Vol 10 Issue 49 ~ Editor: Rev. Fr. Courtney Edward Krier
December 9, 2017 ~ Saint Peter Fourier, opn!

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

Dear Reader:
As Catholics, as I said previously, the stress is always on the Truth. This is based both upon the nature of God and supported by the Second and Eighth Commandment. The educational system, starting with the Benedictines and Charles the Great, then developing into centers of education that were also taken up by other religious orders, later evolved into Catholic Universities. The foundation had been based upon Catholics seeking the true answers to questions which furthered the development of civilization based upon the Truth of the Catholic Faith thereby producing a progress that was consistent with maintaining society within the direction of Truth. The guilds were an extension of the educational centers, where better techniques were constantly developed to assist man in producing products that were more perfect, and reflecting the perfection and beauty of God’s creation.

The Renaissance, by taking ancient pagan knowledge and overexaggerating the pagan principles based upon naturalism, introduced humanism and natural virtue and, in so doing, began separating God from His creation—the highest apex on earth being man himself. No longer were spiritual values held to be the goal to strive for, but physical and mental feats. What projected this view was the immediate reward: money and position. Stripped of all spirituality, it began its decline into the abyss. It may be said that many Catholics unwittingly fell into the hands of the innovators because these Protestant heretics promised to return society back to Christo-centrism. Since it was the humanism that nurtured the innovators, they only devised a dichotomy that left humanity to itself while claiming Christ covered the spiritual. Sin, sin boldly, but believe more boldly still—that Christ covers over the sins and is therefore your personal savior. This led to a precipitation of subjectivism where the individual decided what was right and wrong morally since God was removed from the equation.

The higher Universities were still run by Catholics and, holding to Scholastic Philosophy, rejected subjectivism knowing Truth is not always found in the individual, but in the universal truth and that which had been revealed by God, whether through the Prophets or Christ Himself and handed down from the Apostles (Tradition). As the Protestants—of course absolutely rejecting Scholastic Philosophy—began opening Universities, they had to develop their own philosophy that set the human as the source of knowledge. This brought in Rationalism. Those Protestants that rejected divine revelation—it became clear: to hold the position that if each individual could decide what revelation meant then revelation could mean everything, or it could also mean nothing—became the Enlightenment movement that joined with statesmen to make the state independent of church and therefore secular (i.e., atheist). Yet, proclaiming to be rational did not mean being rational, it only meant the individual should be able to reason out answers for himself. One cannot deny it is within man to know the Truth; and, since truth is one, what is the Truth? Like Pontius Pilate, they do not turn to Christ (and to whom it has been entrusted, the Church), but turn to the populace. That is, there becomes a competition of convincing the populace to accept their opinion (perception) as the Truth. This has become so engrained in society today that the result is that Facebook and Twitter are the leading force for the young generation to determine what is right and wrong in their lives based upon how many agree or disagree with them.

When one looks at the media—remember the Church actually censured the media prior to Vatican II—it has become the platform that allows everything possible. The problem of making everything possible and probable is that now no one knows what is true. The philosophy of phenomenalism or phenomenology (appearances—i.e, experiences subjectively interpreted) of Husserl has universally infiltrated the thought process of mankind to the point that everything has become a narrative, i.e., a story, that each tries to develop from his or her perceptions and attempts to make others believe theirs is the right perception—even though they themselves may change the story. This is why the Church has insisted on teaching Catholics scholastic philosophy, i.e., objective reality as opposed to that which is dependent on subjective perception/interpretation. Again, as was said above, objective realism was rejected by the Renaissance partially and then completely by the Encyclopedistes or Enlightenment. Catholics, by compromise, have succumbed to these erroneous systems of thought as witnessed by the Modernists and subsequent Vatican Council II.
How does this affect faithful Catholics? If one turns to the media as a source of information, all the conspiracy stories and narratives that are published must be treated simply as opinions that have no weight without a basis of objective evidence—and if they do intersperse a quote or fact that is removed from context, the truth is still not known. Unfortunately, since everyone is now accustomed to so-called “freedom of speech” or being opinionated, everyone takes what fits in with their desired narrative, and leaves out what opposes the narration. A Catholic must be weary, then, with the absence of objective reporting, of accepting as truth what one hears or reads. It may even mean admitting one is not qualified to understand what the media or commentator is presenting; but, if one is not able to understand, one must humbly admit they do not understand. Even Socrates is said to have admitted, I know that I know that I don’t know. In a shorter word phrase, be careful not to accept stories for truth or repeat stories in place of the truth.
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?

