Insight into the Catholic Faith presents the Catholic Tradition Newsletter

Vol 10 Issue 28 ~ Editor: Rev. Fr. Courtney Edward Krier
July 15, 2017 ~ Saint Henry
1. Is the Chair of Peter Vacant? An Argument for Sedevacantism
2. Sixth Sunday after Pentecost
3. Our Lady of Mount Carmel
4. Family and Marriage
5. Articles and notices

Dear Reader:
The Feast of Our Lady of Mount Carmel is an important feast for those Catholics who wear the brown scapular. It had always been the tradition to enroll the First Communicants into the Confraternity of Our Lady of Mount Carmel and provide the First Communicant with a Rosary reminding them that they are to pray the Rosary daily in order to obtain the privileges of the Brown Scapular.

Sister Lucia writes that in September Our Lady said:
Continue to pray the Rosary in order to obtain the end of the war. In October Our Lord will come, as well as Our Lady of Dolours and Our Lady of Carmel. Saint Joseph will appear with the Child Jesus to bless the world. God is pleased with your sacrifices. He does not want you to sleep with the rope on, but only to wear it during the daytime.
Sister Lucia then writes of the October Vision:
After Our Lady had disappeared into the immense distance of the firmament, we beheld St. Joseph with the Child Jesus and Our Lady robed in white with a blue mantle, beside the sun. St. Joseph and the Child Jesus appeared to bless the world, for they traced the Sign of the Cross with their hands. When, a little later, this apparition disappeared, I saw Our Lord and Our Lady; it seemed to me that it was Our Lady of Dolours. Our Lord appeared to bless the world in the same manner as St. Joseph had done. This apparition also vanished, and I saw Our Lady once more, this time resembling Our Lady of Carmel.
The emphasis of Our Lady to give attention to her, not only as Our Lady of the Rosary, but Our Lady of Sorrows and Our Lady of Mount Carmel provide a devotional basis for Catholics. Meditation on the Sorrows of Mary reminds the Catholic of the sufferings of Mary for us—out of compassion to consider her sorrows, as the Liturgy (Feasts of Our Lady of Sorrows) puts these words into her mouth: O all ye that pass by the way, attend, and see if there be any sorrow like to my sorrow(Lamentations 1:14). The human desire to console a sorrowful mother in her loss of a child should be enough to cease to sin if one could only acknowledge this is the source of her suffering. The intertwining of the Rosary and the Scapular was already claimed to be predicted by Saint Dominic to Brother Angelus (Carmelite): One day through the Rosary and the Scapular the world will be saved. There is not here the idea that these would save a world, but Catholics would find themselves saved because of their devotion to Mary through the Rosary and Scapular. Rhetoric must stay within the bounds of Catholic eschatology and faith in Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Word; there is caution to not make a means the end and all our devotion must lead to Christ—in the words of Mary, herself, in Sacred Scripture: Whatever He says, do! (cf. John 2:5) May those Catholics who have been faithful devotees of Mary thank her for this great gift of the Brown Scapular on the Feast of Our Lady of Mount Carmel.
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?
The world still seemed a safe place the first six months of 1963. The death of Angelo Roncalli signaled a change of guard, a spirit of revolution, the end of order. The European colonies in Africa were fighting for liberation; the former colonies in Asia were fighting for self-determination; the adolescents were fighting for freedom from parental control; and the Nouvelle Theologie periti were ready to fight for a totally new Church. This was the prevailing spirit at the end of the summer as the Fathers of the Council were returning for the Second Session of the Vatican Council. Immediately after his election, on June 22, 1963, Giovanni Montini announced he would re-open the Council again on September 29. The media, too, was ready to convince the world it needed to accept these changes in the spirit of progress and modernity.
As Wiltgen saw the power of the media to sway opinion and already seal changes before they were even brought up at the Council, he continued to play the role of directing what the media should focus on. He also was present with those making the changes, such as the European alliance at Fulda:
The work carried out by the European alliance at Fulda was very impressive, and it is to be regretted that all national and regional episcopal conferences did not work with the same intensity and purpose. Had they done so, they would not have found it necessary to accept the positions of the European alliance with so little questioning. The Council would then have been less one-sided, and its achievements would truly have been the result of a world-wide theological effort. (Op. cit., 79-80)
And the coverage that was produced:
A meeting of Council Fathers from so many nations was bound to interest the press, and a succession of newspaper stories appeared with references to a “conspiracy” and an “attack” upon the Roman Curia and some of its representatives. Some of the Council Fathers were styled “progressives,” others “traditionalists,” still others “anti-progressives.” It was insinuated that the Fulda conference was intended to counteract the possible “personal inclinations” of the new Pontiff in regard to the direction to be taken by the Council, which might make it deviate from the path which Pope John had indicated. (Ibid., 81)
In other words, before the Fathers had even come together, the world saw the Church divided into progressives and anti-progressives and a direction, though never formulated, toward which the Council was to reach, which the media (directed by Wiltgen and the New Modernists) invented to obtain the goals of the progressives.—That is, Wiltgen wrote what Catholics tried to reveal without success: The Council was a robber council, stolen by the New Modernists, the media and persons elected as popes that had no intention of being Catholic in Faith. The Fathers of the Council would leave at the end of the Council, many celebrating the foundation of a New Church, the Conciliar Church, most not recognizing they had founded a new Church. Therefore, what happened in 1963 during the Second Session?
