus Article 57, Section 3, provided: “It is most desirable that Council Fathers who intend to present similar arguments should join together and choose one or several of their number to speak on behalf of all.” As far back as August 5, 1964, Archbishop Sigaud had pointed out that the new ruling requiring a speaker to have collected seventy signatures in order to be permitted to speak after closure of debate forced the minority to organize itself, and he had cited Article 57, Section 3, as justifying such action. (Op. cit, 248)
In other words, the Fathers entering into the Fourth Session would be entering into a Council already determined to change the remaining teachings of the Church that opposed the goals of the neo-Modernists: A church built upon the ideas of Liberty, Fraternity and Equality based upon a sociological concept of the evolution of man that would obtain a utopian Great Society or New World Order where all would live in peace because there were no differences within mankind as all have the same origin and all have the same end (paradise on earth). To achieve this end, the eradication of differences would have to be achieved. The manner of obtaining the eradication of differences would be through directed dialogue demanding the abandonment of absolute truths (dogmas). In the last section one already saw that the word, dogmatic, was now to be understood as a teaching that was not infallible as the Note for the Vatican II document, Lumen gentium, makes very clear.
(To be continued)
Fr. Leonard Goffine
The Ecclesiastical Year (1880)
INSTRUCTION FOR THE TWENTY-THIRD SUNDAY AFTER PENTECOST
[Message clipped] View entire message