Vol 10 Issue 5 ~ Editor: Rev. Fr. Courtney Edward Krier
February 4, 2017 ~ Saint
1. Is the Chair of Peter Vacant? An Argument for Sedevacantism
2. Fifth Sunday after Epiphany
3. Saint Agatha
4. Family and Marriage
5. Articles and notices
Dear Reader:
This week I am introducing a new series. It is to address the present situation of the Roman Catholic Church. Some introductory points are necessary to state and these are: first, there is no Papal authority to impose one’s conclusions as placing those who disagree under any ecclesiastical censure or penalty; secondly, there cannot be a rejection of Catholics in good faith who are misled by the Conciliar Church—we all came to the conclusion that the Conciliar Church is not the Roman Catholic Church after prayer and careful reflection by the grace of God and no one 50 years of age and older can say they were not participants of their local parish post-Vatican II (though many can say they left once the Novus Ordo Missae was introduced) and yet each held oneself as Catholic—I am not looking at refusing those who hold they are true Catholics the sacraments and this is based on the model of the Western Schism; thirdly, the recognition of validity of sacraments cannot simply be based on a complete rejection of the Conciliar Church and therefore a complete rejection of their administration of sacraments, but it must be based upon the Sacramental teaching of the Roman Catholic Church; fourthly, the preservation of the faith is absolutely necessary for the constitution of the Church as Christ founded and the faith is not an end in itself, but necessary to obtain the end for which the Church was founded, which is the salvation of souls.
It is the cessation of seeking the salvation of souls that has caused a recognition that the Conciliar (Vatican II) Church as not Roman Catholic and the leader of the Conciliar Church as not the visible head of the Roman Catholic Church. It is the removal of the center of Catholic faith, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, that shocked Catholics and caused them to abandon the temple where the abomination of desolation was taking place. As Catholics stayed home, prayed the Rosary and continued to wear their Brown Scapulars they were soon able to hear of Roman Catholic clergy who retained the faith and administered the Sacraments and celebrated Holy Mass. These clergy and laity together started Mass Centers (as they would be labeled) throughout the world and so the Catholic Church continues as promised: I will be with you, all days, even to the consummation of the world (Matt. 28: 20). It has been a test of faith, a time of tribulation, of son against father and daughter against mother (cf. Luke 12:53); but one knows we ought to obey God, rather than men (Acts 5:29).
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
Introduction
In the Catholic Family News [December 2015, one of several media owned by followers of the Levfebrists (CFN is the publication of John Vennari)], was published a recent article titled: Major New Work on Sedevacantism. Promoting the book, True or False Pope? Refuting Sedevacantism and other Modern Errors, by John Salza and Robert Siscoe with a forward by Bernard Fellay, this article is in the form of an interview of the authors where they expose their intention to defend Jorge Bergoglio as their “Pope” when so many of the followers of the Levfebrists begin to question the continuous insistence that a man who is not Catholic is head of their Church.
In other words, the conservatives were concerned almost exclusively with the last seven Commandments. Well, now that Pope Francis is undermining not only the faith, but also morality (the last seven Commandments), the conservatives are searching for answers. One “answer” they are no doubt considering is whether Francis is a true Pope. And because most of the conservative types have a false understanding of Papal Infallibility (as do their sedevacantist counterparts), it is expected that many of them will be tempted to embrace the Sedevacantist thesis (although they will likely do so in secret rather than in public). How should the faithful react if they are tempted to Sedevacantism? They should react by reading our book, which will provide the answer to every question they are wondering about, and many others that they have not yet considered. . . . (p. 3)
This is the first fallacy of members of the Conciliar Church and the Levfebrists: they don’t judge the situation as a matter between acceptance or rejection of faith and morals, but between Conservatives and Liberals, as though the Church is a political entity and it doesn’t matter what the person believes, it is just an election that can put into office a liberal candidate just as it could have put into office a conservative candidate—not a Catholic given the charism to “confirm the brethren” in the faith (cf. Luke 22:32). This can be seen in the recent communique of Bernard Fellay:
I think we do not have to wait for everything to be resolved in the [Conciliar] Church, for all the problems to be solved. But a certain number of conditions are necessary, and for us the essential condition is our survival. So I have told Rome, very clearly, that, just as Archbishop [Marcel] Lefebvre used to say in his day, we have a sine qua non condition: if this condition is not met, then we will not move. And this condition is for us to be able to remain as we are, to keep all the principles that have kept us alive, that have kept us Catholic.” [Retrieved January 30, 2017: http://sspx.org/en/news-
The second fallacy is that they wait and see if they approve of the leadership of the man elected, just like any political candidate, and if they like what he does he is a “good” pope and if they don’t, then he is a “bad” Pope that one does not have to listen to. Because they make this judgment, they assume everyone else is making the same judgment like the Kennedys, Bidens and Pelosis. Therefore, they conclude also that because Jorge Bergoglio doesn’t meet the approval of the Sedevacantists, that is the only reason the only why the Sedevacantists claim Jorge Bergoglio isn’t the Pope—but, if Jorge Bergoglio would have met the expectations of the Sedevacantists, they, the Sedevacantists would have acknowledged him as pope.
