The Destruction of

the Christian Tradition

by

Father Rama Coomaraswamy

About the Author

Father Rama Coomaraswamy

Reverenced Coomaraswamy is a famous catholic traditionalist and - what's quite significant - a son of a well known pagan traditionalist. His father, professor Ananda Kentish Coomaraswamy (1877-1947), was born from Tamil ascendant, sir Mutu Coomaraswamy, and English mother. However prof. Ananda graduated from London University, he engaged himself in the fight for preservation of traditional Ceylon values - against westernization and British colonization - by founding the Ceylon Social Reform Society and cooperating with the independence movement in India. It hadn't been an obstacle in moving to United States, where he taught at the Harvard University and was the Curator at the Boston Museum of Fine Arts. Together with Frithjof Schuon and Rene Guénon, prof. Ananda Coomaraswamy is considered to be the greatest pagan traditionalist of XX century. His son, born in Massachusetts in 1932, plays the same role in the catholic resistance guerilla against so-called 'II Vatican Council' and so-called 'John Paul II'. He studied in England and later in India, where he received a traditional education in Hindi and Sanskrit. Then, as his father did, he moved to United States, were he became a surgeon and a psychiatrist. He corresponded a lot of with Mother Theresa from Calcutta and from time to time he was her private doctor. On the other hand, in 70-ties the Doctor was connected with The Society of St. Pius X and in 80-ties with The Society of St. Pius V. In 1981 he released a book, 'The Destruction of the Christian Tradition' (the second, revised edition of it, is available on our page). In 1997 he received a permission (he's a married man) and has become a priest.

Table of Contents

Introduction

INTRODUCTION TO THE FIRST EDITION

CHAPTER I

Part 1: THE PROBLEM: IS IT THE SAME CHURCH?

CHAPTER II

Part 1: THE MAGISTERIUM OF THE CHURCH AND RELATED ISSUES
Part 2: THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE MAGISTERIUM
Part 3: THE MEANING OF EX CATHEDRA AND THE REASON FOR THE DEFINITION OF PAPAL INFALLIBILITY
Part 4: PRIVATE JUDGMENT
Part 5: THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH
Part 6: THE PRESENT SITUATION
Part 7: SACRAMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

CHAPTER III

Part 1: THE NATURE OF REVELATION - SCRIPTURE
Part 2: POST-CONCILIAR EXEGESIS

CHAPTER IV

Part 1: JUST WHAT IS MEANT BY THE WORD 'TRADITION'? [1]
Part 2: JUST WHAT IS MEANT BY THE WORD 'TRADITION'? [2]
Part 3: FOOTNOTES to CHAPTER IV

CHAPTER V

Part 1: THE NATURE OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH
Part 2: FAITH IS A 'GIFT'
Part 3: FOOTNOTES to CHAPTER V

CHAPTER VI

THE ATTITUDE OF THE MAGISTERIUM TOWARDS INNOVATION

CHAPTER VII

CAN A POPE DEPART FROM UNITY OF FAITH AND WORSHIP?

CHAPTER VIII

THE PROBLEM OF OBEDIENCE

CHAPTER IX

Part 1: THE POST CONCILIAR 'POPES'
Part 2: THE Council ITSELF
Part 3: FOOTNOTES to CHAPTER IX Part 1-2
Part 4: 'POPE' PAUL and 'POPE' JOHN PAUL I
Part 5: Carol Wojtyla or 'pope' John Paul II [1]
Part 6: Carol Wojtyla or 'pope' John Paul II [2]
Part 7: Carol Wojtyla or 'pope' John Paul II [3]

CHAPTER X – Vatican II

Part 1: The nature of an Ecumenical Council
Part 2: How the Council was subverted

Part 3: Vatican II - the creation of a New Church
Part 4: II - THE NEW CHURCH - HOW THE POST-CONCILIAR CHURCH SEES ITSELF
Part 5: The People of God
Part 6: Communicatio in Sacris and dialogue on an equal footing
Part 7: III - A NEW UNDERSTANDING OF THE NATURE OF MAN
Part 8: The deification of man
Part 9: IV - WHY A CHURCH AT ALL? THE TEILHARDIAN SYNTHESIS AND THE POST-CONCILIAR UTOPIA
Part 10: FOOTNOTES to CHAPTER X

CHAPTER XI

Part 1: THE LITURGICAL REVOLUTION
Part 2: The Catholic Mass is a true Sacrifice
Part 3: The 'history' of the Traditional Mass
Part 4: The Meaning of the Mass
Part 5: Vatican II's Liturgy Constitution
Part 6: FOOTNOTES to CHAPTER XI

CHAPTER XII

Part 7: Novus Ordo Missae
Part 8: Two techniques of deletion
Part 9: Why was it written
Part 10: Is the Novus Ordo Missae a sacrifice?
Part 11: The Canon: the new Eucharistic prayers
Part 12: Changing Christ's words and the form of consecration

Part 13: FOOTNOTES to CHAPTER XII, parts 7-12
Part 13: All versus many
Part 14: Can we accept a doubtful consecration?
Part 15: Novus Ordo Missae (NOM) - Conclusion
Part 16: FOOTNOTES to CHAPTER XII, part 13-15

CHAPTER XIII: COMMUNISM, 'OSTPOLITIK' AND LIBERATION THEOLOGY

Part 1: Introduction
Part 2: Progress and Evolution
Part 3: Father Gutierrez and Liberation Theology

Part 4: FOOTNOTES to chapter XIII

CHAPTER XIV: THE ROAD TO HELL IS PAVED WITH GOOD INTENTIONS.

Part 1: MODERNISM IN THE CHURCH
Part 2: Rationalism and the origins of Modernism
Part 3: Further sequence of a Modernist outlook
Part 4: Church and Millennarianism
Part 5: 'Americanism' and other FOOTNOTES to CHAPTER XIV

CHAPTER XV: CONCLUSION

Part 1: Two Churches compared

Part 2: The open Church

Part 3: How to identify the True Church?
Part 4: The marks of the True Church

Part 5: Progress and evolution - the real opiates of the people

Part 6: Misreading the 'signs of the times'

Part 7: Has a Catholic layman the right to judge these matters?

Part 8: Avoiding the issues

Part 9: Traditional Catholics

Part 10: Have the gates of hell prevailed?

INTRODUCTION TO THE FIRST EDITION

'Many American Catholics over 30 remember living in that history-heavy church as if living in a spiritual fortress - comforting at times, inhibiting and even terrifying at others. But it was a safe and ordered universe with eternal guarantees for those who lived by its rules. THAT FORTRESS HAS CRUMBLED.'
TIME Magazine, May 1976

Recent events within the Catholic Church have clearly resulted in great confusion, and if this ancient structure can no longer stand as a monolith in which each component part speaks 'with one voice', there is little doubt but that the various factions that claim Catholicity would agree in stating that something is seriously wrong. In America alone some 10,000 priests and 35,000 nuns have abandoned their religious vocations. Annulments (referred to by some as 'Catholic divorces') are approximating the level of 10,000 a year. Weekly Mass attendance has dropped to well below the 50 level and monthly confession below the 17 mark. The priesthood is no longer attracting youth to its ranks and many seminaries have been closed. Conversions which once approached the level of almost 200, 000 a year in the United States are now virtually at a standstill.

According to the 'Boystown Project' from the Catholic University of America 'nearly seven million young people from Catholic backgrounds no longer identify themselves with the Church' (National Catholic Register, Mar. 27, 1977). What is perhaps of even greater importance is that those who continue to call themselves 'Catholic', are by no means unanimous as to what this term means. As Archbishop Joseph L. Bernadine, president of the U.S. Bishop's Conference has noted, 'many consider themselves good Catholics, even though their beliefs and practices seem to conflict with the official teaching of the Church' (Time, May 24, 1976). This man speaks with both personal experience and authority, for he has also stated that it was his 'belief that it was legitimate for theologians to speculate about the removal of doctrines that have already been defined, and to request the magisterium to remove such doctrines from the content of the Faith' (The Wanderer, St. Paul, Minn., June 17, 1976).

