Dawn of a new age

Today is the day in which Holy Mother Church rejoices in the birth of the Blessed Virgin, and it may be added, the day in which this writer has returned to this blog after nearly a year without internet access. If we look at the present state of the Church we see only more and more signs of apostasy and heresy among those who call themselves Catholic- the Pope radicalizing the faithful to a greater degree, the college of cardinals now finds itself with a slim majority of members being appointed by Pope Francis himself, bishops more and more throwing off any remnants of Catholic faith in favor of a vague Catholic sentimentalism and liberal politicization more concerned with the supposed rights of migrants than the dogmas of the Faith. It is not a hopeful picture if we are to analyze current trends in the light of history and human reason.

But fortunately, the Catholic relies on other sources of truth other than those possessed by political pundits. We have the Faith revealed by God, and the promise by the Virgin herself that the "Immaculate Heart would triumph" and that there would be given a period of peace to the world. It is in this promise of Our Lady that the Catholic must find his comfort and his peace. Yes, there are problems; yes, there are abuses and heresies; but the devil brings turbulence into the soul by seducing it by focusing its attention away from God and towards those thing which will keep it in a state of agitation.

It may well be asked what a soul is to do in this present crisis of the Church? The answer must begin with the same as always. Love God with your whole heart, and your neighbour for the love of God. Do your duty of state with fidelity. Obey the desires of Our Lord to Saint Margaret Mary and Our Lady to the three children at Fatima. Pray your rosary, go to daily Mass if possible, spend time with Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament, be holy yourselves.

It may be objected: but that does nothing to solve the crisis. Yet those are the only things that actually can help end the crisis. Does frustration end the crisis? What about knowledge of each and every abuse? No, the crisis continues the same. It is not ameliorated. If anything, agitation within the soul only increases the problem.

It is becoming increasingly clear that the path of protest to these abuses within the Catholic Church is leading only to the loss of souls for those who are not striving to love Our Lord as He has asked us to love him. The "true flock" has been reduced to such proportions that unless there is agreement in every point of prudence, then one is forbidden to attend Masses, etc of any priests save a handful, literally. But this is not Catholicism. Nor is it even sane. The true Church is where it has always been, visible and united around the throne of Saint Peter. Yes, the new rites and new catechisms have plunged the Church into chaos, but it is still the true Church- wounded perhaps, and certainly betrayed by its own, but the true Church still.

But what of our resistance to this evil? It must stay calm and united to the visible Church. But most of all, it must be confident in the triumph of Our Lady as she promised at Fatima. The devil is about, prowling about as a lion and destroying souls, but Our Lady is stronger than he, and will crush the devil's head. The Church will be victorious. And while we have to endure the pain of the Cross during this crisis, we must never forget that victory is ours if only we are faithful, not simply to the changeless teachings of the Church, but also faithful in love to our Head Jesus Christ, for knowing is not enough; loving is the only thing that can really please Him. To love Our Lady, to unite all we do to her and to give her all that we have, is the infallible means to unite ourselves to Him and to remain at peace where there is no peace.

Cardinal Burke: The Hope of Fatima?

A controversy has been brewing among Traditional Catholics regarding the address of His Eminence Cardinal Burke at the Roman Life Forum in May of this year. The subject of this address revolved around the continued importance of the Message of Our Lady of Fatima one hundred years after the apparitions in 1917, a reflection that moved the Cardinal to speak of a more explicit consecration of Russia, made by the Pope and bishops in union with him. The reaction to this address within the Traditional world was generally one of gladness. In fact, it was seen as a major breakthrough that could lead to the Pope fulfilling the explicit request of Our Lady that Russia be consecrated to her Immaculate Heart.

Now it is not the point of this reflection to enter into the personal motives of His Eminence. In fact, charity bids us to "hope all things". We trust that Cardinal Burke desires that Russia indeed be consecrated, and that he desires to obey Our Lady's command. But even giving him the most noble of desires, it does not seem laudable to ignore some very uncomfortable truths- the most important of these being that his vision of Fatima is closely tied to a vision of the designs of Providence not compatible with true Catholicism. After describing the events of Fatima, His Eminence identifies the desires of Our Lady for a triumph of Her Immaculate Heart with that of the triumph of the Conciliar Church. Her triumph, in his opinion, will indeed be the renewal sought by the "New Evangelization" of Pope Paul VI and Pope John-Paul II. Throughout the address the importance of the message being connected to the desires of the "saint" and the "blessed" cannot be denied. The Cardinal has made of the message of Fatima the very modernism so strenuously fought against by the forces of Tradition since Vatican II.

This point must not be forgotten. The "New Evangelization", as rightly pointed out by the writer Cornelia Ferreira, is not the same as a "re-evangelization". It is not the Faith once delivered to the saints  being re-propagated, but rather, it is the preaching of the new definition of it expounded by the Council and the popes following that Council, the popes who have based their pontificates upon it. The change of doctrine brought by the Second Vatican Council is at the heart of the desires of these popes. There must be a new evangelization, that is the preaching of a new Evangelium (Gospel), even as there is now a new ecclesiology and a New Pentecost. Let us listen to the words of the Cardinal as to his belief that Our Lady's message is linked to this Conciliar vision:

"… let us heed once again the maternal direction of the Virgin of Fatima for a new evangelization of the Church and, thus, of the world.”

