Insight into the Catholic Faith presents the ~ Catholic Tradition Newsletter

Vol 10 Issue 48 ~ Editor: Rev. Fr. Courtney Edward Krier
December 2, 2017 ~ Saint Bibiana, opn!

1. Is the Chair of Peter Vacant? An Argument for Sedevacantism
2. First Sunday in Advent
3. Saint Francis Xavier
4. Family and Marriage
5. Articles and notices

Dear Reader:
The Church has concluded another year and begins once more asking her members to relive the life of Christ as she begins the Advent season. It may be easy to get caught up in the worldly spirit of Christmas as one is surrounded on all sides with commercialism and the false concept of a Kris Kringle Santa Claus. Remember, the world perverts every Catholic custom (Halloween, Christmas, Mardi Gras, Easter) that has taken deep roots in society because it is easier for them to use it for their benefit than remove it. It is also easy for Catholics to want to compromise and adapt the worldly concepts while claiming to retain the words. This is what the Vatican II Church has done, retained the words but changed the concepts—so-called re-interpretation and progress. If Catholics are going to have any impact on their children, they need to tell their children the true stories of Saint Nicholas, the Nativity, the Epiphany and the true meanings of the various symbolisms surrounding this season and the other Catholic Holy days. As old commentaries from the last century, in speaking of the secular culture, already point out: too many Catholic children already believe comic book heroes are more real than the saints. Today it is evident that these characters have replaced the Saints for most Catholic children and this is because, unfortunately, the parents. If our parents feel guilty of their neglecting the children and make the video screen the only source of relationship, they have both lost their relationship with their children and they must acknowledge that the only understanding their children have is that what the world has taught them—fairytales and lies. No wonder the Snowflakes cannot tolerate the Truth. But it is evident in our young people also, because that relationship is seen in their lives as they become so attached to the smart phone they cannot even see the world around them nor interact in a normal human manner. For this reason, as Catholics begin a new liturgical year, may they use it to once more turn to that of living a Catholic life that unfolds in directing the thoughts to the reality of what the celebrations actually commemorate and how Catholics commemorate the Feasts: Advent and preparation for the Birth of Christ by remembering the children on Saint Nicholas (December 6) and celebrating the Immaculate Conception by remembering our first parents (who, yes, actually existed and committed the Original Sin); Christmas December (24-25) with both Christ’s nativity and Mass—resisting every effort that the children open gifts before giving the Christ Child the gift of being present for His celebration of His birth at holy Mass; the Epiphany where we celebrate the Wisemen bringing the gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh by giving Christ the gift of our love, adoration and sufferings while presenting gifts to the children in imitation of the Wisemen who brought gifts to the Christ Child; on February 2 the Church celebrates Christ being presented in the Temple and mothers are reminded to present their children and raise them for the Lord. If the family can make Christmas, a joyful season, directed toward making Christ and His Mother Mary part of life through the feasts, the graces obtained may be just what is needed to keep the family faithful and together.
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?

But this was 1965 and several Countries (e.g., Spain, Portugal, Malta) still upheld Catholicism as the State religion and based their laws according to Catholic teaching. It was a direct attack on these Countries which one witnessed after Vatican II, for Catholic Statesmen were attacked by the Conciliar Hierarchy for upholding Catholic laws. Why, because of the Declaration on Religious Liberty, Dignitatis humanae, now taught the opposite of what the Catholic Church held:

A sense of the dignity of the human person has been impressing itself more and more deeply on the consciousness of contemporary man, and the demand is increasingly made that men should act on their own judgment, enjoying and making use of a responsible freedom, not driven by coercion but motivated by a sense of duty. The demand is likewise made that constitutional limits should be set to the powers of government, in order that there may be no encroachment on the rightful freedom of the person and of associations. This demand for freedom in human society chiefly regards the quest for the values proper to the human spirit. It regards, in the first place, the free exercise of religion in society. This Vatican Council takes careful note of these desires in the minds of men. It proposes to declare them to be greatly in accord with truth and justice. To this end, it searches into the sacred tradition and doctrine of the Church-the treasury out of which the Church continually brings forth new things that are in harmony with the things that are old.
. . . Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ.
Over and above all this, the council intends to develop the doctrine of recent popes on the inviolable rights of the human person and the constitutional order of society.
2. This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.
The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself. (Cf. John XXIII, encycl. “Pacem in Terris”, April 11, 1963: AAS 55 (1963), pp. 260-261; Pius XII, radio message, Dec. 24, 1942: AAS 35 (1943), p. 19; Pius XI, encycl. “Mit Brennender Sorge”, March 14, 1937: AAS 29 (1937), p. 160; Leo XIII, encycl. “Libertas Praestantissimum”, June 20, 1888: Acts of Leo XIII 8 (1888), p. 237-238.) This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.
It is in accordance with their dignity as persons—that is, beings endowed with reason and free will and therefore privileged to bear personal responsibility—that all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth. However, men cannot discharge these obligations in a manner in keeping with their own nature unless they enjoy immunity from external coercion as well as psychological freedom. Therefore the right to religious freedom has its foundation not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature. In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed.

