Vol 10 Issue 33 ~ Editor: Rev. Fr. Courtney Edward KrierAugust 19, 2017 ~ Saint John Eudes, opn!
1. Is the Chair of Peter Vacant? An Argument for Sedevacantism
2. Eleventh Sunday after Pentecost
3. Saint Bernard of Clairvaux
4. Family and Marriage
5. Articles and notices
Dear Reader:
Should Catholics give up their culture because it is offensive to non-Catholics?
We know that the Conciliar Church did that in its institutions (schools and hospitals), removing first the statues and then the crucifixes so non-Catholics would be offended and that slippery slope brought the institutions to be more antichrist than many secular institutions in the promotion of ideas completely contrary to the faith—one university even refusing to have their “pope” visit because he was—as progressive and non-Catholic as he was—not progressive enough, i.e., shedding off all Catholic culture. When one leaves the Church after receiving the ashes on Ash Wednesday, should one remove the ashes so as not to offend anyone? Should one not say grace before meals so as not to offend anyone? Should we stop ringing church bells because Mohammedans are offended and it disturbs their prayers (even though the Church was there before them)? This is what happened with the Conciliar Church to appease the world and they lost first their culture and then their faith. What do they have to live for? A temporal gratification which, as witnessed, more and more not finding it even in drugs and sex and sodomy (and we are talking of former Catholics) now are resulting to suicide and euthanasia. The Conciliar Catholics have lost their culture—now those who have retained some residual of that culture (the evangelical Protestants) find that they are being forced to give up that little culture that extends from their Catholic roots. Of course, many Catholics caught up in the Conciliar Church retained also a residual of their roots and are also fighting not to give up the little they have left, but their Church has abandoned them and the Secular Progressives see only an evolution of man into a mold they are designing which requires the erasure of the past when man was free and moral with honor and dignity based on Christian principles. What is this evolution? A person who is neither male or female, rich or poor, but only listens to the elitists who promise them happiness in this life if they reject morality. The destruction of the Old Order must be accomplished to bring in the New Order. Catholics know that, because the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass had to be destroyed to bring in the Novus Ordo (New Order) in once Catholic Churches. Therefore, when one witnesses the struggle in Charlottesville and observes the class warfare created by the elitists through the propaganda of the media (Marxism applied at its best) it is not merely Neo-Nazis and Anarchists fighting each other, it is the elitists creating an event to advance their objective of erasing the past to continue the march to the New Order—and the forcing of people to give up their culture, especially the Catholic Culture that changed barbarians into saints. Satan still convinces adams and eves they can be gods if they reject God.
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?
The year 1964, for those who can remember, was the beginning of the Novus Ordo Seclorum. Everything was Novus Ordo, New Age—and the New Church was going to ride with it. But the New Age was not one of peace but war; it was not one of love but hate; it was not one of unity but disunity: That is, it was not of Christ, it was of anti-Christ. 1964 is remembered for the Beatles, the Vietnam War escalation, the War on Poverty, Draft dodgers, Hippies and loss of Sacredness. In the United States it was the year that we split apart. (Cf. PBS: 1964.) The young adults—through the educational system and the burgeoning media, that was now not just written, not just heard, but also seen with a hypnotic effect that had the viewer’s eyes glued to the mesmerizing screen—like the children of the Pied Piper danced to the tune of revolution against virtue and began the plunge into vice. The Church began to split apart along the seam of those joining the forces of the zeitgeist and those doing everything to hang onto the Rock which is Christ. (Cf. 1 Cor. 10:4.)
World events were consuming the attention of the Western World. Britain’s empire was coming to an end, Africa was torn by civil war, Latin America was plagued by coups as was Southeast Asia. Russia was to eventually oust the Ukrainian Nikita Khrushchev in October and the United Kingdom would turn to the Socialist Party at the same time (October 15). Catholics were being told change was coming, but they had been told this since 1958 with the election of Angelo Roncalli,—the only noticeable change was the Last Gospel and Confiteor before Communion being removed (St. Joseph was also inserted into the Canon, but since the Canon was said quietly it was not noticed) and Church architecture was becoming less aesthetic and more theatrical.