“Reflecting upon the pressing need to respond to the grace of a new evangelization, we see how timely the apparitions and message of Our Lady of Fatima remain.”

“The words of Pope Saint John Paul II make clear the perennial importance of the Message of Fatima: the giving of one’s whole heart, together with the Immaculate Heart of Mary, to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and thus the commitment to become an ever more effective agent of the sorely needed new evangelization of our culture.”

Over and over, His Eminence makes mention of the Fatima message as being the natural complement of the desires of Pope John-Paul II and Pope Paul VI. It will not be the purpose of this reflection to spend time refuting such a proposition, but merely to remind the reader that for those holding on to Tradition, an unbridgeable chasm exists between the desires of these popes and the Tradition of the Church. One wonders if Traditional Catholics have suddenly suffered from amnesia when they read the Cardinal's claim that "The pontificate of Pope Saint John Paul II, in fact, may be rightly described as a tireless call to recognize the Church’s challenge to be faithful to her divinely given mission in a completely secularized society and to respond to the challenge by means of a new evangelization." The pontificate of John-Paul II may be described in various ways, but for any Catholic who holds to Tradition, this is not one of them! Have Catholics forgotten the disaster, universal in scope, brought about by Popes Paul VI and John-Paul II?

If one is to add insult to injury, the Cardinal assures us that "Attention to the maternal direction of Our Lady of Fatima draw souls to Christ Who will give them the sevenfold gift of the Holy Spirit for the conversion of their lives and the transformation of a culture of death into a civilization of love." This choice assurance follows upon a paean of the saintly pontificate of the Polish pope. That pontificate is not so distant in the past as not to cause the writer to wince at the memory of the many falsities of doctrine and scandalous if not heretical actions committed by John-Paul II, so well symbolized by the supposed excommunication of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Bishop de Castro-Mayer, and the four newly consecrated bishops! Such was the attempt at the assassination of Catholic Tradition by the ally of Fatima!

While His Eminence indeed recalls many truths to mind in his address, he interweaves the errors of the Second Vatican Council and the post-Conciliar popes, But this is not to be wondered at. Cardinal Burke has always been the champion of the Council and the new doctrines. He has never refused to say the "bastard rite" of Pope Paul VI disastrously foisted upon the Church since the liturgical reforms. His vision is the new vision, not the vision of Catholic Tradition. Conservative he is, no doubt, in many things; outspoken he may be against some of the more radical moral ideas now current; but his talk is certainly not compatible with the truth. The wrath of Heaven rests on the vision and reforms of Vatican II, and until the cause of our disaster is truly admitted, His Eminence Cardinal Burke cannot be the hope of Fatima, however much sympathy we may have for him for the good that he has done.

Which Code for Tradition?

One of the more noticeable developments within the Society of Saint Pius X in recent years has been the growing references to canons found in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John-Paul II. Although one might be tempted to speculate as to the reason of this development, this present reflection will limit itself to the problem of the Code itself. Certainly, there has been disagreement among those Catholic desiring to be faithful to Tradition as to the respective status of the two Codes of Canon Law- that of 1917 and 1983. Those who hold to the sedevacantist thesis reject the New Code on the grounds that the man who promulgated it was no pope, and thus incapable of imposing anything upon the Church. Among those who embraced fully the Second Vatican Council, there was likewise no problem. Pope John-Paul II had acted within his rights, and indeed, within the realm of his duty- to reform the law of the Church in the light of the Council.

But for those who both recognized the legitimacy of John-Paul II as Successor of Saint Peter and yet questioned the decisions of Vatican II, things were not so simple. On the one hand, there were those who argued that since the Pope had promulgated the New Code, there was a duty to accept it, or at least as much of it as was possible, given the problematic nature of some of the canons. These saw the code as simply a collection of individual canons. One could not speak truly therefore of the Code as one thing, except as a convenience. It was one in the sense that all the canons were gathered together within it and organized. Each canon was what counted, since each canon was a law promulgated by the pope. In such a scenario, every canon would be accepted save for those which went contrary to the teaching of the Church, such as Canon 844.4 which allows non-Catholics to receive the sacraments (such as Holy Communion) from the Catholic Church provided they cannot approach their own ministers and likewise profess the Faith of the Church regarding those sacraments. This, of course, is contrary to the practice of the Church for reasons grounded in the Faith itself. One cannot have the virtue of Faith only on one point, while rejecting other dogmas of Faith. But apart from such cases, all of the other canons are received as validly promulgated.

Yet there is another manner of regarding the Code of Canon Law. One may regard it not as a simple collection of individual canons, but as something promulgated as a unity or whole. Pope John-Paul II, after all, did not speak of the Code as a simple collection of canons, brought together for convenience sake into one book. It was as one thing that he promulgated it, and it was meant to be taken as something unified, a book of Law. Indeed, the Code was to be the canonical embodiment of the Second Vatican Council, the legal incarnation of its teaching. Thus, in the L'Osservatore Romano of the 12th of March, 2012, it is affirmed,

"In his report during the introduction to the new Code of Canon Law in 1983, he [Pope John-Paul II] emphasized to the bishops that the Code was part of the Council and that in this sense it was the Council’s last document."