There are of course those who see in all this only signs of hope and 'progress'. They claim that those who have left are 'deadwood', and that the Church is better off without them. They compare the Church to a grain of wheat that must die and be born again; that the Angst and chaos are essential if the Church is going to have 'relevance' for modern man; that all that is happening is under the guidance of the 'Holy Spirit' which desires to have the Church 'adapt' herself to what is euphemistically called 'the times'. Having previously claimed that the changes were necessary 'to bring the masses back to the Church', they now proclaim that they 'are not interested in the numbers game'.

Others view the situation in a quite different light. They see in all the changes not so much an 'adaptation' as a 'capitulation'; they do not see the world becoming Christianized, but rather, a Church becoming secularized; they do not see the 'vines' as being pruned so much as their being uprooted and destroyed. They see the present situation as one that St. Paul predicted as proceeding the coming of the Antichrist - 'for that Day shall not come, except there come a falling away first' (2 Thes. 2:3). They liken the present situation to that described and prefigured in Maccabees: 'In those days went there out of Israel wicked men, who persuaded many, saying, Let us go and make a covenant with the heathen that are round about us; for since we departed from them, we have had much sorrow. Then certain of the people were so forward herein, that they went to the King, who gave them licence to do after the ordinances of the heathen... (and they) made themselves uncircumcised, and forsook the holy covenant, and joined themselves to the heathen...'

The great majority however remain bewildered and confused. Bred in an atmosphere which led them to accept with trust whatever came to them from their clergy, they tend to find excuses for all they do not understand. Like Paul VI, some admit that 'the smoke of Satan has entered into the Church'; they however refuse to look for the source of the fire.

Now, whatever the causes of the present situation may be, it is certain that prominent among them must be the changes that have occurred within the Church itself. These are clearly identified as those affecting the Liturgy (and especially the Mass), and the teachings (or, as they are called, the 'new directions') that have resulted from the Second Vatican Council and the 'Post-conciliar' Popes. The present book will attempt to discuss in some depth the nature of these changes and their implications.

Before doing so however, certain principles have to be understood that relate to the fundamental nature of the Church, her authority to 'teach', and the manner in which she does so. Those who still believe in the possibility that God in His Mercy gave us a Revelation, will have no difficulty in accepting these concepts. Others who cannot, or will not accept such a premise, must, if they wish to understand what is happening to this Church, at least concede the existence of this premise, for if there is no Revelation, there is no Church. With this in mind we shall initiate our text with a study of the nature of the Church's teaching function. From there we will proceed to consider the sources of the Church's teaching and the manner in which they are conveyed to the faithful. It will be in the light of these basic facts that we then proceed to examine Vatican II, with its 'new directions', and the liturgical changes that followed in rapid sequence.

It is hoped that as a result of this approach, even those who do not agree with the author's stance will come to see what even Louis Bouyer has called 'The Decomposition of Catholicism' is all about. As St Gregory of Tours said, 'Let no one who reads my words doubt but that I am a Catholic.' Despite the fact that under normal circumstances it would be redundant, I must qualify this further by stating that my stand is that of a 'traditional Catholic', (is there any other kind?) and not that of a 'liberal', 'modernist', or 'Postconciliar' one. To paraphrase the Abbe Gueranger, the reader should clearly understand that I am in no way trying to propagate any personal views of my own. I am only attempting to state the traditional Church's teaching as it has always been (in saecula saeculorum), and to show wherein the New Church has departed from this. If the reader does not happen to like what the Church has always taught, that is too bad. He will however, never understand the present situation unless he recognises that, as Louis Evely (1) has said: 'The present crisis of the Church consists in its division between two irreconcilable groups: the 'old ones', who cannot or will not admit liturgical, disciplinary, and conceptual changes; and the 'young ones' who are repelled by the old ceremonies, beliefs, and practices. It is impossible to speak to both groups at once. Every priest today finds that his parish is really two parishes. What awakens faith, or at least stirs interest among young people, scandalizes their elders to the point that they lose what little faith they have left. And to lead older people from the traditional faith to one which is more personal requires so much time, so much patience and so many precautions that the young people have not the patience to listen to, let alone read anything about it (they read so little of anything, for that matter)'.

If the Church is to Survive

The reader is further assured that in the exposition of the teachings of the traditional Church, wherever direct quotation is not given, the statements have been checked and approved by competent authority.

FOOTNOTES:

1. Louis Evely is one of the most popular authors in the Post-conciliar Church, and according to Father Greeley's survey, one of the most frequently read authors by the modern clergy. A former priest, he is now laicized.

CHAPTER I, Part 1
THE PROBLEM: IS IT THE SAME CHURCH?

Vatican 2 can be described as a turning point in the history of the Catholic Church. Prior to this event the Church considered herself a 'perfect society' in no need of change. Existing both now and in eternity, she called herself 'the Church of all times'. After the Council, she described herself as 'dynamic' and progressive'; a 'new Church', a 'Church of our times', claimed to be adapting herself and Christ's message to the conditions of the modern world.

But she sent out a mixed message. In the face of drastic modernization, she also claimed that 'nothing essential was changed' and that 'she was only returning to primitive practice'. While many accepted these assertions without thought, others found them self-contradictory. The net result was a confusion of loyalties which the subsequent twenty-five years has done little to alleviate.

Human reason tells us that Truth - assuming such a thing exists - cannot change. Catholics hold, by definition, that Jesus Christ is God, that He established a 'visible' Church which He promised would continue until the end of time, and that this Church is the Catholic Church They further hold - or should - that this Church preserves intact and teaches the truths and practices Christ revealed to it It is a matter of faith that only within this Church is to be found, the fullness of Christ's teaching, the Apostolic Succession, and the Sacraments or visible 'means of grace' He established. Throughout history there have been many who denied that the Catholic Church was the entity that Christ established - denied it on the grounds that she had added false doctrines invented by men; that she had distorted the original message (which amounts to the same thing), or that she failed to retain intact the original deposit. If she is guilty of such, she by definition departs from 'unity' with the original body - the 'One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.' If we are to call ourselves 'Catholic' - and our salvation depends upon it - then we must be sure that our beliefs and actions conform to what Christ and the Apostles initially taught. Putting it differently, if we would call ourselves Catholic we must be sure that we are in the Church which Christ founded, and that this Church has faithfully retained the original 'deposit of faith' given over to it by Christ and the Apostles.

No one disputes the fact that after Vatican 2, the Catholic Church was different. The fundamental question is whether the changes introduced were mere 'window dressing', or whether they involved fundamental points of doctrine and practice. If the latter is the case, one would be forced to conclude that the post-Conciliar Church (5) is no longer the same as its pre-Vatican 2 Counterpart. The problem can be posed on many levels - that of doctrine: whether she has retained intact the Revelation which Christ and the Apostles entrusted to her as a 'precious pearl'; whether or not her liturgy is valid in the same sense that it has always been considered such; whether or not her new Canon laws are consistent with those by which she governed herself throughout the ages; whether or not she has retained intact the Apostolic succession, and whether or not those who have sat in the chair of Peter since Vatican 2 speak with Peter's voice (authority). The answer to the query posed at the start of this chapter - WHETHER IT IS THE SAME CHURCH? - will by in large depend upon the answers given to these questions. In general, it can be stated that traditional Catholics claim it is not, while those who would accept and justify the changes introduced by Vatican 2 and the post-Conciliar 'popes' strongly argue that it is. This leads us to a series of secondary questions: did Christ intend that His Church should continuously adapt itself to changing circumstances? Are there certain areas where adaptation is legitimate, and others where it becomes a distortion of the original message? Are the changes introduced since Vatican 2 significant or are they just a matter of minor details? Do the Popes as Vicars of Christ on earth have the authority to make these changes? Is it possible that the Catholic Church, over the course of centuries, has deviated from the patterns established by her Founder to such a degree that it was incumbent upon her present leaders to bring her back to some original state of purity? This book will attempt to answer these questions.