With the Conciliar Church taking the initiative to revamp its liturgy and sacramental system, it was in control through the one who was expected to be against them, but was one with them: Giovanni Montini. With the Constitution on the Liturgy approved, Montini set to work when already on 3 January, 1964, he appointed Annibale Bugnini as Secretary of the Council and charged with implementing the Constitution. Giovanni Montini was already making plans for a Novus Ordo Missae for the New Ordo Church. He was also preparing for the next Session of Vatican Council II which was to begin on September 14; it was to include women and it was to accept that Protestants were part of the Church.
On January 5, without a public announcment, Paul VI went to the Holy Land (still its official Catholic appellation). There Paul VI met with Athenagoras, leader of the Greek Orthodox Church, expressing a new concept of collegiality—the meeting of patriarchs, with the patriarch of Rome being the moderator. Excommunication would be lifted on December 7, 1965, which meant the Orthodox, without rejecting any error and without accepting the primacy of Peter, would now be considered members of the Church [Of course, the Conciliar Church, not the Roman Catholic Church.].
With Giovanni Montini, the neo-Modernists and Liberals had plotted to take complete control of the next session. The First session only saw a change of guards, from the Curia to neo-Modernists. The Second Session saw two documents slip through after a bitter battle: one on the liturgy that was used to do what its authors said it would not do; the other on communication which was completely ignored. There were more than a dozen more documents the neo-Modernists wanted to be approved to assure the New Montinian Church (cf. Joaquin Saenez y Arriaga, The New Post-Conciliar or Montinian Church, 1971) would be born, and the strategy of the Neo-Modernists was to assure those Catholic Cardinals and Bishops who would surely undermine their attempts could be silenced. Certainly the Media would be on their side in the public square, but on the Council floor, each bishop could still speak—that is, until this third session.
The Coordinating Commission took still further steps to speed up the Council’s work at its next meeting, on June 26. These steps involved amendments to the Rules of Procedure and were approved by Pope Paul VI on July 2. From now on, all cardinals and Council Fathers who wished to speak had to submit written summaries of their proposed addresses to the Secretary General “at least five days before discussion of the topic begins.” As a result, rebuttal was virtually impossible. According to the original Rules of Procedure approved by Pope John XXIII, any Council Father who wished to refute a statement could inform the Secretary General of his wish to speak, and was then to be given the floor as soon as the list of speakers was exhausted. During the second session, this request had to be supported by five signatures. Now, however, according to a new clause added to the rules, such a request had to be made in the name of at least seventy other Council Fathers. As might have been expected, the figure was such as to discourage anyone who did not belong to a highly organized group from asking for the floor; and the measure proved very effective in silencing minority views. (Wiltgen, 147)
The Fathers of the Council in general seemed to believe that Montini could not and would not be deliberately leading them into error just as they could not believe that Angelo Roncalli deliberately led them into error; the few Fathers who knew Giovanni Montini was betraying the Church wanted the erroneous changes. Toleration and allowing discussion to have clarity of theological issues is not new within Councils, but the doctrine on grace was not defined at the Council of Trent since there was no clarity, that is, not all the bishops, during the discussions, could agree. Whereas what was clear after the Council of Trent and after the Vatican Council (1870) became unclear or assumed a completely different connotation in the Vatican II Council. As mentioned above, ideas condemned by the Church as heretical and erroneous, as also priests who were forbidden to teach or write, became the avant garde in the Vatican II Council. Concepts that could be accepted in the secular sphere, but proved to be unacceptable in the religious, were now touted as if they originated in the religious sphere and were to be promoted in the religious sphere. But, beyond, that which was argued was simultaneously and universally being propagated throughout the world as if, by the pushing of a switch, what was once believed was no longer to be believed and what was never believed before was now to be believed as if it had always been believed.