It is in this canonical embodiment of the Council's teaching that we must examine the binding nature of the Code of 1983. It is insufficient to simply regard the Code as if it was a collection of canons, each independent and to be examined according to each one's merits. The Code has a purpose and a spirit that defines it. This is not something that is hidden, or the opinion of conspiracy theorists. Indeed, in the Constitution whereby the New Code was promulgated, "Sacrae Disciplinae Leges" the Pope speaks precisely of the purpose of the New Code and its new spirit.

To understand the problem more deeply, it is necessary to turn to some notions from philosophy. This is not to turn the discussion to matters too difficult for the normal Catholic to understand. These notions can be understood. Philosophy speaks of all things created as having four causes: the Formal Cause, the Material Cause, the Efficient Cause, and the Final Cause. This breakdown is of such importance that all four can be found in the definition of every true law given by Saint Thomas Aquinas. To this definition, indeed we will soon turn. In any case, if we examine the Code by looking at each cause we will see the following. The Final Cause, which is the most important, is that the Code will move the Church in the direction willed by the Second Vatican Council, the renewal of the Church through the teaching of the Council. The Formal Cause will be the translation into the Code of its new teachings. These must inspire the Code if it is to bring us to that renewal. The Pope tells us of this new spirit. The Code is to translate the new ecclesiology expressed at Vatican II. Let us look at the Pope's own words, found in the promulgating Constitution:

"...Indeed, in a certain sense, this new Code could be understood as a great effort to translate this same doctrine, that is, the conciliar ecclesiology, into canonical language. If, however, it is impossible to translate perfectly into canonical language the conciliar image of the Church, nevertheless, in this image there should always be found as far as possible its essential point of reference.

From this there are derived certain fundamental criteria which should govern the entire new Code, both in the sphere of its specific matter and also in the language connected with it. It could indeed be said that from this there is derived that character of complementarily which the Code presents in relation to the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, with particular reference to the two constitutions, the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium and the Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes.

Hence it follows that what constitutes the substantial "novelty" of the Second Vatican Council, in line with the legislative tradition of the Church, especially in regard to ecclesiology, constitutes likewise the "novelty" of the new Code.

Among the elements which characterize the true and genuine image of the Church, we should emphasize especially the following: the doctrine in which the Church is presented as the People of God (cf. Lumen gentium, no. 2), and authority as a service (cf. ibid., no. 3); the doctrine in which the Church is seen as a "communion," and which, therefore, determines the relations which should exist between the particular Churches and the universal Church, and between collegiality and the primacy; the doctrine, moreover, according to which all the members of the People of God, in the way suited to each of them, participate in the threefold office of Christ: priestly, prophetic and kingly. With this teaching there is also linked that which concerns the duties and rights of the faithful, and particularly of the laity; and finally, the Church's commitment to ecumenism."

The Pope makes it quite clear that this Code of 1983, is meant to be the Council's "last document", for it embodies the "novelty" of its teaching by putting it into canonical form. There is indeed a unifying spirit that binds the canons together, and that is the new vision of the Church put forward by the Council. Thus we see that the Church must express itself now according to the new idea of itself found especially in "Lumen Gentium" and "Gaudium et Spes". This new vision permeates the Code, gives it life, and therefore provides the reason why Catholic Tradition must refuse it. There cannot be a new definition of the Church, given to us now after 1900 years. The Church's nature has always been understood by the Magisterium. It certainly does not now need to be discovered.

If we look at the definition of Saint Thomas on the nature of Law, we find that he teaches that it is an ordinance of reason, promulgated by the proper authority, for the common good. In this succinct definition, we have the four causes. It is an ordinance (material cause) of reason (formal cause) promulgated by the proper authority (efficient cause) for the common good (final cause). It is not enough that it be promulgated by the proper authority. The same must hold true for the promulgation of the Code. It is not enough that it be promulgated by the Pope. It must be for a purpose, and this purpose governs its nature. The Laws of the Church must be ordered to their purpose- the salvation of souls, and this salvation can only be acquired by means established by God firstly: Faith and the life of the virtues. The supernatural order was not discovered at Vatican II. The Church had had myriads of saints from her founding, all of whom reached Heaven by adherence to the true Faith and by sanctity of life. The New Code is ordered to the "renewal of the Christian life" according to new principles, principles which did not demand conversion of life and opposition to the world. And so the Code incarnates this new vision, a vision of a modern Church no longer at war with the world, but  friends with it, a Church no longer identified with the Catholic Church.

So we end with the stark reality of this Code of 1983 having a life of its own, child of a Council turned away from the past towards a humanistic future. The new spirit is the life binding together the canons even as the soul makes one in operation the organs of the body. It cannot be accepted for the very reason the reform cannot be accepted, even if there are good and traditional elements sometimes present. The life and direction of this new law is the death of the Catholic spirit. For Tradition then, Catholics must hold on to the 1917 Code, inspired by its own life and finality. It is not a question of denying the Pope's authority, but of taking John-Paul II at his own word. This is a New Code for a New Ecclesiology, not for the Catholic Church.