Immediately we have a problem. Who is to speak for the Church?. People who claim the title of Catholic no longer constitute an intellectually coherent group of individuals. Catholics today can be roughly divided into 'traditional' and 'post-Conciliar' Catholics - though even here the lines are far from strict. And post-Conciliar or 'Novus Ordo' Catholics conform to a spectrum that ranges from 'conservative' to 'liberal' while traditional Catholics vary in how the view the recent 'popes' . The problem is that each of these groups claim to represent the 'true' Church and quote the documents of the Church in defense of their particular view. In an attempt to sort out the issues we shall quote only unequivocal sources of information. However there is this caveat: the pre-Conciliar sources are invariably unambiguous and to the point. The post-Conciliar documents are verbose, ambiguous, and can be quoted on both sides of any issue. Given this situation, selection is unavoidable. We shall attempt to be as just as possible.

The Catholic faith can be described as an interconnected series of 'facts', which taken in conjunction with one another, form a consistent body of teachings and practice. It is as hard to isolate any one aspect of 'the Faith' from the total content, as it is to determine where a spider's web originates. Yet one has to start somewhere: and so it is that we initiate this study with what is called the 'Magisterium' or the 'teaching authority' of the Church. For those who are unfamiliar with this concept, let it be stated at once that this 'teaching authority' follows as a logical consequence of Christ's establishing a 'visible' Church. In doing this, He established a hierarchical institution and intended that this entity - the 'Mystical Body of Christ' - be an extension of His presence on earth (Eph. V, 23). As such this Church, by her very nature, has the function and obligation of preserving intact and delivering to us the Message (teachings and inculcated practices) of Christ. 'Going therefore, teach ye all nations... teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you' (Matt. XXVIII,19-20). Those entrusted with this function of 'feeding His sheep... in His name' were given no authority to teach any other truth 'in His name' than that which He Himself established. Hence He also said: 'He that heareth you heareth me'(Luke X, 10). It further follows that, as the Apostle Paul put it: 'Even if an angel from heaven should teach you a gospel besides that which you have received, let him be anathema... for I give you to understand, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man; for neither did I receive it of man, nor did I learn it; but by the Revelation of Jesus Christ' (Gal. I, 6-12).

CHAPTER II, Part 1

THE MAGISTERIUM OF THE CHURCH AND RELATED ISSUES

Before embarking on a study of the Magisterium we should pause for a moment lest the present confusion within the Catholic Church tempt us to an attitude of despair. The present confusions have their purpose, even though we with our limited outlook cannot always understand.

As St. Paul explains: 'To them that love God all things work together unto good' (Rom. 8:28) and St. Augustine adds 'etiam peccata, even sins.' In the same sense, in the Exultet, on Holy Saturday, the Church sings: Felix culpa,quae talem ac tantum meruit Redemptorem: 'O happy fault (of our fist parents), that merited so great a Redeemer.' As Augustine says: 'God in His wisdom has deemed it better that good should come out of evil than that evil should never have been.' God has the power and wisdom to turn to His own glory the evil which He permits on earth. Angels and saints can take only joy from the divine wisdom which rules the world so wonderfully(1).

Holy Mother Church, like the loving mother she is, has provided us with the necessary guidelines on how to think and behave in the present circumstances. These are provided for us in what is called her teaching Magisterium. The present essay is dedicated to an understanding of the nature and purpose of the Authentic Magisterium of the Catholic Church (2)

* * *

The Church, which is the 'Body of Christ,' is as it were the presence of Christ in the World.(3) Now Christ combined in Himself and bestowed on His Apostles whom He 'sent forth' the three qualities of Teacher (Prophet), Ruler and Priest - symbolized in his Vicar by the triple crown or papal tiara.

With regard to this Christ told us that 'He who believed in Him would know the truth which gives true liberty (John VIII, 31-31) but he who did not would be condemned' (Matt. X.33; Mark XVI.16) He allowed Himself to be called the Master and even stressed that He was the true Master who not only taught the truth, but was the Truth.(Matt. VIII,19; John III, 17 and Matt. XXIII, 8-10). Now he communicated these truths to his Apostles and sent them forth to teach in His name, telling them that 'just as my Father sent me, so also I send you...,' telling them: 'He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects your words, rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects the Father who sent me' (Matt. X, 40 and Luke X, 16). And so we see that the Apostles were given the charge of continuing Christ's mission as infallible Master. Moreover Christ demanded an absolute obedience to this teaching function - for he who does not believe will be condemned. Of course, He also specified that it must be His teaching and not some other person's teaching - not even the teaching of an angel from heaven if it departed from His teaching. He further promised that 'the Spirit of Truth would always be with them,' provided they accepted this Spirit, and again, He left them free to reject this Spirit or accept some other spirit if they so willed - but then of course they would no longer be participating in His charisms and would loose their infallibility. As He said, 'therefore go ye into all nation and teach them to safeguard all that I have taught you. And I will be with you till the end of the world' (Matt. XII, 18-20).

Perhaps the most important error abroad today relates to the teaching authority of the Church; specifically to the idea that the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church is not infallible. Lest there be doubt about this, let us listen to Pope Leo XIII: 'Wherefore, as appears from what has been said, Christ instituted in the Church a living authoritative and permanent Magisterium, which by His own power He strengthened, by the Spirit of truth He taught, and by miracles confirmed. He willed and ordered, under the gravest penalties, that its teachings should be received as if they were His own. As often therefore, as it is declared on the authority of this teaching that this or that is contained in the deposit of divine revelation, it must be believed by everyone as true. If it could in any way be false, an evident contradiction follows: for then God Himself would be the author of error in man. The Fathers of the Vatican Council (I) laid down nothing new, but followed divine revelation and the acknowledged and invariable teaching of the Church as to the very nature of faith, when they decreed as follows: 'All those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written or unwritten word of God, and which are proposed by the Church as divinely revealed, either by a solemn definition or in the exercise of the ordinary and universal Magisterium.' ('Satis Cognitum').

Because the Magisterium provides us with the only solid objective criteria by which we may judge what is true and false, it is important that we examine its nature in greater detail. 'The Catholic Dictionary' defines the Magisterium as: 'The Church's divinely appointed authority to teach the truths of religion. 'Going therefore teach ye all nations... teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you' (Matt. XXVIII, 19-20). This teaching, being Christ's, is infallible...' (4).

This Magisterium or 'teaching authority of the Church', exists in two different modes. It is termed 'SOLEMN' or 'EXTRAORDINARY' when it derives from the formal and authentic definitions of a General council, or of the Pope himself: that is to say, dogmatic definitions of the Ecumenical councils, or of the Pope's teaching ex cathedra (see below for an explanation of this term). Such truths are de fide divina et Catholica which means that every Catholic must believe them with divine and Catholic Faith.(5)

Included under the category of solemn are 'symbols or professions of the faith', such as the Apostles' Creed, the Tridentine or Pianine Profession and the Oath against Modernism required by Pius X since 1910 (and no longer required by the post-Conciliar Church)(6). Finally included in this category are 'theological censures' or those statements that qualify and condemn propositions as heretical (7).