What is here presented is a rejection of ordering liberty upon the laws of God, which the State has the obligation, rejects seeking conversions to the Catholic faith, and initiates even that of bringing up children in the faith of the parents. It is difficult to accept that the Council Fathers were so inept in accepting such a document unless they believed they had to just rubber stamp whatever was presented as approved by Giovanni Montini. But this document gets worse.

If, in view of peculiar circumstances obtaining among peoples, special civil recognition is given to one religious community in the constitutional order of society, it is at the same time imperative that the right of all citizens and religious communities to religious freedom should be recognized and made effective in practice.
Finally, government is to see to it that equality of citizens before the law, which is itself an element of the common good, is never violated, whether openly or covertly, for religious reasons. Nor is there to be discrimination among citizens.
It follows that a wrong is done when government imposes upon its people, by force or fear or other means, the profession or repudiation of any religion, or when it hinders men from joining or leaving a religious community. All the more is it a violation of the will of God and of the sacred rights of the person and the family of nations when force is brought to bear in any way in order to destroy or repress religion, either in the whole of mankind or in a particular country or in a definite community.
7. The right to religious freedom is exercised in human society: hence its exercise is subject to certain regulatory norms. In the use of all freedoms the moral principle of personal and social responsibility is to be observed. In the exercise of their rights, individual men and social groups are bound by the moral law to have respect both for the rights of others and for their own duties toward others and for the common welfare of all. Men are to deal with their fellows in justice and civility.
Furthermore, society has the right to defend itself against possible abuses committed on the pretext of freedom of religion. It is the special duty of government to provide this protection. However, government is not to act in an arbitrary fashion or in an unfair spirit of partisanship. Its action is to be controlled by juridical norms which are in conformity with the objective moral order. These norms arise out of the need for the effective safeguard of the rights of all citizens and for the peaceful settlement of conflicts of rights, also out of the need for an adequate care of genuine public peace, which comes about when men live together in good order and in true justice, and finally out of the need for a proper guardianship of public morality.
These matters constitute the basic component of the common welfare: they are what is meant by public order. For the rest, the usages of society are to be the usages of freedom in their full range: that is, the freedom of man is to be respected as far as possible and is not to be curtailed except when and insofar as necessary.

In other words, as mentioned above, Catholic Countries could no longer hold the Catholic faith as the only true religion, but one among many and in the public square be forced to allow non-Catholics to hold offices in a Catholic Country. And, if the government felt, such as witnessed today, that Catholics were abusing Freedom of Religion, i.e., refusing to perform abortions, it has the right to ask the juridical arm (courts of law) to force them to perform those abortions. One can say that the Conciliar Church tied its own hands behind its own back because it surrendered any ability to defend itself against the state.
To gather support for this document, Giovanni Montini pulled the Archbishop of Prague, Josef Beran, out of Czechoslovakia as a witness to state suppression of the Church and support of the concept of religious liberty contained in Courtney Murray’s document. Standing before the Council Fathers on September 20, 1965, this Archbishop didn’t point out the Communist government as denying religious liberty to Catholics but blamed the Catholic Church for denying religious liberty to John Hus and the Hussites:

. . . also in my country the Catholic Church still suffers for that what was performed in her name against freedom of conscience as the burning of the priest John Hus, or the external coercion of a large part of the Czech nation to accept again the Catholic Faith. . . .

Calling for repentance on the part of the Church he asked that the principle of religious freedom and freedom of conscience . . . be set forth clearly and without any restriction flowing from opportunistic considerations. It was a complete betrayal to the Catholics suffering at the hands of the Communist Antonin Novotny! Josef Beran had already betrayed the Catholics when he had the Te Deum sung in the Cathedral upon the election of the Communist Klement Gottwald. In contrast, Cardinal Jozsef Mindzsenty was forced to leave Hungary (28 September, 1971) by the Americans and accepted by Montini as a victim of history (not a martyr under Communism); Montini then annulled all of Mindzsenty’s acts against the Communists of Hungary.

In 1960 Communism was threatening half the world with its terrorism and elimination of Catholic institutions, as well as the destruction of family life and human advancement in the attainment of economic development. From the very beginning bishops made it known that if there was to be a document of the Church in the Modern World, it would need to contain a section on how the Church was to address the horrific criminality of atheistic Communism, which can be evidenced in Wiltgen’s treatment of the topic. Rather puzzled or perhaps simply amused, Wiltgen narrates the events of how Paul VI and the Vatican Council Commission set up for the drafting of the document (which included Karol Wojtyla) stopped any attempt to condemn Communism.

