Our Lord Jesus Christ, Calms the Storm – William Hole, 1908
Vol 10 Issue 36 ~ Editor: Rev. Fr. Courtney Edward Krier
September 9, 2017 ~ Saint Peter Claver, opn!
1. Is the Chair of Peter Vacant? An Argument for Sedevacantism
2. Fourteenth Sunday after Pentecost
3. Saint Nicholas of Tolentino
4. Family and Marriage
5. Articles and notices
Dear Reader:
This past week has been a continuation of one natural disaster after another. Here in the United States we have only heard of those in the Western Hemisphere; but there is the flooding in India that has also taken place. Off the coast of Mexico there has been an earthquake Friday (September 8) to add to the hurricanes and tropical storms. The fires that have caused extensive damage throughout the Western United States contrast with the hurricanes and flooding in the East. Texas has been a case of people taking control of their lives and assisting others based on Christian principles and find God’s assistance. It has also been where prayers, afterwards, have been asked—unfortunately prayers simply for the material needs as opposed the spiritual needs of those affected. The Protestants have the concept that if you have a dollar in your pocket and your evangelical pastor tells you that God put it there so you can put it in his basket, God will reward you a hundredfold for doing so—making you rich in earthly possessions (as Ismaels and Esaus). That is why Protestant evangelicals drive expensive cars—to show they are blessed by God. On this note, a call for prayer, then, is actually a call for money. Catholics, on the other hand (as Isaacs and Jacobs), should pray that the storms be averted, as one sees in the Gospel of Mark (4:37-40):
And there arose a great storm of wind, and the waves beat into the ship, so that the ship was filled. And he was in the hinder part of the ship, sleeping upon a pillow; and they awake him, and say to him: Master, doth it not concern thee that we perish? And rising up, he rebuked the wind, and said to the sea: Peace, be still. And the wind ceased: and there was made a great calm. And he said to them: Why are you fearful? have you not faith yet? And they feared exceedingly: and they said one to another: Who is this (thinkest thou) that both wind and sea obey him?
And then help with the corporal works of mercy according to one’s ability: food, clothing, and shelter. Why do I say this? Because the talk is always about the economic and monetary impact and raising money. It is never about, as with Noe, rebuilding a society based on the order God has established man to live by. No one spoke of a rainbow in the sky after hurricane Harvey, a rainbow of which God said: I will set my bow in the clouds, and it shall be the sign of a covenant between me, and between the earth. (Genesis 9:13) because even the rainbow has been taken from God and used by perverse men (Sodomites) to show their allegiance to the devil (and why fire from heaven will rain down on them). The opportunities God gives humanity to turn back to their Father as the prodigal son (cf. Luke 15) are innumerable, but mankind doesn’t. Our Lord perfectly describes it in these words: . . . thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered together thy children, as the hen doth gather her chickens under her wings, and thou wouldest not? Behold, your house shall be left to you, desolate. (Matt. 23:37-38). At least, we as Catholics, must turn to prayer before catastrophes and ask God to protect us—to deliver us from evil—or find ourselves outside His loving care.
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?
(Continued)
Giovanni Montini ignored this Archbishop’s letter and requests.
Meanwhile, thirty-five cardinals and the superiors general of five very large religious orders had written to the Pope stating that, while the text on collegiality in the schema had the appearance of presenting the moderate liberal view, it was in fact ambiguous, and might, after the close of the Council, be interpreted according to the extreme liberal view.
The Pope . . . sent a reply to the cardinal whose name headed the list, attacking the arguments given in the letter. Whereupon the Cardinal went to see the Pope, on behalf of the others in his group, and explained the grounds for their suspicions. But the Pope took no action.
The Cardinal then suggested that the theologians of his group be allowed to debate the issue in the Holy Father’s presence with his theologians, but the Holy Father did not agree to this plan. He asked the Cardinal, however, to name the theologians of his group, and when he named three, the Pope at once became visibly disturbed, since they were well known and he esteemed them highly. Again he took no action, recalling that the text on collegiality had been accepted by far more than the required majority. Before casting their votes, he said, the Council Fathers had certainly given the matter deep study and devoted much prayer to it. The Cardinal excused himself for remarking that he could not wholeheartedly share these sentiments. But the Pope still took no action because of his great faith in the Theological Commission.