It is termed 'ORDINARY AND UNIVERSAL' when it manifests itself as those truths which are expressed through the daily continuous preaching of the Church and refers to the universal practices of the Church connected with faith and morals as manifested in the 'unanimous consent of the Fathers, the decisions of the Roman Congregations concerning faith and morals, in the consensus of the faithful, in the universal custom or practice associated with dogma (which certainly includes the Roman liturgy or traditional Mass), and in the various historical documents in which the faith is declared.' Included in this category are papal Encyclicals(8). It is termed 'Pontifical' if the source is the Pope, and 'universal' if it derives from the Bishops in union with him(9)Such truths, as Vatican I teaches, are also de fide divina et Catholica. (10)

It is termed 'living' because, being true, it exists and exerts its influence, not only in the past, but in the present and future. As Vatican I explains, it is infallible: 'All those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith, which are contained in the word of God, written or handed down, [i.e., Scripture or Tradition], and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment, or by her ordinary and universal magisterium, proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed'(Vatican I, Session III).

This statement is important because there are many theologians who proclaim that the teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium are not binding. Some attempt to mitigate the authority of the ordinary magisterium by claiming that it can at times contain error(11). Others claim on their own authority that 'only those doctrines in the ordinary and universal Magisterium that have been taught everywhere and always are covered by the guarantee of infallibility(12). Still others attack this teaching by limiting the contents of the Ordinary Magisterium - removing from it anything not couched in absolutist or solemn terminology. Finally there are those who claim that the magisterium can change - that it can teach differently today than in the past because doctrine and truth evolve. Before dealing with these secondary errors, it is necessary to understand why the Magisterium is infallible.

FOOTNOTES:

(1) Lines taken from Georges Panneton's Heaven or Hell, Newman Press, Westminster Maryland, 1965. Consider the Jews in Egypt. They had saved the land from famine, but had subsequently been enslaved. How cruel and unjust the God of Abraham must have appeared to them. But would they have followed Moses into the wilderness in any other circumstance? One may be permitted to doubt it.

(2) In discussing the layman Eusebius' attack on the heretic Nestorius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, Dom Gueranger wrote: 'When the shepherd turns into a wolf the first duty of the flock is to defend itself. As a general rule, doctrine comes from the bishops to the faithful, and it is not for the faithful, who are subjects in the order of Faith, to pass judgment on their superiors. But every Christian by virtue of this title to the name Christian, has not only the necessary knowledge of the essentials of the treasure of Revelation, but also the duty of safeguarding them. The principle is the same, whether it is a matter of belief or conduct, that is of dogma or morals.'

(3) 'God showed me the very great delight that He has in all men and women who accept, firmly and humbly and reverently, the preaching and teaching of Holy Church, for he is Holy Church. For He is the foundation, He is the substance, He is the teaching, He is the teacher, He is the end, He is the reward.' Julian of Norwich, Showings, Chapter xvi.

(4) Donald Attwater, Catholic Dictionary, Macmillan: N.Y.,1952

(5) 'Must', that is, if he wishes to call himself Catholic.

(6) The Church could never require its members to take an Oath which violated the infallible truth. These specifics are drawn from Tanquerey's Manual of Dogmatic Theology, Desclee: N.Y., 1959.

(7) According to Tanquerey, 'The Church is infallible when it condemns a certain proposition with some doctrinal censure. A doctrinal censure is 'a qualification or restriction which indicates that a proposition is opposed, in some way, to faith or morals'. It is de fide that the Church is infallible when she specifies that a doctrine is heretical; it is certain that the Church is infallible when she states that a doctrine approaches heresy or that a doctrine errs.

(8) Etienne Gilson, Introduction to The Church Speaks to the Modern World, Doubleday: N.Y. 'These letters are the highest expression of the ordinary teaching of the Church. To the extent that they restate the infallible teachings of the Church, the pronouncements of the Encyclical letters are themselves infallible. Moreover, while explaining and developing such infallible teachings, or while using them as a sure criterion in the condemnation of errors, or even while striving to solve the social, economic and political problems of the day in the light of these infallible teachings, the popes enjoy the special assistance of the Holy Spirit.' (...)

(9) Also from Tanquerey, op. cit. Other classifications can be found, but the essential principles remain the same. Melchior Cano (or Canus), one of the principal theologians of the Council of Trent, taught that there are ten theological 'loci' or places where the 'teaching imparted by Christ and the Apostles could be found.' They are the following: 1) The Scriptures; 2) The divine and Apostolic Traditions; 3) The universal Church; 4) The Councils, and above all the General (Ecumenical) Councils; 5) The Roman Church; 6) The Holy Fathers; 7) The Scholastic theologians; 8) Natural reason; 9) the philosophers and jurors [of Canon law]; and 10) human history. According to him the first seven belong to the realm of theology, while the last three relate to the other sciences. (Quoted in Rohrbacher, Histoire Universelle de L'Eglise Catholique, Letouzey et Ane, Editeurs, Paris, Vol. X, p. 118).

(10) The infallibility of Council teachings is dependent upon the Pope's approbation. The pseud-Council of Pistoia never received this and was never recognized as a Council.

(11) Michael Davies claims that the Declaration on Religious Liberty made by Vatican IIis 'only a document of the ordinary magisterium of the Church, and that the possibility of error occurs or can occur in such documents where it is a matter of some novel teaching The magisterium can eventually correct such an error without compromising itself... It will therefore be the eventual task of the magisterium to evaluate the objections made to the Declaration and then to explain how it is compatible with previous teaching, or to admit that it is not compatible and proceed to correct it' (Archbishop Lefebvre and Religious Liberty, TAN: III., 1980 and The Remnant, June 15, 1982.). Suffice it to say - the matter will be discussed in detail later - that not only this Declaration, but also Michael Davies's opinion are contrary to innumerable Magisterial statements of the traditional Church. For proof that the post-Conciliar Church considers Vatican II to be magisterial, see footnote 58 below.

(12) According to this view, the ordinary and universal Magisterium consists in some manner, of the sum total of bishops in every place and throughout the course of history from the time the Church was founded down to the present day; while at the same time the community of bishops (with the Pope) at any given period during the course of history, is in no way infallible in its ordinary teaching. This is essentially the position of Archbishop Lefebvre

CHAPTER II, part 2
THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE MAGISTERIUM

As noted in Chapter I, the Church, by God's will, is a hierarchical institution. At its 'head' is the Pope, the vicar of Christ, the 'rock' on which the Church is founded. He is endowed with all the unique authority of Jesus Christ 'who is the shepherd and bishop of our souls' (1 Pet. 2:25), and depending upon Him, the pope is also - but vicariously - the shepherd and bishop of the whole flock, both of the other bishops and of the ordinary faithful (John 21:15-17) He is the evident and effectual sign of the presence of Christ in the world, and it is through him that Christ who is invisible in the bosom of the Father, visibly presides over all the activities of this enormous Body and brings it under His control. As Dom Grea has said, 'the pope is with Jesus Christ - a single hierarchical person - above the episcopate, one and the same head of the episcopate, one and the same head, one and the same doctor, pontiff and legislator of the universal Church.' Or more precisely, 'Jesus Christ Himself is the sole Head, rendered visible, speaking and acting in the Church through the instrument whom He provided for Himself. Christ proclaims Himself through His Vicar, He speaks through him, acts and governs through him.' When Christ speaks, acts, and governs through the pope, the pope is endowed with infallibility, a quality which derives, not from him as a private person, but from his being 'a single hierarchical person' with Christ13.

This conception is made clear by Pope St. Leo's third sermon on the anniversary of his own election where he paraphrases the words of Christ: 'I make known to thee thy excellence, for thou art Peter: that is, as I am the invulnerable rock, the cornerstone, who make both one, I the foundation beside which there can be laid no other; so thou too art a rock, in my strength made hard, and I share with thee the powers which are proper to me. And upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it...' (Office of St. Peter's Chair at Antioch, Feb. 22.)

The pope is also a private person (an ordinary human being) and a private theologian (doctor). It is however, only when he functions as 'a single hierarchical person' with Christ that he is endowed with infallibility (or partakes of the Church's, i.e., Christ's infallibility.) It is only then that Christ's Scriptural statement 'he who hears you, hears me' applies. And it follows logically that his authority is extended through those bishops who 'are in union with him' in governing the flock. The bishops have no independent authority apart from him for the simple reason that he has no independent authority apart from Christ. Thus it is that he is called the 'Bishop of bishops', and that he 'confirms' them in their doctrine - not the other way around. Thus it is that no statement of an Ecumenical Council has any authority until it receives his approbation.