They next decide that by calling something erroneous it must be erroneous, that is, why not simply state that Sedevacantists claim the “popes” after Pius XII have not been true Popes?
There are actually two related errors: the first is the simple error that the Popes after Pius XII (died 1958) have not been true Popes. The second error, which quickly follows from the first (and sometimes precedes it), is that the entire Church over which the recent Popes have reigned is a false Church – a “New Church.” (p. 26)
The authors then introduce a term, “realm of being” that in context can only infer that of the candidates “being” heretics before they were elected in conjunction with the next term “realm of action” referring to their “teaching” heresy once elected.
The third fallacy of the authors is that they revert back to pre-Vatican II ecclesiology because:
Thanks in large part to the false ecumenism that has spread throughout the Church during the post-Vatican II era, there is today much confusion over ecclesiology. We treat this subject thoroughly, relying on the Popes, Doctors, saints and some of the most respected pre-Vatican II theologians. (ibid.)
Yet, this is what exactly distinguishes the Catholic Church from the Vatican II Conciliar Church: that the teachings are clear in the Roman Catholic Faith but not clear nor the same in the Vatican II Conciliar Church. One who is truly Catholic today cannot say: I believe everything Jorge Bergoglio believes about the Catholic Church; but one could say in 1958: I believe everything that Pope Pius XII believes about the Catholic Church, just as I believed Pius XI and Pius X and Pius IX, etc., to Peter and what they taught about the Catholic Faith.
A fourth fallacy is the insistence that there must be a pope—yet, sede vacante is not a term made up by Catholics rejecting the Conciliar popes, it is a fact that happens at the death of each and every pope and until another papabile is elected and enthroned as Pope.
Finally, the fallacy that to accept sedevacantism, that is, that there is no pope presently, is to say the Church ceased to exist or to say the Church is invisible. But this also does not follow—just a false dilemma or ignorance of what is meant by a visible Church.
These fallacies will be addressed in the present exposition, but it should be clear that even though these authors publish a book with the support of the Levfebrists and Conciliarists, and even though they may regard numbers as proof, and even though they may consider themselves academics and may point to Sedevacantists [I prefer Roman Catholics, but am using the term to distinguish those who stand fast and hold to tradition (cf. Thess. 2:14) from those who believe the Church evolves with the ages] as a minority, as not receiving the applause of the world, and as non-academics (which is not true—though doctorates are withheld from us as they hold the once Catholic universities—which really even now shouldn’t have the appellation “Catholic” since they have become the nurseries of infidelity and immorality), the reminder is that Christ chose non-academics to be His Apostles (the only one possible academic, Judas Iscariot, betrayed the Christ) and is therefore a non sequitur. Yet, the resistance to the changes of Vatican II was led by Cardinals, archbishops, bishops, clergy and laity within academic circles. Fifty years later the same resistance continues among bishops, clergy and laity. Cardinals and archbishops are positions bestowed only by a pope—and which anyone claiming such a title today while claiming to be a clergyman within the traditional Roman Catholic Church would be a fraud. The vast amount of writings in the 1960’s and 70’s that came from the well-trained clergy and academics within the Universities and Seminaries of the Catholic Church prior to Vatican II attest that it wasn’t ignorant housewives who rejected the changes, nor was it amateur lay theologians. That because a so-called serious Conciliar apologist engages a housewife to prove his intellectual prowess is only because he perhaps does not dare not meet an Edmund Campion. Nor may anyone take those who are on the fringes and feeding off the spoils (such as the Dimond Brothers, the Old Catholics and other un-Orthodox sects) as representative of the Roman Catholic Faith. To classify these with Sedevacantists is simply mudslinging, not debating the crisis within the Church.
Please keep in mind that in researching theological topics, whatever source is used, Pohle, Ott, Van Noort, Bartman, Tanqueray, Hunter, etc., each draws from the same sources. To repetitiously provide each presentation they provide will only make this work voluminous and even more unreadable when the task is to present the Catholic faith on those points where it forces one to the conclusion that the Conciliar hierarchy is not the Roman Catholic hierarchy.
The following will be a step by step look into the constitution of the Church and why Roman Catholics—not Gallicanists, Modernists, or Conciliarists—conclude that there is no Pope sitting on the Chair of Peter in Rome at the present time.
(To be continued)
————————–
Fr. Leonard Goffine
The Ecclesiastical Year (1880)
The Introit of this day’s Mass says: Adore God, all ye His angels: Sion heard, and was glad; and the daughters of Juda rejoiced. The Lord hath reigned; let the earth rejoice; let the many islands be glad. (Ps. xcvi. 1.) Glory be to the Father, &c.
On this Sunday mention is made of the practice of Christian virtues, and of God’s sufferance of the wicked upon earth, that by them the just may be exercised in patience.
PRAYER OF THE CHURCH. Keep, we beseech Thee, O Lord, Thy household by Thy continual mercy; that as it leans only upon the hope of Thy heavenly grace, so it may ever be defended by Thy protection. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, etc.