Archbishop Paul Yu Pin of Nanking, China, speaking two days later [October 23, 1965] in the name of 70 Council Fathers, asked for the addition of a new chapter on atheistic communism. The Council must not neglect to discuss it, he said, “because communism is one of the greatest, most evident and most unfortunate of modern phenomena.” It had to be treated in order to satisfy the expectations of all peoples, “especially those who groan under the yoke of communism and are forced to endure indescribable sorrows unjustly.”
Josef Cardinal Beran, exiled archbishop of Prague, residing in Rome, received a Czechoslovakian newspaper clipping which boasted that communists had succeeded in infiltrating every commission at the Vatican Council.
On April 7, 1965, while the schema was being revised, Pope Paul founded a Secretariat for Non-Believers, with the purpose of fostering dialogue with atheists. Cardinal König of Vienna, who had frequently served in a liaison capacity for the Vatican with the governments of communist countries, was placed in charge.
By September 14, 1965, the opening date of the fourth session, a revision of the atheism section in the schema on the Church in the modern world was in the hands of the Council Fathers, but once again it contained no explicit reference to communism. The silence prompted the circulation of a letter, dated September 29, 1965, signed by 25 bishops, giving ten reasons why Marxist communism should be treated by the Council. A petition in the form of a written intervention requesting such treatment accompanied the letter, which was widely distributed among the Council Fathers.
The letter maintained that eventual silence by the Council on communism, after the latest Popes and the Holy Office had said so much about it, would be “equivalent to disavowing all that has been said and done up till now.” Just as Pope Pius XII was at present being publicly reprimanded—but unjustly—for having kept silent on the Jews, the letter warned, so one could well imagine that “tomorrow the Council will be reproved—and justly so—for its silence on communism, which will be taken as a sign of cowardice and conniving.” This lengthy letter had been written by Bishop Carli and was distributed by Archbishops Sigaud and Lefebvre, but their names were not included among the 25 signatures. They had purposely withheld them because there was great antagonism against them, both in the liberal camp and in the press. . .
Bishop Carli sent a letter of protest to the Council Presidency, responsible for the enforcement of Council rules, and copies of it to the Cardinal Moderators, General Secretariat and Administrative Tribunal, for their information. He called attention to the fact that “450 Council Fathers,” and himself among them, had presented “a certain amendment to the General Secretariat within the prescribed time,” which the commission in making its revision had completely ignored. After quoting several directives from the Rules of Procedure, he stated that they clearly signified that “all amendments must be printed and communicated to the Council Fathers, so that they can decide by vote whether they wish to admit or reject each one.”
He also labeled as illegal the action taken by the joint commission, and charged that “this manner of admitting or rejecting amendments of the Council Fathers—and, in our case, even without giving reasons for doing so—turns a commission of no more than 30 persons into a judicial body against which there is no appeal.” And although the Council Fathers together with the Supreme Pontiff were in reality the true judges, for all practical purposes they were merely being asked by the commission to state whether or not they were pleased with the decisions taken by the commission. This made it appear, he said, that “the commission members, rather than the Council Fathers, constitute the Council.” (Op. cit., 273-275)
(To be continued)

The following are two commentaries, one from John Menezes in India and the other from Dr. Bretislav Klominsky in the Czech Republic, which are worthy of placing here.
From John Menezes:

Dear Reverend Father,
. . . Thank you for your weekly Newsletters.
In today’s letter [Vol. 10, Issue 33] you have referred to Paul VI’s visit to the Holy Land. That visit was sinister from yet another angle – it was a precursor to his visit to Bombay, India, a year later for the 38th. International Eucharistic Congress, a country which, on December 18, 1961, had invaded and occupied the Rome of the East, Goa, with no declaration of war, no provocation from Portugal, and practically no political movement to that effect in Goa. Paul VI had already confirmed secretly to Valerian Cardinal Gracias, Archbishop of Bombay, in December 1963 or even earlier that he would be coming to Bombay a year later in December 1964 but it was kept a secret till the close of office hours on the last Friday of October 1964.
The visit was to have included Goa as well in order to sanctify the Indian invasion of Goa but Paulo VI was pressured to desist from such a visit both by Manuel Cardinal Goncalves Cerejeira, Patriarch of Lisbon, and the Government of Portugal which threatened to meet his visit with the severance of diplomatic relations with the Vatican.
When the announcement was made of Paul VI’s visit to India at the closure of office hours on the last Friday of October 1964, to the dismay of Dr. Antonio Faria, Ambassador of Portugal to the Holy See, whose inquiries all along had drawn a blank, Valerian Cardinal Gracias opened his big mouth and announced to the press that the visit had been decided by Paul VI a year earlier! Thereupon Dr. Antonio Faria called on the Vatican Secretary of State the following Monday and told him that as it appeared that he (the Secretary of State) had no faith in him (the Portuguese Ambassador) he would be advising his government to recall him.
Despite the manifold services of Portugal to the spread of Catholicism in the East through the Portuguese Patronage of the Catholic Church, after India invaded and occupied Portuguese India in violation of the United Nations Charter the Holy See did not publicly utter a word of regret or sorrow. Instead John XXIII (The Second) privately sent for His Eminence, Dom Jose Cardinal da Costa Nunes of Portugal, shed some crocodile tears and told him to convey to the Portuguese government his personal sorrow at the loss of Goa. I have known of all these developments through my then contacts with persons in the Portuguese Foreign Office. I hail originally from Goa but live in Bombay, now re-named Mumbai. My ancestors were converted to Catholicism from Hinduism by Portuguese missionaries around 500 years ago.

[Message clipped] View entire message