The pope then has an almost limitless authority. He can however loose this authority in a variety of ways. He can lose it when he dies (physical death), if he loses his reason (madness), if he separates himself from the Church (schism), or when he loses his faith (heresy and therefore spiritual death). At such a point the pope is no longer pope because it is the very nature of this bishop's function and ministry to be the Vicar of Christ and nothing else14.

The pope's authority is almost unlimited - however, it is not absolute. He has full powers within his charge, but his powers are limited by his charge. In order fully to understand this doctrinal point, let us once again recall the nature of this charge.

The ecclesiastical hierarchy was instituted by God to teach, that is to say, to transmit the deposit of the faith. At the head of this teaching Church Christ appointed a Vicar to whom He gave full powers to 'feed the faithful and the shepherds' (John 21:11-17). Consequently, it is within the bounds of this function, the transmission of the deposit of the faith, that the Pope has 'full powers'. He has these precisely to enable him to transmit the deposit of the faith - in its entirety - 'in the same meaning and the same sense' (Denzinger 1800). 'For', as Vatican I clearly taught, 'the Holy Spirit has not been promised to Peter's successors in order that they might reveal, under His inspiration, new doctrine, but in order that, with His help, they may carefully guard and faithfully expound the revelation as it was handed down by the Apostles, that is to say, the deposit of the faith' (Pastor Aeternus, Ds. 1836).

Hence it follows that the Pope can and must make all his determinations entirely within the bounds of orthodoxy, and this is true whether they concern the reformation of the Liturgy, of Canon Law, or to use the phraseology of earlier Councils, the reformation of the clergy 'in its head or in its members.' The Pope may indeed abrogate all the decisions of his predecessors, even those deserving of special mention, but always and only within the limits of orthodoxy. As The Catholic Encyclopedia (1908) states: 'the scope of this infallibility is to preserve the deposit of faith revealed to man by Christ and His Apostles.' It goes without saying that under such circumstances, any changes introduced would affect only matters that are mutable and never the faith itself. A Pope who presumed to abrogate the smallest iota of dogma, or even attempted to change the meaning of the Church's constant teaching, would step outside the bounds of orthodoxy and outside the limits of his function of preserving the deposit of the faith. He would in doing so, teach a new doctrine and a 'new gospel', and as such would be subject to the anathema pronounced by St. Paul in his Epistle to the Galatians (1:8-9).

It is then clear that the infallibility of the Magisterium or 'teaching authority of the Church' derives from the Pope functioning as one hierarchical person with Christ. Thus the source of this infallibility is Christ, and indeed, it could be not be otherwise. For the Church to claim infallibility on any other grounds would be absurd. And just as there is only one source, so also there is only one Magisterium. When the Pope uses his infallibility - be it by solemn proclamation or within the bounds of the ordinary magisterium, he partakes, not of some personal, but of Christ's infallibility. As the official text puts it, 'when he speaks ex cathedra... he has the same infallibility as that with which the divine Redeemer invested His Church when it is defining a doctrine concerning faith or morals; and that therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, irreformable'. (Ds. 183915)

FOOTNOTES

13 Dom Grea, The Church and its Divine Constitution, quoted from Forts dans La Foi, edited by Father Noel Barbara. The term 'episcopate' refers to the body of bishops. Strictly speaking one cannot speak of a 'bad pope'. Being the instrument of Christ, a pope as such is necessarily 'good'. Such adjectives as applied to popes relate to the state of their soul and not to their function. A sinner, just like anyone else, the pope, even when he functions as Christ's minister, can be, as a human being, in a state of grace or one of mortal sin. It is a teaching of elementary theology that the state of a minister's soul has no influence or effect on his ministry, because this effect comes totally and exclusively from Christ who is its source. Thus it is that whenever a pope is functioning in his office of pope, it is Christ who speaks, who acts, and who governs through him. There is never any justification for a member of the believing Church to disobey a valid pope when it is Christ who speaks, acts and governs through him. And just as one cannot speak of a 'bad pope', so also one cannot speak of a 'heretical Pope', of one who is only 'materially' pope, or of one who is only 'juridically' a pope. Assuming a valid election, assuming that the individual is a member of the 'believing Church', either a man is, or he is not, a pope. He can never be 'half a pope'.

14 Strictly speaking one cannot speak of a 'bad pope'. Being the instrument of Christ, a pope as such is necessarily 'good'. Such adjectives as applied to popes relate to the state of their soul and not to their function. A sinner, just like anyone else, the pope, even when he functions as Christ's minister, can be, as a human being, in a state of grace or one of mortal sin. It is a teaching of elementary theology that the state of a minister's soul has no influence or effect on his ministry, because this effect comes totally and exclusively from Christ who is its source. Thus it is that whenever a pope is functioning in his office of pope, it is Christ who speaks, who acts, and who governs through him. There is never any justification for a member of the believing Church to disobey a valid pope when it is Christ who speaks, acts and governs through him. And just as one cannot speak of a 'bad pope', so also one cannot speak of a 'heretical Pope', of one who is only 'materially' pope, or of one who is only 'juridically' a pope. Assuming a valid election, assuming that the individual is a member of the 'believing Church', either a man is, or he is not, a pope. He can never be 'half a pope'.

15 Ds stands for Denzinger, op. cit.

CHAPTER II, Part 3

THE MEANING OF EX CATHEDRA AND THE REASON FOR THE DEFINITION OF PAPAL INFALLIBILITY

When does a Pope use his infallibility, or to use the technical phrase, speak ex cathedra? In Holy Scripture 'cathedra' is synonymous with the authority of a 'master' or 'teacher' (Ps. 1:1; Matt. 23:2; Luke 20:46). Once again the teaching of the Church is manifest and clear. He teaches ex cathedra 'when serving in the capacity of pastor and Doctor (shepherd and teacher) of all the faithful, in virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine with regard to faith and morals that must be held by the whole Church.'

Four conditions are required:

1) The Pope must be functioning as Pastor and supreme Doctor. It is not his teaching as a private or particular Doctor that is in question.

2) He must be dealing with matters of faith or morals, and it is only the proposed doctrine - not the adjoining considerations - the 'obiter dicta' that is guaranteed by infallibility.

3) He must intend to define; his teaching must be given with authority and with the intent that it be believed by the entire Church.

4) He must manifest his intention to bind all Catholics.

The Pope is not required to use any specific formulas to accomplish this. All that is required is that he clearly manifest his intention to compel the entire Church to accept his teaching as belonging to the deposit of the faith.

Papal infallibility

It is obvious that by the very nature of his function as the Vicar of Christ, this authority has always been with Peter and his valid successors. Why was it then necessary that this doctrine be defined in an extraordinary manner at the time of Vatican I? The answer to this question is highly instructive. The Church does not ordinarily define a doctrine 'in an extraordinary manner' unless it comes under dispute or is denied by a significant number of the faithful (as the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin). Nor does a doctrine so defined become more true than it was before. The Church 'has the duty to proceed opportunely in defining points of faith with solemn rites and decrees, when there is a need to declare them to resist more effectively the errors and the assaults of heretics or to impress upon the minds of the faithful clearer and more profound explanations of points of sacred doctrine... Not because the Church has defined and sanctioned truths by solemn decree of the Church at different times, and even in times near to us, are they [truths not so defined] therefore not equally certain and not equally to be believed. For has not God revealed them all?' (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium animos).