The Civil Rights Movement became the code word in the secular sphere not for ensuring everyone respect from their fellow man and the government, but for governments to be able to take away individual rights and remove all Christian values from society. The War on Poverty, too, was not to end poverty by providing jobs but to make the vast majority of citizens (and today non-citizens) dependent on government by keeping them in poverty. It was not that there was no opposition. Barry Goldwater was bringing a certain national awareness in the United States in his bid for the presidential nomination—but the media painted him as extreme and reactionary, ready to hurl nuclear warheads at anyone who might oppose him and supporting the Ku Klux Klan (But the Media and Democrats won’t tell you the Ku Klux Klan were members and always voted Democrat prior to the ’64 election).
The same struggle over principles and rhetoric was happening in the Vatican II Council. Progress did not entail better presentation of the faith and conversion of non-Catholics, but rather changing the faith and acknowledging non-Catholics were just as enlightened and on the path to God and even that these non-Catholics should understand that Catholics believe just as they do. There was also opposition growing among Catholics and, knowing that the Neo-Modernists were united, these “traditional” Catholic bishops began attempts to unite, for if there was not a large enough contingent to reach the 70 signatures immediately after each neo-Modernist spoke, the “traditional” Catholic Bishops would never be heard. Archbishop Geraldo Sigaud of Brazil organized the largest opposition, calling the group the International Group of Fathers. He held weekly meetings during the sessions “to study the schemas of the Council—with the aid of theologians—in the light of the traditional doctrine of the Church and according to the teaching of the Sovereign Pontiffs.” (Cf. op. cit., 149) Some of the participants were Cardinals Santos, Ruffini, Siri, Larraona, and Browne, Bishops Carli, Lefevbre, and Meyer.
Soon the International Group of Fathers became so active and influential that it aroused the indignation of the European alliance, and one of the alliance cardinals stated that Archbishop Sigaud ought to be “shot to the moon.” Katholische Nachrichten Agentur, the Catholic news agency subsidized by the German bishops, called him an archconservative and depicted him and his group as working covertly against the aims of the Council. (Ibid.)
On November 9, 1963, during the second session, Bishop Carli, one of the group’s most active members, drafted a letter to Pope Paul VI in which he appealed to him “to ask the Cardinal Moderators to abstain completely from making public interventions in their own name, both inside and outside the Council hall.” In the eyes of all, he said, they appeared to be “interpreters of the mind of the Supreme Pontiff,” and there was suspicion that they had leanings “in a certain definite direction.” But Cardinal Ruffini advised against making this appeal, and it was dropped.
Father Ratzinger, the personal theologian of Cardinal Frings, while dining one day with a group, mentioned that the liberals had thought they would have a free hand at the Council after obtaining the majority in the Council commissions. But in the speeches and voting in the Council hall, he said, they began to notice some resistance to their proposals, and consequently commissions had to take this into consideration when revising the schemas. Unknown to Father Ratzinger, one of those seated nearby and within hearing distance was Archbishop Sigaud, who chuckled at this public admission by a representative of the European alliance. (Ibid. 149-150)
An example of how one-sided the Council was, that is, to initiate a new Church, one can take Cardinal Bea’s comment when rejecting the title, “Mediatrix.” This title is, of course, repudiated by the Protestants and, as Bea was President of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, one might understand that he would object to its use. This is not what is considered here, but the principle he invokes while denying it to those who also invoke it:
A Council text, he said, was not intended as a manual for personal devotion. What the Council Fathers had to decide was whether each and every affirmation made in the text was sufficiently thought out and theologically proven to be presented by the Council, as the highest Church authority. Since the role of Mary as Mediatrix was still disputed by some theologians, it should not be included in the text.(Ibid., 155)
The documents he would promote along with the other neo-Modernists were not sufficiently thought out and theologically provenand were still disputed by most theologians. As the Catholic Cardinals and Bishops asserted over and over—even after having to gain the seventy-plus signatures and which substantiated that this one Cardinal or one bishop was not an outlier—, what the Neo-Modernists were proposing was not theologically proven, but actually rejected as contrary to Catholic theology. Their pleas went nowhere, while Giovanni Montini himself intervened when the errors of the neo-Modernists seemed to be untenable even to many of the liberal bishops.