Wiltgen goes on to relate how the Commissions, under Paul VI, denied knowing anything of the documents, then how it was covered up, finally providing a scapegoat and confirming that it was received but now it was too late (and making sure by giving free tickets to the Council Fathers to take a trip to Florence to honor Dante), with a promise of a footnote. And, speaking of footnotes, what are Catholics to understand when, attached to Gaudium et spes there is this footnote that this document has a pastoral slant and doctrinal slant, id est, it isn’t pastoral and it isn’t doctrinal, so what is it? An evolving teaching that changes with the changeable circumstances as evidenced in the footnote:

The Pastoral Constitution “De Ecclesia in Mundo Huius Temporis” [Gaudium et spes] is made up of two parts; yet it constitutes an organic unity. By way of explanation: the constitution is called “pastoral” because, while resting on doctrinal principles, it seeks to express the relation of the Church to the world and modern mankind. The result is that, on the one hand, a pastoral slant is present in the first part, and, on the other hand, a doctrinal slant is present in the second part. In the first part, the Church develops her teaching on man, on the world which is the enveloping context of man’s existence, and on man’s relations to his fellow men. In part two, the Church gives closer consideration to various aspects of modern life and human society; special consideration is given to those questions and problems which, in this general area, seem to have a greater urgency in our day. As a result in part two the subject matter which is viewed in the light of doctrinal principles is made up of diverse elements. Some elements have a permanent value; others, only a transitory one. Consequently, the constitution must be interpreted according to the general norms of theological interpretation. Interpreters must bear in mind—especially in part two—the changeable circumstances which the subject matter, by its very nature, involves. (Footnote 1, Gaudium et spes.)

With Giovanni Montini’s visit to the United Nations on October 4, 1965, where all the political leaders gather for peace between nations, so it seems Montini wanted Gaudium et spes to be a charter with Rome the center for United Religions that brought Religious Leaders together to discuss differences among religions and to work for “peace” among religions—the outcome can be seen with Assisi in 1986 where Karol Wojtyla, who helped Montini author Gaudium et spes, addressed the leaders on October 27 in these words:

My Brothers and Sisters,
Heads and Representatives of the Christian Churches and Ecclesial Communities and of the World Religions,

Dear Friends,

I have the honor and pleasure of welcoming all of you for our World Day of Prayer in this town of Assisi. Let me begin by thanking you from the bottom of my heart, for the openness and good will with which you have accepted my invitation to pray at Assisi.
As religious leaders you have come here not for an interreligious Conference on peace, where the emphasis would be on discussion or research for plans of action on a worldwide scale in favour of a common cause.
The coming together of so many religious leaders to pray is in itself an invitation today to the world to become aware that there exists another dimension of peace and another way of promoting it which is not a result of negotiations, political compromises or economic bargainings. It is the result of prayer, which, in the diversity of religions, expresses a relationship with a supreme power that surpasses our human capacities alone.
We come from afar, not only, for many of us, by reason of geographical distance, but above all because of our respective historical and spiritual origins.
The fact that we have come here does not imply any intention of seeking a religious consensus among ourselves or of negotiating our faith convictions. Neither does it mean that religions can be reconciled at the level of a common commitment in an earthly project which would surpass them all. Nor is it a concession to relativism in religious beliefs, because every human being must sincerely follow his or her upright conscience with the intention of seeking and obeying the truth.
Our meeting attests only – and this is its real significance for the people of our time – that in the great battle for peace, humanity, in its very diversity, must draw from its deepest and most vivifying sources where its conscience is formed and upon which is founded the moral action of all people.
(cf. http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/speeches/1986/october/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19861027_prayer-peace-assisi.html.)

Vatican Council II ended on December 8 after finishing the approval of the Declaration on Religious Liberty, Decree on the Church’s Missionary Activity, Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests, and the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World on December 7, 1965. Tragically all the bishops present signed all the documents with few exceptions. Giovanni Montini, like Martin Luther and Henry VIII, was given his Novus Ordo Church by the very ones who should have fought to preserve the Catholic Faith from the innovators.
As banal as it may seem, the New Mass was already in the making and the evil spirit of Vatican II was invading the once sacred sanctuaries of the Roman Catholic Church: Missale Romanums were being marked up to indicate the easy changes of elimination (the sacredness of the Missale was already done away when the priests marked up their Missales for the changes of 1962—previous there would be an insert for a new Saint’s Mass—never did the Ordinary change), tables were being introduced for the more innovative liturgists among the clergy, more and more vernacular was being used and less Latin, songs were being introduced that were better suited for the local Protestant revival or campfire, statues were being removed in a neo-iconoclastic program to remove everything devotional and/or offensive to the Protestants, and church architecture began to address the building as a pantheon (in the round, but also translated as “all the gods”) or triangular (Grand Architect—masonic?). Each week brought some novelty and each service was different—from a quiet Latin Mass at 6:00am attended by the elderly to the hootenanny Mass (by 1967) at 5:30pm attended by the teenagers. Though the laity and clergy who complained were told these were just abuses, none of the abuses stopped; rather, the laity who complained were told to go elsewhere and the clergy who complained were removed to some isolated hole in the ground as a punishment for being too rigid. Despite the Vatican supposedly replying against the innovations when groups of laity and clergy sent massive amounts of letters, each document coming from Rome was a further affirmation of or introduction to innovations. The local Catholic Church where one was baptized before 1960 no longer looked the same after 1965.
The world, too, was no longer the same. Instead of peace, there was war. Instead of economic success, poverty was increasing. Instead of stable marriages, divorce was now becoming something every family was beginning to experience. Instead of vocations to the religious life or priesthood increasing, from the close of Vatican II, there began a decrease (and, as in the time of the Protestant Reformation, a flight of religious from convents and monasteries and priests leaving and marrying. Instead of more people assisting at Mass, there were less people attending the sterile travesties now offered in place of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Catholics went from converting Protestants to being converted to Protestants (and now also Mohammedans).
Those who followed Vatican II changed. They no longer had the Faith that was unchangeable but a Church that would constantly change and see itself as defectible as it continuously apologizes to the world for its errors of the past. Those who followed the Conciliar Church no longer accepted that man was condemned to eternal perdition and all men are lost unless they become members of the one true Church (that is, they become a living member of the Mystical Body of Christ); this Conciliar Church teaches that all men are on the path to heaven unless they absolutely don’t want to be (and even then, some Conciliar theologians will say they still are but just don’t know it.)
(To be continued)
————————–
Dr. Pius Parsch
The Church’s Year of Grace (1957)