The Council came back with major changes in organization. Catholic Cardinals and Bishops who were opposed to the New Modernists found themselves stripped of any power to resist a railroading of decisions that were contrary to Church teaching. As Wiltgen informs his readers:
. . . [M]ajor changes were being prepared in the organization and procedure governing the Council. These were announced by Pope Paul VI on September 13. “On the advice of certain venerable Council Fathers,” he said, he was revising the Rules of Procedure which had been approved thirteen months earlier by Pope John. Under the revised rules, the Presidency received an increase in membership but suffered a loss of power. The number of Cardinal Presidents was raised from ten to twelve, and their function reduced to that of policing the Council, enforcing the rules, and “solving doubts and difficulties.” They were no longer to have any authority in the matter of the direction of Council discussions.
The new rules placed the responsibility for “directing the activities of the Council and determining the sequence in which topics would be discussed at the business meetings” in the hands of four Cardinal Moderators chosen from the membership of the CoordinatingCommission, which had been expanded from six to nine by Pope Paul. The four Moderators chosen by the Pope were Cardinals Döpfner, Suenens, Lercaro, and Agagianian. . . .
By these papal appointments the European alliance grew in power and influence, advancing from control of 30 per cent of the Council Presidency and control of 50 per cent of the Coordinating Commission to control of 75 per cent of the board of Cardinal Moderators. And since Cardinal Agagianian [regarded the most acceptable Curial Cardinal to their cause] was not a forceful person, the three liberal Cardinal Moderators often had 100-per-cent control. (op. cit., 82, 83)
Opening on September 29, 1963, Giovanni Montini addressed the Fathers of the Council, asking for a fuller definition of the Church, for a renewal of the Church, for Christian Unity, and the Church’s place within Modern Society. At a brief glance, all worthy of consideration. But the interpretation became disturbing as the Council produced its documents that no longer were sustainable with past Church teaching. The Church became a mystery, not the absolute means of salvation; Renewal meant sensing an experience of the faith by activity; Christian Unity was not conversion of non-Catholics to the Faith, but acknowledging different paths to Christ and acceptance of basic principles (The non-Catholics were welcoming in receiving recognition of their sects; but none wanted to give up their autonomy even if they didn’t need to reject their errors); and understanding the Church’s place within Modern Society meant converting the Church into a social organization that worked for peace and providing for societal needs. The New Modernists grasped this call as their call.
The very next day, September 30, 1963, the Schema on the Church devised by Karl Rahner and the New Modernists was brought forward for consideration. As a whole it was presenting the Church in a manner that was new. Under the mantra of balancing the supreme authority and infallibility of the pope, the concept of episcopal collegiality was introduced with the understanding that bishops were a collective and could decide issues alone collectively or that bishops were a collective with the Pope as leader. Both concepts were rejected by those Cardinals and Bishops retaining Catholic doctrine. As Wiltgen summarizes:
Cardinal Siri of Genoa, for instance, maintained that the bishops, “under certain conditions,” certainly constituted a college together with the Roman Pontiff; that was evident from Sacred Scripture and tradition. However, the concept of a college was “strictly juridical” and therefore much more complex than that of a simple association. It implied, in fact, “a juridical solidarity both in being and in action.” Cardinal Siri felt that the wording of the schema should be clearer and better organized, and should be harmonized with what the First Vatican Council had already defined on the papal primacy. (op. cit., 86-87)
. . . Archbishop Sigaud, of Diamantina, Brazil, called for special caution in the phrasing of episcopal collegiality. The Archbishop, who called himself a traditionalist, said that a comparison of Articles 12, 13, and 16 of the schema made it appear that “some new doctrine” was being taught—namely, that the twelve Apostles, with Peter as head, constituted together a true and permanent college strictly so called, and “even by divine institution.”
. . . “If by divine institution the bishops and the Pope constitute a true and permanent college, strictly so called, then the Church must habitually and ordinarily (not extraordinarily) be ruled by the Pope with the college of bishops. In other words, the government of the Church, by divine institution, is not monarchical or personal, but collegial.” But the exercise of collegial authority by bishops, as in ecumenical councils, was a rare event in the history of the Church, and must therefore be regarded as an extraordinary—not an ordinary—manner of governing the Universal Church.
The traditional Catholic teaching in the matter, he said, was that every bishop, on his appointment to office by the Pope, “receives the duty and, consequently, the authority of exercising the episcopal office among the faithful committed to him, within the territorial limits indicated to him by the competent authority.” There was a distinction, he pointed out, between acts performed by bishops collectively, and those performed collegially. An example of collective action was the gathering of many bishops of one ecclesiastical province or nation, the efficacy of which was not derived from divine institution and could not be said to have been collegially produced. The decisions of such gatherings had only “a juridical efficacy, that is, they oblige within a diocese only if the Roman Pontiff approves of such decisions as binding by virtue of his own full and universal power; or if the bishop of the diocese concerned, by virtue of his own jurisdiction, approves such decisions as binding for his own diocese.”