In the decades prior to Vatican I, the popes repeatedly condemned liberal Catholicism and parallel efforts aimed at bringing the Church's thinking into line with the modern world - Pope Pius IX summarized these censures in his Syllabus of Errors. Those who came under such strictures attempted to defend themselves by claiming that their attitudes had never been formerly condemned by the teaching magisterium and that such documents only represented the private opinion of the Pontiffs. Such a claim placed the infallibility of the Pope in doubt. During Vatican I furious debates were waged on the subject. The liberals were perfectly aware of the fact that if they voted for the definition of infallibility they would condemn themselves, but that if they voted against it, they would be denying a doctrine of the Church. Every conceivable objection capable of preventing, or of at least postponing the definition, was put forth and strongly supported by those who labeled themselves as 'inopportunists'(1). One orthodox bishop, Anthony Claret - later canonized - was so distressed by these attempts that he died of a heart attack during the Conciliar debate. The cases of Popes Liberius, Honorius I, Paschal II, Sixtus V and others were brought forth in an attempt to influence the Fathers against defining something the liberals claimed was both unnecessary and insane. Needless to say, they were supported in this by the secular press, by world leaders, and even by governments. It is of interest to note that the Freemasons held a simultaneous 'anti-Council' in Naples which proclaimed several principles as essential to the dignity of man - principles which later were incorporated into the documents of Vatican II(2).

Unlike John XXIII, whose machinations in favor of the liberals at Vatican II will be detailed later, Pope Pius IX, aware of his responsibilities, did everything in his power to fulfill his obligations towards our divine Master. Listen to the comments of Cardinal Manning: 'The campaign against the Council failed, of course. It failed because the Pope did not weaken. He met error with condemnation and replied to the demands to modify or adapt Catholic truth to the spirit of the age by resisting it with the firmness and clarity of Trent - and despite the prophecies of her enemies that the declaration of Papal Infallibility would mark the death blow to the Church, she emerged stronger and more vigorous than ever. This of course evoked the full fury of the City of Man. The hatred of the world for the Church was made manifest, and at the same time manifested the divine nature of the Catholic Church; for the hatred of the world was designated by Christ Himself as one of the marks of His Mystical body which must not only teach Christ crucified, but will live out the mystery of His crucifixion and resurrection until He comes again in Glory... Had Christ been prepared to enter into dialogue with his enemies, had he been prepared to adapt, to make concessions, then He would have escaped crucifixion - but of what value would the Incarnation have been? Pope Pius IX followed the example of Christ whose Vicar he was and, as the highest point attracted the storm, so the chief violence fell upon the head of the Vicar of Christ....'(3)

One does not have to be an expert in theological matters to know that, if the Conciliar fathers had found themselves incapable of unequivocally refuting every one of the objections of the inopportunists, and of showing in a peremptory manner that, throughout the preceding nineteen centuries not one Pope - even among those whose lives had been scandalous in the extreme - had ever erred in his function as Pope, in his teaching function as the universal Pastor and Doctor, the Church could never have solemnly promulgated this dogma. Indeed, if the issues and facts had not been made absolutely clear, the adversaries of infallibility and the enemies of the Church would certainly have published abroad all the supposedly false teachings of the previous popes and used this as a means of making the Church appear ridiculous. 'No man', say the Fathers of the great Council of Nice, 'ever accused the Holy See of a mistake, unless he was himself maintaining an error.'(4)

When the final vote came, the adversaries of this dogma, foreseeing how things would go, left Rome in order to avoid personally participating in this decision. They however, not wishing to be ejected from the Church, declared in advance that they accepted the decision - a decision that ultimately depended, not on the Council, but on the Pope promulgating the Council's teaching(5).

Unable to any longer deny this principle, the liberals in the Church rapidly shifted tactics. 'The Pope is infallible', they said, 'and such is certain for the church has proclaimed it as a dogma. But be careful! the Pope is not infallible every time he opens his mouth.' and under the pretense of defending this dogma by sharply defining its limits, they cleverly stressed the concept that the Pope only uses this privilege on rare occasions - 'once or twice in a century'. Today we hear the same cry from those who would defend the post-Conciliar changes. 'Nothing de fide has been changed', by which they mean no part of the extraOrdinary Magisterium. 'The children of this world are wiser in their generation than the children of light' (Luke 16:8).(6)

Because the infallible nature of the Ordinary Magisterium is currently so much in dispute, the following pertinent quotations are appended:

1. 'Even if he makes this submission efficaciously which is in accord with an act of divine faith... he should extend it to those truths which are transmitted as divinely revealed by the Ordinary Magisterium of the entire Church dispersed throughout the world. (Pius IX, Tuas libenter)

2. Leo XIII reiterated the teaching of Vatican I to the effect that 'the sense of the sacred dogmas is to be faithfully kept which Holy Mother Church has once declared, and is not to be departed from under the specious pretext of a more profound understanding.' He adds: 'Nor is the suppression to be considered altogether free from blame, which designedly omits certain principles of Catholic doctrine and buries them, as it were in oblivion. For there is the one and the same Author and Master of all the truths that Christian teaching comprises: the only begotten son who is in the bosom of the Father. That they are adapted to all ages and nations is plainly deduced from the words which Christ addressed to His Apostles: 'Go therefore teach ye all nations: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world'. Wherefore the same Vatican Council says: 'By the divine and Catholic faith those are to be believed which are contained in the word of God either written or handed down, and are proposed by the Church whether in solemn decision or by the ordinary universal magisterium, to be believed as having been divinely revealed.' Far be then, for any one to diminish or for any reason whatever to pass over anything of this divinely delivered doctrine; whosoever would do so, would rather wish to alienate Catholics from the Church than to bring over to the Church those who dissent from it. Let them return; indeed nothing is nearer to Our heart; let all those who are wandering far from the sheepfold of Christ return; but let it not be any other road than that which Christ has pointed out... The history of all past ages is witness that the Apostolic See, to which not only the office of teaching but also the supreme government of the whole Church was committed, has constantly adhered to the same doctrine in the same sense and in the same mind.... In this all must acquiesce who wish to avoid the censure of our predecessor Pius VI, who proclaimed the 18th proposition of the Synod of Pistoia 'to be injurious to the Church and to the Spirit of God which governs her, in as much as it subjects to scrutiny the discipline established and approved by the Church, as if the Church could establish a useless discipline or one which would be too honerous for Christian liberty to bear.' (Leo XIII Testem Benevolentiae)

3. 'The Pope is infallible in all matters of Faith and Morals. By matters of faith and morals is meant the whole revelation of the truths of faith; or the whole way of salvation through faith; or the whole supernatural order, with all that is essential to the sanctification and salvation of man through Jesus Christ. The Pope is infallible, not only in the whole matter of revealed truths; he is also indirectly infallible in all truths which, though not revealed, are so intimately connected with revealed truths, that the deposit of faith and morals cannot be guarded, explained, and defended without an infallible discernment of such not revealed truths. The Pope could not discharge his office as Teacher of all nations, unless he were able with infallible certainty to proscribe and condemn doctrines, logical, scientific, physical, metaphysical, or political, of any kind which are at variance with the Word of God and imperil the integrity and purity of the faith, or the salvation of souls. Whenever the Holy Father, as Chief Pastor and Teacher of all Christians, proceeds, in briefs, encyclical letters, consistorial allocutions, and other Apostolic letters, to declare certain truths, or anything that is conducive to the preservation of faith and morals, or to reprobate perverse doctrines, and condemn certain errors, such declarations of truth and condemnations of errors are infallible, or ex Cathedra acts of the Pope (emphasis mine). All acts ex Cathedra are binding in conscience and call for our firm interior assent, both of the intellect and the will, even though they do not express an anathema on those who disagree. to refuse such interior assent would be, for a Catholic, a mortal sin, since such a refusal would be a virtual denial of the dogma of infallibility, and we should be heretics were we conscious of such a denial (Alphonse Liguori, Theol. Moral. lib. I, 104). It would even be heresy to say that any such definition of truths or condemnations of perverse doctrines are inopportune.' (Father Michael Muller, CSSR(7))