Sanctity is the Answer

Fr. Mateo Crawley-Boevey

"It is not scholars or great orators that we need, especially at the present moment; it is Saints." These words might seem too simple when we are faced with the disaster that is the modern post-Conciliar world. Within the Church we see the spirit of apostasy spreading. Churchmen seem to daily question more and more of the dogmatic and moral teaching of the Magisterium. Many, from the Pope downwards, seem to wish to divorce teaching from practice. Yes, Divorce and "remarriage" are wrong; but such as those who have entered into illicit unions may still be able to approach the sacraments, even if the union continues. Contraception has again become a topic of discussion, along with other subjects answered long ago by Rome.

In the face of such heresy and moral depravity, the average Catholic is adrift. How is he or she to know the truth if those who are by office the teachers of the faithful bend the truth to please a world which is ever-more weary of the Faith and the truth?  It is a grave situation indeed. But while its gravity cannot be doubted, all is not hopeless. The words of Our Lord cannot be ignored "... the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it [the Church]."

Traditional Catholics, if we may so name them, see that the truth cannot change; that the Church before the Council cannot be discarded in favour of an updated one, friends now with all species of unbelievers from heretics to atheists. This grace of remaining true to the unchanging doctrine of the Church certainly is to be acknowledged for what it is: a gift from God. But this grace of seeing the truth is given in a time of war and possible discouragement. How is a Catholic to respond to the present crisis? We must be on our guard; for although light has been given to us, the devil has not forgotten us. He desires the destruction of the Church and the means of salvation. He goes about, says Scripture, like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.

One of the traps laid down by the demons is one of hyper-intellectualism. By this it is not to be thought that one must avoid the use of the intellect. Every Catholic must know his Faith if he is to avoid the manifold errors of our time. The Catechism must be learned and understood; good books on the subject of the crisis, such as those written by Archbishop Lefebvre, must be taken up and studied. But knowledge alone will not suffice. Often Catholics become deceived as to the extent of their knowledge in matters beyond their actual understanding. Armchair theologians have sprung up like mushrooms after the rain, theologizing on every subject whether they actually understand it or not. Seminaries have been replaced by one forum or another. "In this crisis no one may be trusted," except of course oneself. Catholicism is thus reduced to knowing about the Faith, rather than practicing it. One might even say that it is kind of Gnosticism whereby a false intellectualism replaces the actual teaching of the Church on the spiritual life. It is knowledge that saves according to this mode of temptation. But this is not the answer, for it betrays Tradition in the name of a false Traditionalism.

Another trap is that of Ecclesiastical politics, which is at root a form of Naturalism. God cannot restore the Church by grace; only by seeking approval by the authorities in the Church can Tradition be restored. But this brings with it grave dangers, if not fatal ones. How can there be a union based not upon the Faith, but upon some other agent of union? It is not a question of denying that the Pope or the diocesan bishops have their authority from the Apostles, but rather of the simple fact that they are not in the discharge of their offices faithful to their charge. Many have fallen into heresies of one kind or another, while many more at least hold ideas that savour of heresy. A growing number of Traditional Catholics have begun to thing that "traditional Catholicism" is not simply Catholicism. Yet the entire point of the resistance to these new teachings and practices rests on the fact that these new things are not Catholic. It is as simple as that. And there is no doubt that Pope Francis and those authorities constituted by him hold these false notions. The "novus ordo," to give it a name that is perhaps not theologically exact, manifests a recognizable spirit, false and leading to heresy; a spirit that binds the new thing together. There can be no regularization until this New Rome converts and professes the same Faith as has always been professed.

What must be the answer to our current distress? The answer lies in becoming that which we know God desires us to be- saints: "this is the will of God, your sanctification"(I Thess 4:3). In other words, the only answer possible to a spiritual crisis is a spiritual one, a supernatural one. It is not a question of rejecting the intellect, of laying aside those works that help us know the immemorial teaching of the Church. Truth must inform our mind, for God is Truth. But knowledge alone does not make us good. We may know all about the causes of the crisis, but this will not really solve anything if we do not do God's will. Knowledge must be joined to the love of God, to devotion, to the actual practice of the Faith. It must involve going to Holy Mass where the only sacrifice really important is offered up for the glory of God and the salvation of our souls. We must pray our Rosary with devotion and attention, approach the fountains of grace which are the sacraments, and fulfill the great law of Charity both towards God and towards ones neighbour. The words at the beginning of this reflection are from the great apostle of the Sacred Heart, Father Mateo Crawley-Boevey, and they confront us with the truth. It is sanctity that is the solution to the problem of sin, and thus to the problem of the modern crisis.  It is the saint that alone can turn the tide, for the saint alone fulfills in himself the petitions, "Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven."

By What Authority?

The title of this post might imply that it is a review of a book by Msgr. Robert Hugh Benson, who under this title wrote a novel treating of the English Reformation. As interesting as that topic might be, this post will deal with another subject that might equally claim a right to such a title, and that is the present collapse of authority as the means by which a Catholic lays hold of the truth.