Two “very dangerous precipices” must be avoided, said Archbishop Sigaud. In the first place, “we must avoid the establishment of some world institution which would be like a permanent ecumenical council, to which some bishops would be elected or delegated by others, and who would carry out the duties of the entire episcopal college. In this way, together with the Roman Pontiff, they would perform acts which were truly collegial, in a habitual and ordinary manner, and their efficacy would be extended by divine institution to the Universal Church.” Such an organism, said the Archbishop, would be a kind of “world parliament” within the Church. But, he pointed out, Christ had most certainly not established such an organism, because for twenty centuries the Roman Pontiffs and bishops had been wholly unaware of it. “On the contrary, it is clear to all that Christ the Lord conferred the supreme government of his Church upon the person of Peter, to be personally exercised, first, indeed, by Peter himself, and then by Peter’s successors.” (Ibid., 88-89)
Later in conversation with Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Wiltgen condenses further objections:
It was easy to conceive, said the Archbishop, that “three, four, or five bishops in a national episcopal conference will have more influence than the rest and will take over leadership.” This he called “a danger to the teaching and pastoral authority of the individual bishop, who is the divinely constituted teacher and pastor of his flock.” Referring specifically to the conference of archbishops of France, he said that at times this conference would issue a joint statement on social or pastoral questions. “It is then very difficult for an individual bishop to disagree with the public stand that has been taken, and he is simply reduced to silence.” Archbishop Lefebvre called this “a new and undesirable power over the diocesan bishop.”
He went further, saying that it was “a new kind of collectivism invading the Church.” The present tendency in the Council hall, he said, was to make national episcopal conferences so strong that “individual bishops would be so restricted in the government of their dioceses as to lose their initiative.” An individual bishop might contradict a national episcopal conference, “but then his clergy and laity would be in a quandary, not knowing whether to follow their own bishop or the conference.” (ibid., 89-90)
When the topic of collegiality was again broached by the Council in November, Bishop Wright of Pittsburgh, a New Modernist, claimed overwhelming support of the Council, even though 408 voted against the idea of collegiality as the Moderators attempted to bypass discussion and accept the schema on the Church. When Cardinal Browne announced that it would be necessary for the Theological Commission to clarify what was meant by collegiality:
Two days later, Cardinal Frings referred to Cardinal Browne’s remarks as “indeed amazing.” Those remarks, he said, would seem to imply that the Theological Commission had access to sources of truth unknown to the rest of the Council Fathers. Such observations, he went on, lost sight of the fact that the Council commissions were intended to function only as instruments of the General Congregations, and to execute the will of the Council Fathers. While the October 30 vote had been merely indicative, “an almost unanimous assent should not be considered as of no value at all.” (Ibid., 116)
Cardinal Ottaviani responded to Frings in this paraphrase of Wiltgen:
As for the votes which had been taken in the Council hall on October 30, they had been “only an indication of the thinking of the Council Fathers.” It was unfortunate, he said, that the points voted on had been proposed by the four Moderators without first being submitted to the Theological Commission, which was competent in the matter, since it touched on dogma. Those points had contained equivocal terms which should have been clarified. In particular, the point on collegiality had presumed the existence of the Apostolic College, of which the present College of Bishops was said to be the successor. “But this is a case of confusion on the nature of episcopal succession,” he said. “It is true that the bishops succeed the Apostles, but they do not succeed the College of Apostles as a college, because the College of Apostles as such did not exist, at least not in a juridical sense.” There had been only one example of collegiality among the Apostles, and that had been at the Council of Jerusalem. No one doubted that at Jerusalem the Apostles had acted as a college, he said, “just as no one doubts that the bishops today, in Council, are acting as a college with and under the Pope.” Christ’s words “Feed my sheep” had been addressed only to his vicar, “and therefore whoever wants to be counted among the sheep of Christ must be under the universal pastor appointed by Christ.” There were no exceptions to this rule, “not even bishops.” (Ibid., 117)
(To be continued)
Fr. Leonard Goffine
The Ecclesiastical Year (1880)


The Introit of this day’s Mass is the prayer of a soul that trusts in God’s powerful and merciful protection: The Lord is the strength of his people, the protector of the salvation of his Anointed: save, O Lord, thy people, and bless Thine inheritance, and rule them for ever. Unto Thee will I cry, O Lord: O my God, be not Thou silent to me; lest if Thou be silent to me, I become like them that go down into the pit. (Ps. xxvii.) Glory etc.
PRAYER OF THE CHURCH. O God of hosts, to whom belongeth all that is perfect: implant in our hearts the love of Thy name, and grant within us an increase of religion, that Thou mayest nourish in us what is good, and by the fervor of our devotion may preserve in us what Thou hast nourished. Through etc.
EPISTLE. (Rom. vi. 3-11.) Brethren, All we who are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in his death. For we are buried together with him by baptism unto death: that as Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father so we also may walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall also be in the likeness of his

[Message clipped]  View entire message