4. 'This Magisterium [the ordinary and universal] of the Church in regard to faith and morals, must be for every theologian the proximate and universal rule of truth, for the Lord has entrusted the Church with the entire deposit of the faith - Holy Scripture and Tradition - to be kept, to be upheld and to be explained. In the same manner, we must not think that what is proposed in the encyclicals does not require in itself our assent because the Popes did not exercise their supreme magisterial powers in them. Our Lord's words 'he who listens to you listens to Me' also applies to whatever is taught by the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church'. (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis)

5. 'In a word, the whole magisterium or doctrinal authority of the Pontiff as the supreme Doctor of all Christians, is included in this definition [at Vatican I] of his infallibility. And also all legislative or judicial acts, so far as they are inseparably connected with his doctrinal authority; as for instance, all judgments, sentences, and decisions, which contain the motives of such acts as derived from faith and morals. Under this will come the laws of discipline, canonization of the saints, approbation of Religious Orders, of devotions, and the like; all of which intrinsically contain the truths and principles of faith, morals and piety. The definition, then, does not limit the infallibility of the Pontiff to his supreme acts ex cathedra in faith and morals, but extends his infallibility to all acts in the fullest exercise of his supreme magisterium or doctrinal authority.' (Cardinal Manning, The Vatican Council and its Definitions (8))

At this point we can come to certain conclusions:
1) Christ instituted a hierarchical Church which was His own Mystical body, and as such the prolongation of His presence in the world.
2) He revealed to this Church certain truths and entrusted these to it as a precious pearl - the deposit of the faith.
3) He established a Magisterium in order to keep intact the deposit of revealed truths for all time and to assure their availability to all mankind.
4) He instructed the Church to teach these truths. The Magisterium is a 'divinely appointed authority to teach... all nations... all things whatsoever I have commanded you.'
5) This single Magisterium of the Church is entirely in the Pope, the vicar of Christ, and through him in all the bishops that are in union with him.
6) In so far as these truths are revealed to us by Christ, they are infallibly true.
7) The pope when he functions in his capacity as the Vicar of Christ, as one hierarchical person with our Lord, is to be obeyed as if he was Our Lord.
8) When the pope teaches in this capacity - ex cathedra - he teaches infallibly.
9) The Pope and the bishops in union with him are in no way empowered to teach anything other than what pertains to this original deposit 'in the same sense and mind' that they have always been understood.
10) Obviously doubts may arise as to the exact nature or meaning of some point of doctrine contained in this deposit. When such occurs, the hierarchy functions to explain and define, but not to innovate. 'The Pope [and by extension, the hierarchy] is only the interpreter of this truth already revealed. He explains, he defines, but he makes no innovation'(9).
11) 'The revelation made to the Apostles by Christ and by the Holy Spirit whom He sent to teach them all truth was final, definitive. To that body of revealed truth nothing has been, or ever will be added'(10)
12) There is no need for the Pope to use special formulas or attach anathema to his ex cathedra teachings.
13) The Ordinary Magisterium is to be believed with the same divine and Catholic faith as is the ExtraOrdinary Magisterium.

SUPPLEMENTARY COMMENTS ON THE MAGISTERIUM and Papal infallibility

The Magisterium is also called 'living', not because it 'evolves' in the manner that modern man erroneously ascribes to all things, but because it exists today as a viable entity within what the theologians call the 'visible' Church. It is 'living' because it is vivified by the Holy Ghost. As Cardinal Manning explains: 'this office of the Holy Ghost consists in the following operations: first, in the original illumination and revelation...; secondly, in the preservation of that which was revealed, or, in the other words, in the prolongation of the light of truth by which the Church in the beginning was illuminated; thirdly, in assisting the Church to conceive, with greater fullness, explicitness, and clearness, the original truth in all its relations; fourthly, in defining that truth in words, and in the creation of a sacred terminology, which becomes a permanent tradition and a perpetual expression of the original revelation; and lastly, in the perpetual enunciation and proposition of the same immutable truth in every age.'(11)

In giving assent to the teaching authority of the Church we should recognize the fact that we are giving assent, not to a series of 'dry' doctrines decided upon by mere men, but rather to Christ Himself. Moreover, in so far as the Church and Christ are one, this obligation of giving assent also extends to certain matters intimately related to the faith such as the Sacraments instituted by Christ and the ecclesiastical laws by which she governs herself. As St. Catherine of Sienna says, 'the Church is no other than Christ Himself, and it is she who gives us the Sacraments, and the Sacraments give us life.'(12)

The Catholic Church is not a congregation of people agreeing together, it is not a School of Philosophy or a Mutual Improvement Society. It is rather the Living Voice of God and Christ's revelation to all people, through all time. It teaches only what its divine Master taught. It is in God's name that the Church makes the awesome demand she does on the faith of men - a demand that cannot be merely waived aside as being incompatible with the so-called rights of private judgment.

It will be argued that the Church has been far from pure in her worldly actions. This is to misunderstand her nature. She is by definition a 'perfect society', the divinely instituted Mystical Body of Christ. The human failings of individual Catholics - or groups of Catholics - in no way alters the Church's essentially divine character. She certainly contains sinners within her bosom, for she, like Christ, is in the world for the sake of sinners. Those who would reject the teachings of her divine Master because of her human failings, are similar to the Pharisees who rejected Christ because he ate with publicans. Despite such defects, the fundamental nature and purpose of the Church cannot change. She has never asked the world to follow other than the doctrine of Christ. 'The Proximate end (purpose) of the Church is to teach all men the truths of Revelation, to enforce the divine precepts, to dispense the means of grace, and thus to maintain the practice of the Christian religion. The ultimate end is to lead all men to eternal life'(13)

Man is free to examine the reasonableness and validity of the Church's claims; he is also free to accept or reject them. If he chooses the latter, which is in essence to refuse the authority of God's Revelation, he is forced, if he is rational, to seek some other basis and authority for his actions and beliefs. And this brings us to the below explained topic.

FOOTNOTES:

1. It is never inopportune to declare the truth. Cardinal Newman - was one of the leaders of this faction.

2. Approaches, (Ayrshire, Scotland), No. 89, 1985

3. Cardinal Henry Manning (an Anglican Convert), Three Pastoral Letters to the Clergy of the Diocese, several editions.

4. Rev. M. Muller, C.SS.. Familiar Explanation of Catholic doctrine, Benzinger: N.Y., 1888

5. The infallibility of Council teachings is dependent upon the Pope's approbation. The pseud-Council of Pistoia never received this and was never recognized as a Council. The post-Conciliar 'popes' have declared Vatican II (all of it) to be the 'highest form of the Ordinary Magisterium.'

6. An important consequence of the declaration on infallibility at Vatican I was that the Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX was clearly declared to fall within the realm of the Ordinary Magisterium. Prior to this many attempts were made to examine the sources of the condemned errors in order to show that they were not 'worded' in such a way as to make them binding. It also protected the list of errors - Lamentabili - associated with Pope St. Pius X's Pascendi. Here again the modernists tried the same tactics, forcing Pius X to declare them to be binding in his Moto Proprio 'Praestantia Scripturae '(18, Nov. 1907). ('anyone having the temerity to defend any proposition, opinion or reproved doctrine will ipso fact incur ... excommunication latae sententiae simply reserved to the Roman Pontiff.') Again, the Oath against Modernism has been dropped. Despite this, anyone who cannot give his assent to this Oath, once required of every prelate at every step in his journey towards the priesthood or episcopacy, places himself outside the true Church.

7. op. cit. No 16.

8. New York: D,J. Sadlier, 1887, pp. 95-96.

9. Exposition of Christian doctrine - Course of Instruction written by a seminary professor of the Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools, McVey: Phil., 1898.

10. op. cit. No. 14.