In the crisis brought upon the Church by the triumph of Modernism at the Second Vatican Council, Catholics saw a division opening up between the authorities in the Church, such as the Pope or Diocesan bishops, and the content of the Faith itself. Archbishop Lefebvre summarized this conflict by his quote, well known in traditional Catholic circles, that “Satan’s masterstroke is to have succeeded in sowing disobedience to all Tradition through obedience.”  A gulf has opened in the life of Catholics. While the traditional teaching of the Church had before been defended by the hierarchy, the Council manifested a new tendency- to use the virtue of obedience in order to destroy the very Deposit of Faith the defense of which was the very purpose of the hierarchy. Thus, after the Council, Pope Paul VI and the world's bishops proceeded to replace the traditional Magisterium based on Scripture and Tradition with a new Magisterium. The venerable Rite of Mass that enshrined the Faith would now give way to a New Rite, the expression of the centrality of man even when it did not deny the existence of God. The results can be seen around us, liturgies more and more profane in their content, a great confusion as to dogma and whether it has any real power to bind the faithful, and the supreme doctrine of evolution expressed by the various "Magisteria" of each succeeding pope in which doctrinal "progress" replaces eternal and unshakeable truth.

Surely, such a disaster is unprecedented. But in the face of such confusion and heresy, what is to be the final answer? St. Vincent of Lerins posed a like question in the light of the various crises that had afflicted the early Church. His answer must stand even as it did in the fifth century:

"Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense Catholic, which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors."

It is of course the case that this Faith rests on Scripture and Tradition; but this same Faith must be transmitted to each generation of Catholics. It is to be found in the Magisterium of the Church, through which the Church teaches the faithful what is or is not to be found in the Deposit of Faith entrusted by Christ to His apostles. But in a crisis, when bishop is against bishop, and questions cannot be easily solved by recourse to the normal authorities, how is one to be sure that one possesses the truth? here St. Vincent provides the answer: recourse to what the Church has always taught, for all revelation ceased with the death of the last apostle, Saint John, and so revealed truth must come to us from the Church's beginning down to our own time. It is this witness of the Church's tradition that must be the voice that enables us to hold on to immemorial truth during the storm of heresy and unbelief.

This Archbishop Lefebvre knew well, for he based his entire programme after the Conciliar disaster on a simple fact: that which was now du jour in the Church would have resulted in his condemnation at the time when he was ordained and consecrated, while the very truths he was required to profess then were now found to be condemned. Over and over he appealed to the voice of the Roman Magisterium, to the ancient rites of the Church against the innovators. He did not appeal to his own episcopal charism; he did not appeal to the voice of his fledgling Society of Saint Pius X; he appealed to the immemorial teaching of the Roman See, to the Magisterium of the past popes and Councils that were now to be discarded by a new Magisterium and New Rite of Mass. It was, in fact, the test of Saint Vincent of Lérins: to be faithful to the immemorial voice of the Church heard before the crisis.

But the great Archbishop Lefebvre has long since left us. His Society, while weathering many storms, is not the barque of St. Peter. The wisdom of the Archbishop has given way to an appeal to authority, but it is the authority of the Society and not Tradition first of all. The faithful have grown tired of always being at variance with modern Rome, and while not giving up altogether, they have striven to sleep in the arms of the Society, trusting that it would be faithful. But to the Society was no promise ever given by Our Lord, and for a Catholic, no total allegiance can ever be given to any created authority- not the Society's Superior General, nor even the present Pope. It is to the voice of the Roman Pontiffs throughout the ages that the sheep must tune their ears, even as did the great Archbishop himself who fought in their name.

But the crisis in the Society has revealed another, more serious one. Some of the faithful have indeed seen that there is a problem: one cannot pretend that any manner of agreement with a Rome that does not believe in its own Magisterium is not worse than hopeless: it is treason. But the motivations are more complex than simple adhesion to truth and rejection of heresy. Distrust of the modernist hierarchy has deepened to a distrust of any authority outside of oneself. While Archbishop Lefebvre appealed to his knowledge of Tradition gained in Rome while a seminarian, the faithful now find in scattered internet articles the basis of their own final say in what constitutes Tradition. The caution of the Archbishop has changed into the unbounded pride of pastor-less sheep. Even some traditional priests have used the crisis to further private opinions as articles of Faith. It is indeed true that there is a sensus fidei that alerts the sheep to the presence of heresy. Such was the case with Nestorius, whose blasphemous claim that Our Lady could not be invoked as "Mother of God" resulted in riots in Constantinople. The faithful did not need to be theologians to sense the presence of the wolf in the bishop's words. But this sensus fidei was never meant to make of each of the faithful either a theologian or the final court of appeal in matters of Faith. Now the laity, without any instruction in dogmatic or moral theology claim equality with those who spent six years or more drinking in the Church's Magisterium and the teaching of the doctors. Is this reasonable or according to the mind of the Church? If it is, it was a great waste to have seminaries at all. Even as Luther, these so-called faithful believe that every truth can be as easily grasped by Joe Six-Pack as by the most learned theologian. There is no appeal to Catholic Tradition, to the works of the Magisterium, to the past theologians. There is only recourse to the divine internet, or to articles in the now infallible Magisterium of the Society, expressed online on Society websites. Perhaps the Archbishop is appealed to as the final court in matters of Faith or morals. But neither the Society nor the saintly Archbishop can claim such a privilege.