(To be continued)
————————–
The Ecclesiastical Year (1880)
INSTRUCTION ON THE ELEVENTH SUNDAY AFTER PENTECOST
At the Introit pray with the priest for brotherly love and for protection against our enemies within and without: God in his holy place; God, who maketh men of one mind to dwell in a house: he shall give power and strength to his people. Let God arise, and let his enemies be scattered; and let them that hate him flee from before His face. (Ps. lxvii.) Glory etc.
PRAYER OF THE CHURCH. Almighty, everlasting God, who, in the abundance of Thy loving kindness, dost exceed both the merits and desires of Thy suppliants; pour down upon us Thy mercy, that thou mayest forgive those things of which our conscience is afraid, and grant us those things which our prayer ventures not to ask. Thro’.
EPISTLE (i Cor. xv. 1-10.) Brethren, I make known unto you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you have received, and wherein you stand: by which also you are saved: if you hold fast after what manner I preached unto you, unless you have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all, which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures: and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: and that he was seen by Cephas, and after that by the eleven. Then was he seen by more than five hundred brethren at once, of whom many remain until this present, and some are fallen asleep. After that he was seen by James, then by all the apostles. And last of all, he was seen also by me, as by one born out of due time. For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the Church of God; but by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace in me hath not been void.
INSTRUCTION. I. St. Paul warns the Corinthians against those who denied the Resurrection of Christ and exhorts them to persevere in the faith which they have received, and to live in accordance with the same. Learn from this to persevere firmly in the one, only saving Catholic faith, which is the same that Paul preached.
II. In this epistle to the Corinthians St. Paul gives us a beautiful example of humility. Because of the sins he had committed before his conversion, he calls himself one born out of due time, the least of the apostles, and not worthy of being called an apostle, although he had labored much in the service of Christ. He ascribes it to God’s grace that he was what he was. Thus speaks the truly humble man: he sees in himself nothing but weakness, sin, and evil, and therefore despises himself and is therefore willing to be despised by others. The good which he professes or practices, he ascribes to God, to whom he refers all the honor. Endeavor, too, O Christian soul, to attain such humility. You have far more reason to do so than had St. Paul, because of the sins which you have committed since your baptism, the graces which you have abused, and the inactive, useless life you have led.
ASPIRATION. Banish from me, O most loving Saviour, the spirit of pride, and grant me the necessary grace of humility. Let me realize that of myself I can do nothing, and that all my power to effect any good, comes from Thee alone who alone workest in us to will and to accomplish.
GOSPEL. (Mark vii. 31-37.) At that time, Jesus going out of the coast of Tyre, came by Sidon to the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the coast of Decapolis. And they bring to him one deaf and dumb, and they besought him that he would lay his hand upon him. And taking him from the multitude apart, he put his fingers into his ears, and spitting, he touched his tongue: and looking up to heaven, he groaned, and said to him, Ephpheta, which is, Be thou opened: and immediately his ears were opened, and the string of his tongue was loosed, and he spoke right. And he charged them that they should tell no man; but the more he charged them, so much the more a great deal did they publish it, and so much the more did they wonder, saying: He hath done all things well: he hath made both the deaf to hear, and the dumb to speak.
Whom may we understand by the deaf and dumb man?
Those who desire neither to hear nor to speak of things concerning salvation.
Why did Christ take the deaf and dumb man aside?
To teach us that he who wishes to live piously and be comforted, must avoid the noisy world and dangerous society, and love solitude, for there God speaks to the heart. (Osee ii. 14.)
Why did Christ forbid them to mention this miracle?
…
[Message clipped] View entire message