EPISTLE (Col. iii. 12-17.) Brethren, put ye on, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, the bowels of mercy, benignity, humility, modesty, patience; bearing with one another, and forgiving one another, if any have a complaint against another; even as the Lord hath forgiven you, so you also. But above all these things, have charity, which is the bond of perfection: and let the peace of Christ rejoice in your hearts, wherein also you are called in one body; and be ye thankful. Let the word of Christ dwell in you abundantly, in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another, in psalms, hymns, and spiritual canticles, singing in grace in your hearts to God. All whatsoever you do in word or in work, all things, do ye in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, giving thanks to God and the Father through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Why does St. Paul call charity the bond of perfection?
Because charity comprises in itself and links all the virtues in which perfection consists. For whoever truly loves God and his neighbor, is also good, merciful, humble, modest, patiently bears the weakness of his neighbor, willingly forgives offences, in a word, practices all virtues for the sake of charity.
When does the peace of God rejoice in our hearts?
When we have learned to conquer our evil inclinations, passions, and desires, and have placed order and quiet in our hearts instead. This peace then, like a queen, keeps all the wishes of the soul in harmony, and causes us to enjoy constant peace with our neighbor, and thus serve Christ in concord, as the members of one body serve the head. The best means of preserving this peace are earnest attention to the word of God, mutual imparting of pious exhortations and admonitions, and by singing hymns, psalms, and spiritual canticles.
Why should we do all in the name of Jesus?
Because only then can our works have real worth in the sight of God, and be pleasing to Him, when they are performed for love of Jesus, in His honor, in accordance with His spirit and will. Therefore the apostle admonishes us to do all things, eat, drink, sleep, work &c. in the name of Jesus, and so honor God, the Heavenly Father, and show our gratitude to Him. Oh, how grieved will they be on their death-bed who have neglected to offer God their daily work by a good intention, then they will see, when too late, how deficient they are in meritorious deeds. On the contrary they will rejoice whose consciences testify, that in all their actions they had in view only the will and the honor of God! Would that this might be taken to heart especially by those who have to earn their bread with difficulty and in distress, that they might always unite their hardships and trials with the sufferings and merits of Jesus, offering them to the Heavenly Father, and thus imitating Christ who had no other motive than the will and the glory of His Heavenly Father.
ASPIRATION O God of love, of patience, and of mercy, turn our hearts to the sincere love of our neighbor, and grant, that whatever we do in thoughts, words and actions, we may do in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and through Him render thanks to Thee.
ON CHURCH SINGING
“Admonish one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual canticles, singing in grace in your hearts to God.” (Col. III. 16.)
The custom of singing in the Church-choir has its foundation as far back as the Old Testament, when by the arrangement of David, Solomon, and Ezechias, the psalms and other sacred canticles were sung by the priests and Levites. This custom the Catholic Church has retained, according to the precepts of the apostles, (I. Cor. xiv. 26; Eph. v. 19.) and the example of Jesus who, after they had eaten the Pasch, intoned a hymn of praise with His apostles, Matt xxvi. 30) that Christians on earth, like the angels and saints in heaven, (Apoc. v. 8. 9., xiv. 3.) who unceasingly sing His praises, might at certain hours of the day, at least, give praise and thanks to God. In the earliest ages of the Church, the Christians sang hymns of praise and thanksgiving during the holy Sacrifice and other devotional services, often continuing them throughout the whole night; in which case the choir-singers probably were bound to keep the singing in proper order and agreement. In the course of time this custom of all the faithful present singing together ceased in many churches, and became confined to the choir, which was accompanied later by instruments in accordance with the words of David who calls to the praise of the Lord with trumpets, with timbrels, with pleasant psaltery and harps. (Ps, cl. 3, 4., lxxx. 3. 4.) In many churches, where the faithful still sing in concert, if done with pure hearts and true devotion, it is as St. Basil says, “a heavenly occupation, a spiritual burnt offering; it enlightens the spirit, raises it towards heaven, leads man to communion with God, makes the soul rejoice, ends idle talk, puts away laughter, reminds us of the judgment, reconciles enemies. Where the singing of songs resounds from the contrite heart there God with the angels is present.”
GOSPEL (Matt. XIII. 24-30,) At that time, Jesus spoke this parable to the multitudes: The kingdom of heaven is likened to a man that sowed good seed in his field. But while men were asleep, his enemy came, and oversowed cockle among the wheat, and went his way. And when the blade was sprung up, and had brought forth fruit, then appeared also the cockle. And the servants of the good man of the house coming, said to him: Sir, didst thou not sow good seed in thy field? whence, then, hath it cockle? And he said to them: An enemy bath done this. And the servants said to him: Wilt thou that we go and gather it up? And he said: No, lest perhaps, gathering up the cockle, you root up the wheat also together with it. Suffer both to grow until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers: Gather up first the cockle, and bind it into bundles to burn, but the wheat gather ye into my barn.
…
[Message clipped] View entire message