THE SECOND SUNDAY OF ADVENT

Station at Holy Cross in Jerusalem

Last Sunday’s message was one exhorting us to penance. From the distance came thunder peals, the Lord returning in judgment. Today, however, it is a joyous message throughout, one that may be epitomized in the phrase: the kingdom of God is coming. We already know what the words mean—the continued expansion of the Church, Christ’s bride; which for individuals manifests itself in an increase of divine life or grace. With the Savior’s advent, God’s kingdom will be ushered in. Today’s liturgy endeavors to increase our esteem and admiration for this inestimable treasure; the whole Sunday could well be regarded as a feast dedicated to it. First the liturgy presents Jerusalem as a type of the messianic kingdom. In response to the glad tidings man is required to prepare the way.
1. Jerusalem. In Palestine Christians gather today in Jerusalem for the celebration of holy Mass. In Rome they proceed to the stational church “Holy Cross at Jerusalem” which serves to give the atmosphere of the Holy City.
Why “Jerusalem”? Excavations of ancient sites often reveal a number of strata. When enemies destroyed a city, a new one would rise on the same location, so that today there are several layers of remains, one city, as it were, above the other. Our Jerusalem likewise has four strata. The bottommost layer is the Jerusalem of the Jews, that venerable land where the Lord Jesus began His mission of redemption, where He suffered and died. This is the historical Jerusalem so dear to us Christians. Anyone making a pilgrimage to the Holy Land enters that ancient city with holy awe. That Jerusalem, however, lies buried deep.
For us another has been built upon it, the Jerusalem of Christians, God’s kingdom on earth, the holy Church. This city still stands; it is the one which the divine King will enter at Christmas. Now we understand why we will hear so much about Jerusalem during the coming week. We should now clean and adorn our city, improving its streets and avenues through which the Savior will make His entrance. As a motto we should take the words of the precursor, St. John the Baptist: “Prepare the way of the Lord, make straight His paths; let every valley be filled, every hill be leveled.” Holy Mother Church’s message today is that the Savior is coming to the Jerusalem of the Christians, to the Church.
Above the second stratum there arises a third, the heavenly Jerusalem at the end of time. Already now the Church sings of this Jerusalem. For during Advent we await the Savior who will appear on the Last Day to take all into “the new Jerusalem coming down from heaven.”
Finally, there may be recognized a fourth Jerusalem, our souls in sanctifying grace. This city too must be adorned and prepared, for the King will want to enter. That is our present task.
On Epiphany, the climax to the current season, the Church will cry out: “Arise, shine, O Jerusalem, for the glory of the Lord has risen upon thee.” That is the goal. Today we must prepare for the great King’s visit to our city. The whole coming week must be devoted to it. The Church prays: “Awaken our hearts to prepare the way for Your only-begotten Son that we may serve Him with purified hearts.”
In the time of the Roman Empire, rulers rode from city to city for the purpose of official visitations. Their appearance, called epiphany or parousia, was a great event, one preceded by months of preparation. Something analogous takes place in the Jerusalem of our souls. From a high watchtower we see the Lord coming afar off. Suddenly John the Baptist appears; he hurries into the city to announce the King’s approach. God condescends to manifest Himself to us in grace; but He demands the proper reception.
There are numerous references to Jerusalem in the hours of the Divine Office.

Behold, the Lord shall come,
and all His saints with Him.
In that day a great light shall arise,
and they-shall go out from Jerusalem like clean water.
And the Lord shall rule over all peoples forever.
…

[Message clipped] View entire message