The faithful of the "Resistance" had better return to the mind of the Church if it wishes to avoid becoming a cult of the worst kind, in which the ignorant vomit forth their doctrines and opinions as if they were the  elixir of life. We must always bear in mind the rule of Saint Vincent, the doctrine, worship, and law of the Holy Roman Church our mother, while avoiding errors more grave even than those of the Modernists. For if in the end, the final authority is only the self, it makes little difference if the man is called a "modernist" or a "traditionalist"; the god he worships is only another name for himself.

Brother Kirill, Sister Church...

On February 12th, ecumenists the world over were given the treat of seeing Pope Francis and

Patriarch Kirill meet together on the island of Cuba. This was an event eagerly awaited ever since the Second Vatican Council, for the Russian Orthodox Church was the most important of those bodies within Orthodoxy; vainly had Pope John-Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI hoped that they would be the protagonists in such a meeting. The Patriarch of Moscow would have none of it. Yet at last a pope was to meet with the Russian patriarch. Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill not only spoke amiably in an informal setting, but the two of them signed a joint declaration. It was the first swallow foretelling a Russian spring and warmer relations between Rome and Moscow.

Nevertheless, save for those who were lost in past memories of flower children and the Summer of Love, the meeting and joint declaration were nothing over which to rejoice. Ecumenical meetings between popes and non-Catholic leaders have hardly been a novelty since the Council; the Conciliar popes have seemed to relish humiliating the Roman Papacy in the name of brotherly love- whether due to a misguided sense of brotherhood or an abhorrence of Roman triumphalism, or both, must be left up to the guess of the reader. In any case, this meeting was symbolic and significant. For those with an acquaintance of Kirill's past, his presence on Cuban soil was indicative. The Patriarch, as a priest was closely involved with the KGB. According to an important defector from the Soviet bloc, he had been an apostle of Liberation theology, that marxist imitation of Christianity that came to demolish the Faith of so many Catholics in Latin America. Pope Francis, on the other hand, has made it clear how much he admired one of his communist professors in University, and a book has been written concerning his successful harbouring of Communists fleeing from the persecution of the Argentine authorities. Cuba was indeed a fitting place for such a meeting. This was not lost on either one, since the following claim is made on Cuba's behalf:

"Our fraternal meeting has taken place in Cuba, at the crossroads of North and South, East and West. It is from this island, the symbol of the hopes of the “New World” and the dramatic events of the history of the twentieth century, that we address our words to all the peoples of Latin America and of the other continents."

One is not sure how Cuba is the symbol of the hopes of the "New World", an island dominated by Communism since the revolution of Fidel Castro. Certainly Cuba has never been the great light of hope. Even in the Spanish Empire, Cuba, while important, was dwarfed by the Viceroyalty of New Spain centred in Mexico. Only for the Soviet Union was Cuba a beacon of hope, for it was the Soviet toehold in the Western Hemisphere.

As outrageous as this flowery language might be, the next paragraph is worse. Latin America's religiosity is praised as the pledge of future glory. Given that millions upon million of Catholics have left the Church in order to join heretical sects, so many in fact that Catholics no longer make up the majority of several Latin American nations, this hope is scandalous. It is only a fitting foundation of the betrayal to come in the rest of the Declaration.

Heresy looms its ugly head in the fourth paragraph. It is claimed that both Catholics and Orthodox profess the Faith of the first Millennium:

"We share the same spiritual Tradition of the first millennium of Christianity. The witnesses of this Tradition are the Most Holy Mother of God, the Virgin Mary, and the saints we venerate.  Among them are innumerable martyrs who have given witness to their faithfulness to Christ and have become the 'seed of Christians'".

How can two opposing versions of Christianity share the same Tradition? Is not the primacy of the pope part of the Deposit of Faith? And what of the Mother of God? Is she looking on as a witness, or is the Catholic and Orthodox veneration of her the same? Did Rome renounce the Immaculate Conception or Moscow suddenly convert to it? What of the nature of marriage? is it indissoluble or not? What of the Filioque of the Creed? Given the next paragraph, one is left wondering why there is any division in the first place...

"Notwithstanding this shared Tradition of the first ten centuries, for nearly one thousand years Catholics and Orthodox have been deprived of communion in the Eucharist. We have been divided by wounds caused by old and recent conflicts, by differences inherited from our ancestors, in the understanding and expression of our faith in God, one in three Persons – Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We are pained by the loss of unity, the outcome of human weakness and of sin, which has occurred despite the priestly prayer of Christ the Saviour: 'So that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you … so that they may be one, as we are one” (Jn 17:21).'"

So, the Faith was the same. The whole problem is to be blamed on the politics of our ancestors. it is likewise obvious that to these two, Christ's priestly prayer has gone unanswered. The unity of the Church was lost because of human weakness and sin. A very serious phrase has been included which is meant to explain how these two "Churches" while believing the same, have excluded one another from participation in the Holy Eucharist. The difference lies in the "understanding and expression" of the Faith. The Faith is the same, its expression differs. Even a divergence in the understanding of the Faith does not prevent one from sharing the same Faith. This common Faith, professed in a plurality of ways, will be the basis for the idea of a common evangelization.