Then one of the extreme liberals made the mistake of referring, in writing, to some of these ambiguous passages, and indicating how they would be interpreted after the Council. This paper fell into the hands of the aforesaid group of cardinals and superiors general, whose representative took it to the Pope. Pope Paul, realizing finally that he had been deceived [Actually, that the document would be rejected], broke down and wept.
What was the remedy? Since the text of the schema did not positively make any false assertion, but merely used ambiguous terms, the ambiguity could be clarified by joining to the text a carefully phrased explanation. This was the origin of the Preliminary Explanatory Note appended to the schema. (Op. cit. 230-32)
Lumen gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, is supposed to be defining what the Church is, which means that it is an infallible document (such as the documents of Trent and Vatican I). As such it has to be very clear. Obviously this admission shows the heterodoxy and the attempted cover-up. But a note to the note tells that it is not infallible though it is to be accepted as though infallible begs the question whether the New Church is based on truth or authority? And what does dogmatic mean if it doesn’t mean dogmatic? Wiltgen writes:
The second announcement concerned the assent which all members of the Church were expected to give to the teaching contained in this chapter. The teaching, according to this announcement, was not to be considered an infallible definition or dogma, but to be accepted on the supreme teaching authority of the Church. (Ibid., 233-234)
After the discussion on the Schema on the Church, the Council introduced, once again, a schema on Religious Liberty, which was under Augustine Bea who was President of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity. Ecumenism and Religious Liberty are considered different (here only considering the neo-Modernists’ definition) by the relationships given them: Ecumenism is acceptance of all religions by the Church; while Freedom of Religion is acceptance of all religions by the State. This detail demanded, in the minds of the neo-Modernists, two different schemas.
Augustine Bea developed an acceptance of all religions by the Church just as John Courtney Murray developed an acceptance of all religions by the State. As Ecumenism and Religious Freedom were originally part of the same schema and as the Americans were supposedly for Religious Freedom—of whom John Courtney Murray was developing—, Augustine Bea spent the spring of 1963 (Angelo Roncalli was still living) in the United States, speaking at Universities and Catholic and non-Catholic events to promote Christian Unity.
The June 13, 1963 edition of The Georgia Bulletin carried a front-page question and answer interview with Cardinal Augustine Bea, head of the Vatican Secretariat for Christian Unity. The cardinal had visited the United States in April 1963 and had a fresh look at the ecumenical movement in the U.S. The interview was copyrighted because of its exceptional exchange between questions asked by Atlanta Archbishop Paul J. Hallinan and answers written by Cardinal Bea. The cardinal wrote that the ecumenical climate in the United States “has improved in an absolutely surprising manner.” “In the United States . . . one feels that there has been something of an explosion” of interest in ecumenism, he said. Because there is such a large number of Christian denominations in the United States “the extreme intensity of the division makes more clearly apparent all the absurdity of the division itself and spurs on the search for a remedy,” Cardinal Bea said. (Retrieved June 30, 2016 from http://georgiabulletin.org/
Already Augustine Bea, in his book, The Unity of Christians, which was the collection of his writings, speeches and interviews between 1961 and 1962, and prepared to be ready for his American visit, outlays exactly the change in mentality to be expressed by no longer separated brethren, which indicates their separation from the Church, but brothers of the same home, indicating they are members of the Church but not cognizant because of variable factors causing invincible ignorance. The following is his groundwork:
So much for hatred of error [previously held by the Church prior to John XXIII]. It remains to speak of love of those who err. But I repeat, it is charity that inspired the New Testament severity in face of heresy and schism. There is no contradiction in hating the error and loving those who are in error; these attitudes are different expressions of a single charity, which mingles severity and gentleness, both rooted in charity and growing out of charity.
Of this charity the Pope has spoken often. Immediately after his election, in a broadcast message of 29 October 1958, John XXIII spoke of his sincere desire for the union of all Christians: ‘As we greet the Western Church so we greet the Eastern Church and open our arms and our heart to all those who are separated from this Apostolic See, where St Peter himself lives in his successors “until the consummation of the world” (Mt 28 :20) and fulfils Christ’s command to bind and loose on earth (Mt 16: 19) and to feed the Lord’s flock (John 21 :15-17) . . . May all return; with full and tender longing we beseech them to return . . . They will not enter a strange or unfriendly home but their own home.’