It is obvious that an indispensable answer to the disunity of Christians will be found in "dialogue", that incessant process of always learning and never teaching: "Interreligious dialogue is indispensable in our disturbing times. Differences in the understanding of religious truths must not impede people of different faiths to live in peace and harmony. In our current context, religious leaders have the particular responsibility to educate their faithful in a spirit which is respectful of the convictions of those belonging to other religious traditions. Attempts to justify criminal acts with religious slogans are altogether unacceptable. No crime may be committed in God’s name, 'since God is not the God of disorder but of peace' (1 Cor 14:33)." While it might seem good to remind the world that the followers of Christ are law abiding and therefore do not engage in criminal activity, there is a lack of clarity here as well. Totalitarian regimes of one kind or another have not failed to criminalize religious activity, and in this age the danger of such false laws against the Faith is not small. Is it a crime to obey God rather than men? If one means the Divine Law, one can never act against it; but if it is a question of an unjust law of the State, such resistance can become a duty. The presence of relativism in the question of dialogue itself cannot go unnoticed. The difference in religions is in the understanding of religious truths, not in the presence of falsehood in the very doctrines of the religions themselves.

The madness of claiming that Catholicism and Orthodoxy are actually the same religion, divided only by misunderstandings arising from a different mode of expression in confessing the same truth finds a place in the Declaration by the idea of a common evangelization: "Orthodox and Catholics are united not only by the shared Tradition of the Church of the first millennium, but also by the mission to preach the Gospel of Christ in the world today. This mission entails mutual respect for members of the Christian communities and excludes any form of proselytism." So now both have a Divine mission to preach the Gospel. What a mockery of those saints who died rather than deny the pope's primacy of jurisdiction over the Church! This common mission can only be possible if, in fact, the Catholics and Orthodox both are members of the One Church of Christ, for there can be no Divine mission granted to heretics or schismatics to propagate their false religions. There is no other possibility for such a double mission save that of being members of the Same Church. While this document does not make such a claim overtly and clearly, the Declaration can only be read in such a light. This alone makes it savour of heresy, if nothing else does. Yet this is the symbolic meaning of the brotherly meeting. One does not meet and sign agreements with one's enemies. Proselytism is forbidden, for why should any strive to convert the Orthodox to Catholicism if both are members of the same Church? No wonder there is such a point of emphasizing the prayer of Christ that there be unity; the One Church stands divided.

Not all of the Declaration is made of such nonsense. There is a reminder of the persecution of Christians in the Mideast; there is a reminder of the evil of abortion and false ideas concerning the family. But the central theme is clear: neither the Catholic Church nor the Orthodox "Church" can claim to be the One Church of Christ. While both share the same Faith, historical accidents blamed on past misunderstandings keep them apart. The push towards a future unified Church, in the hands of those tarnished with past sympathies to Communism, goes forward. The Pope proceeded on from his meeting to visit Mexico, and while there, could not resist kneeling at the tomb of a bishop well know for his sympathy for Liberation Theology, the Communization of Christianity. let us pray that the Successor of Saint Peter be delivered from the bonds of his Modernism.

Is the pilot light going out?

"I have compared the Society of St. Pius X to the pilot light on a gas stove. When the gas is turned off, the gas-rings go dead, no cooking can be done and very little heat comes off the pilot light, but so long as one can see the pilot light still lit, one knows that the action will resume as soon as the gas is turned on again. But turning on the gas is not within the power of the pilot light itself." Bishop Richard Williamson, September 1991.

It has been over 20 years since the then Rector of Saint Thomas Aquinas Seminary wrote the above words in one of his letters to friends and benefactors. In those days, few thought that the Society of Saint Pius X was in any real danger; after all, both Pope Paul VI and Pope John-Paul II had striven to destroy the work of Archbishop Lefebvre, hurling the thunderbolts of suspension and then excommunication against that French prelate, with little effect. The Society still remained, and though the saintly Archbishop had died earlier in that year of 1991, there was no serious threat that the defenders of Catholic Tradition would collapse. But the future is rarely easy to predict, and time would reveal a growing desire in the top echelons of the Society for some kind of rapprochement with Rome, the growing discontent with Bishop Williamson's reluctance for such a softening, and his final expulsion from the very Society that had trained him, ordained him priest, and consecrated him bishop. The tool for such an exclusion was at hand when the bishop's ideas on the "holocaust", though widely known for many years by all those in Society headquarters, were revealed to the eyes of the media, much to the chagrin of the Roman authorities.  A showdown was inevitable, as the Society distanced itself from any public criticism of the Jewish problem. Such a controversy would hardly be becoming if one wanted the right hand of fellowship from those who lauded Catholic-Jewish relations. So it was that expulsion was necessary, and timely as well, since it removed a very visible opponent to a Roman deal.

It might have seemed that a mass revolt within the ranks of the Society would be inevitable. Although such a revolt would not occur simply because of theories on the "holocaust", it would hardly be unthinkable that such a flare-up of discontent would arise over a future resolution of tension with Rome. There was some complaining, of course, but there was also a steadfast refusal to stand up on the part of those who might have been expected to defend the course of Archbishop Lefebvre. A few were vocal and then expelled; some groups like the Benedictines in Brazil and the Dominicans of Avrillé found themselves outside the camp; but most of the clergy and laity steadfastly closed their eyes and hid themselves behind the dream of the Society's indefectibility. The Society had shown itself to be faithful to Tradition- indeed it had replaced the modernist authorities in the hearts of the faithful. There was really nothing to fear.

Gone was the idea of the Society being a "pilot light". Indeed, it was now far better organized than in the old days; its priories were much more comfortable; the seminaries were ever so much more "spiritual" (meaning that uncomfortable things such as the loss of millions of souls at the hands of the modernist popes and bishops should not bother the future priests of the Society overly much); the Superior General had discovered that he alone really had the grace of state to make decisions for the Society priests, faithful, and even those religious orders who had fought beside the Archbishop- an amazing discovery on the part of one who held supreme office in a Pious Union! The Pilot light had evolved into being the means of bringing the Church back to her senses. Now the only concern was to find a way to convince the Pope and the bishops to approve the Society and let it join Rome in the desire to help the Church. This could not be done, of course, if the Society's image was one of being a complainer. A re-branding was in order, one which would allow the Society to showcase a more positive image. Its official pronouncements, its magazines, its entire manner of showing itself to the world would be one of accentuating the positive. It was the thought of Pope John XXIII re-vivus.

Of course, as mentioned above, a few of the priests and faithful along with the redoubtable Bishop did not find the new way applaudable. These began to voice their opposition. Newly founded Mass centres were set up, and the "resisting" priests now began to work in a much smaller milieu. Some of these could not live without the presence of the infallible Society, and so proceeded to claim infallibility for themselves, if not in words, at least in action. A cry went up for a new Society to replace the old; after all, the catholicity of the Church had to manifest itself somewhere, and the Society of Saint Pius X had defaulted from its Divine mission. Instead of the Society, there was now the "Resistance". This resistance was all that was left of true Catholicism. To support this new dogmatic identification of Tradition with the "Resistance", a great fight broke out over the possibility of attending Mass at places not "approved" by the "Resistance". One group identified itself as "red-lighter" while others took a "yellow" or "green" light position. One might well ask where the authority arose to make such determinations. It has always been clear that one could not attend the Masses of heretics or schismatics. But were Society priests now in either of those two categories? What would have happened before Vatican II if someone had decided that it was immoral to attend a Mass said by a Jesuit due to the fact that the theologians of the Jesuit Order had betrayed the doctrine of Saint Thomas on grace and predestination? What about the Scotist Franciscans? The most radical branch of the "Resistance" had narrowed down Catholicism to the question of what one thought of the 2012 Declaration of the General Chapter of the Society on a future deal with Rome. This is not to depreciate the dangers of that declaration, but such a declaration did not contain heresy. It is one thing to resist the present direction of the Society, and quite another to invent sins as a result.

No surprising, God has struck at the pride of some of these "resistants". The movement now finds itself hopelessly divided. One cannot help but be sympathetic to the reluctance of Bishop Williamson to lead a hierarchically structured counter-Society. It has proven wise for a number of reasons: there is no likelihood whatsoever that those priests who have proven the most anti-Williamsonian would ever have obeyed him in such an organization; secondly, the only hierarchy that can solve this present crisis is the one Divinely constituted of St. Peter's Successor and the bishops, and this is counter to the pride of the Society-Saviour or the Resistance-Saviours; the insanity of priests and laity who theologize on such topics as whether there could ever be a eucharistic miracle in cases when the host was consecrated at the New Mass only show that pride has overthrown all sense of the Faith. When did Archbishop Lefebvre ever deny the validity of the New Rite per se? The New Mass could be invalid in those cases where there was not proper matter, form, and intention, but that was never presumed to be the case in every New Mass. The New Mass was not held to be intrinsically invalid. Anyone who says differently has conveniently forgotten some facts about the Society while the Archbishop was still alive. Indeed, if one thing has become increasingly clear, it is that the Archbishop has been re-invented by those who hold the most unusual positions, positions not at all those of Archbishop Lefebvre. The radical branch of the Resistance has also given up a belief that the hierarchical Church still exists. This is logical, given the fact that adherence to the positions of certain resistance priests has become the mark of the true believer. The Conciliar Church has finally been identified with the "official Church". This being the case, the hierarchy has left the Church. Pride has led to heresy, for the true Church must be hierarchical in the real sense, that is, it must exist with bishops who hold ordinary jurisdiction. Without that, the Church ceases to be Apostolic.

Should we then despair of the situation? Certainly not. The breakdown within Tradition is not a sign that Christ's promises have failed, but quite the contrary. It shows that on the one hand, the Church can never be anything else than what Christ founded it to be- the sole means to salvation, even in this corrupt time.  Christ will not substitute anything else for the Pope and bishops. If He permitted this present disaster, it is only to be a temporary thing until He decides when the Church recovers.  The Society was a providential consequence of Christ's refusal to allow the entire Church to succumb to error. It was only to be a pilot light however, only to last for a little while. Secondly, as this collapse of both the Society and the Resistance continues, this only shows that Christ's triumph is at the door. The Fifth Age is closing, and the Sixth Age, the most glorious Age is near at hand.
"In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph" points the way towards the Age that is to come.