Again, in his first encyclical, Ad Petri Cathedram, he addressed separated Christians in the following words: ‘Allow us to express our affection for you and to call you sons and brothers . . . We address you, then, as brothers even though you are separated from us. For as St Augustine said: “Whether they like it or not, they are our brothers. They will only cease to be our brothers when they cease to say: Our Father”.
Let us notice here that, according to the words of the Holy Father, the Catholic Church is, for baptized non-Catholics, not ‘a strange or unfriendly home but their own home’, and that he calls them brothers and sons. Leaving aside, for later discussion, the precise doctrinal import of these words, let us underline the fact: the charity he has in mind is the charity that exists among brothers, the charity that a father, the Pope, has for all the faithful, the mother’s love that the Church has for Christians who are not Catholics.
Now let us examine in greater detail the reasons for this attitude of charity.
In the first place, we must say that the severity shown in the New Testament texts we have cited above is directed to those who, individually and consciously, withdraw themselves from the true faith and obedience to the Church of Christ. This is certainly not the case of all those now separated from us. The great majority of them inherit their position from their forebears who, in many cases, were torn from the Church by force or deception. We have only to recall the celebrated adage: Cujus regio, ejus religio. As it is no merit of ours to have been born and brought up in a family belonging to the Catholic Church, so it is no fault of theirs that they are sons of parents separated from our Church. Accepting in good faith the inheritance handed on by their parents, these non-Catholics can sincerely believe that they are on the right path.
Nor should we forget that, in spite of all the differences in doctrine and worship, our separated brethren still have much in common with us. The Oriental Church still preserves unbroken the succession of their bishops from the apostles and, along with that, valid sacraments, above all the Holy Eucharist. The liturgy of the Mass is the centre of their religious life, is considered ‘the true sacrifice atoning for the living and the dead’, and is celebrated with great solemnity. In doctrine the Orientals retain the ancient apostolic and patristic tradition, and differ from the faith of the Latin Church only in a few points, particularly in their denial of the dogmas defined by Councils since their separation, such as the primacy and infallibility of the Pope. Although they have not accepted the definitions of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, devotion to our Lady remains strong among them, and these dogmas are found in their liturgical books and generally admitted by their members.
The Protestant inheritance from the Mother Church is not as rich as the Oriental, unfortunately, but they too have preserved precious elements of Catholic doctrine and worship, although the amount varies with the different forms of Protestantism. Above all, one notices in many Protestants, particularly in the ordinary faithful, a sincere piety, a great veneration for the Word of God contained in holy scripture, and a real effort to observe the commandments of God in their daily life. We can certainly presume that the Lord grants to these men, who publicly bear witness to the name of Christ, the graces necessary to lead a Christian life. (25-27)
The Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis redintegratio, (21 Nov. 1964) written by Augustine Bea, retained this argument:
Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts, (Cf. 1 Cor. 11, 18-19; Gal. 1, 6-9; 1 Jn. 2, 18-19.) which the Apostle strongly condemned.(Cf. 1 Cor. 1, 11 sqq; 11, 22.) But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church – for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church – whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church – do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body, (Cf. CONC. FLORENTINUM, Sess. VIII (1439), Decretum Exultate Deo: Mansi 31, 1055 A.) and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church. (Cf. S. AUGUSTINUS, In Ps. 32, Enarr. 11, 29: PL 36, 299)
Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ.
The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation.
It follows that the separated Churches (Cf. CONC. LATERANENSE IV (1215) Constitutio IV: Mansi 22, 990; CONC. LUGDUNENSE II (1274), Professio fidei Michaelis Palaeologi: Mansi 24, 71 E; CONC. FLORENTINUM, Sess. VI (1439), Definitio Laetentur caeli: Mansi 31, 1026 E.) and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.
(To be continued)
————————–
The Ecclesiastical Year (1880)
INSTRUCTION ON THE FOURTEENTH SUNDAY AFTER PENTECOST
At the Introit of the Mass excite in your heart an ardent desire for heaven, with these words: Behold, O God, our protector, and look on the face of thy Christ: for better is one day, in thy courts above thousands. How lovely are thy tabernacles, O Lord of hosts! My soul longeth and fainteth for the courts of the Lord. (Ps.lxxxiii.) Glory etc.
…
[Message clipped] View entire message