11. Cardinal Henry Manning, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost, Burns, Oates: London, 1909.

12. Quoted by Jorgensen in his Life of St. Catherine of Sienna.

13. W. Wilmers, S.J., Handbook of the Christian Religion, Benzinger: N.Y., 1891. This manner in which the Church sees itself is a far cry from the teaching of Vatican II and the post-Conciliar 'popes'. The Document The Church Today teaches 'Christians are joined with the rest of men in search for truth' and Paul VI tells us that today 'the Church is seeking itself. With a great and moving effort, it is seeking to define itself, to understand what it truly is...'

CHAPTER II, Part 4
PRIVATE JUDGMENT

In the last analysis, man must in religious matters, rely upon some authority. Either this derives from some objective 'teaching authority' that is independent of himself, or else it derives from an 'inner feeling' that can be characterized as 'private judgment'(1). Clearly, the prevailing basis for religious beliefs in the modern world - be they Protestant or 'modernist-Catholic' - is private judgment, which is to say that paramount authority resides in that which at any moment commends itself to the individual or group most strongly(2). According to Vatican II, man's dignity is such that in religious matters, he is to be guided by his own judgment(3). Such a principle by its very nature represents a revolt against the Church (and Christ), for it proclaims that what the Church teaches is not morally obligatory. Vatican II seems to have forgotten that man's freedom resides, not in his being at liberty to believe anything he wants, but in his ability to accept or refuse what God teaches; that his dignity resides, not in acting like gods, but in his conforming himself to divine principles.

Private Judgment always starts out by accepting some of the teachings of the established faith and rejecting others - it is only a matter of time before the 'new' suffers in turn from the same principle. Within Luther's own lifetime dozens of other Protestant sects were formed, and one might add that within the post-Conciliar church the same thing has happened. That this is less obvious is because this Church blandly accepts the most divergent views - other than traditional orthodoxy - as legitimate. St. Thomas Aquinas said, 'the way of a heretic is to restrict belief in certain aspects of Christ's doctrine selected and fashioned at pleasure' (Summa II-II, 1.a.1). Obviously, this 'picking and choosing' is nothing other than the free reign of private judgment. And as sects give rise to other sects, it soon happens that all truth and falsehood in religion becomes a matter of private opinion and one doctrine becomes as good as another. Again, it is only a matter of time before all doctrinal issues become irrelevant (who can ever agree about them anyway?). What follows is that morality loses its objective character, and being based on 'social contract', can alter in accord with prevailing social needs(4). Man, not God, becomes the center of the universe and the criteria for truth; doing good to others becomes his highest aspiration, and 'progress' his social goal. The idea of 'sin' is limited to what 'hurts' our neighbor or the 'state'. What need is there for God, for truth, for doctrines, for authority, for the Church and for all the 'claptrap' of the ages that has held man back from his worldly 'destiny'? All that is asked of modern man is that he be 'sincere', and that he not disturb his neighbor excessively. If in this milieu he manages to retain any religious sense at all, it is considered a 'private matter'. Man's 'dignity', which traditionally was due to the fact that he was 'made in the image of God', is now said to derive from his independence of God. In reality, man has been so seduced by the serpent - 'Ye shall be as Gods' - that he has proclaimed himself his own God. (As Paul VI said on the occasion of the moon landing, 'honor to man... king of earth,... and today, prince of heaven!'). He lives by his own morality and only accepts the truths that he himself has established. (It used to be said of the Protestants that 'every man was his own Pope'.) A satanic inversion has occurred and man cries out, as did once the Angel of Light - Non Serviam - I will not serve any master other than myself(5).

Of course, all this occurs in stages. What is remarkable is the similarity of pattern seen in all 'reformation movements'. What starts out as the denial of one or two revealed truths (or of truths derived from revelation), progressively ends up in the denial of them all(6). Similar also are the various subterfuges by which this is achieved. Almost all reformers declare that they are 'inspired by the Holy Spirit' (and who can argue with the Holy Spirit?) and end up by ignoring or denying His existence. All claim to be returning to 'primitive Christianity', which is nothing other than Christianity as they think it should have been all along. All, or almost all, claim that the are adapting the Faith to the needs of modern man, which is nothing else than an appeal to the pride and arrogance of their followers and an attempt to make Christianity conform to their personal needs(7). All quote Scripture, but selectively and out of context, and never those parts that disagree with their innovative ideas - thus it follows that they reject the traditional interpretation given to the sacred writings by the Church Fathers and the Saints. All mix truth with error, for error has no attractive power on its own. All attack the established rites, for they know that the lex orandi (the manner of prayer) reflects the lex credendi (the manner of believing); once the latter is changed, the former becomes an embarrassment to them(8). All use the traditional terms of religion: love, truth, justice and faith, but attach to them a different meaning. And what are all these subterfuges but means of introducing their own private and personal judgments on religious matters into the public domain? Finally, none of the reformers fully agree with each other except in their rejection of the 'fullness' of the established Catholic faith, for error is 'legion' and truth is one. As one mediaeval writer put it, 'they are vultures that never meet together except to feast upon a corpse'(9).

The traditional Church has of course always eschewed the use of 'private judgment' in religious matters. From a traditional point of view, man should seek to 'think correctly' rather than to 'think for himself'. (What kind of mathematician would a person be who computed for himself and considered the correct answer to be a matter of 'feeling' arising from his subconscious?) The Jewish fathers considered private judgment the greatest form of idolatry because it made oneself rather than God the source of truth. As has been pointed out above, man's 'liberty' lies, not in his freedom to decide for himself just what is true and false, but in his freedom to accept or reject the truth that Christ and the Church teach and offer. It is a saying of common wisdom that no man should be his own advocate or physician, lest his emotions interfere with his judgment(10). If we are careful to obtain authoritative advise and direction in the management of our physical and economic well-being, it becomes absurd for us to relegate the health of our soul to the 'whims' of our emotions. As Socrates said, 'Being deceived by ourselves is the most dreadful of all things, for when he who deceives us never departs from us even for a moment, but is always present, is it not a most fearful thing?' (Cratylus, 428, D). As soon as we make ourselves rather than God speaking through the Church, the criterion of truth, we end up by making man qua man the center of the universe and all truth becomes both subjective and relative. This is why Pope Saint Pius X said 'we must use every means and bend every effort to bring about the total disappearance of that enormous and detestable wickedness so characteristic of our time - the substitution of man for God' (E Supremo Apostolatu).

There is of course an area in which legitimate use can, and indeed must, be made of what is sometimes - though erroneously - called Private Judgment. In that case what are being made are not judgments in the Protestant sense, which are mere opinions, but rather objectively certain judgments which are nevertheless reasonable.(11) It must never be forgotten that the intellect of a private individual is capable in certain far from infrequent circumstances, of making judgments which are not liable to error, because within due limits the human intellect is infallible. As Father Hickey states in his Summa Philosophiae Scholasticae, 'the intellect is 'per se' infallible, although 'per accidens' it can err.' As Dr. Orestes Brownson states, 'private judgment (in the Protestant sense) is only when the matters judged lie out of the range of reason, and when its principle is not the common reason of mankind, nor a Catholic or public authority, but the fancy, the caprice, the prejudice or the idiosyncrasy of the individual forming it.'(12)

Such for example is the judgment a man makes use of in seeking the truth, and which makes him aware that in matters where he lacks full understanding, it is appropriate to use a guide. Again, there is the use of judgment in the application of principles to a given situation (conscience as the Catholic understands it), or in areas where the Church has never specifically spoken and where it allows for differences of legitimate 'theological opinion'. In all these situations there is a criterion of certainty beyond the individual and evidence is adducible which ought to convince the reason of every man, and which when adduced, does convince every man of ordinary understanding. Having stated the distinction between mere opinion and the proper individual use of judgment we can further add that such judgment can never rationally be used to abrogate principles or deny revealed truths. These same distinctions make it clear how false it is to accuse Traditional Catholics who adhere to the teachings and practices of the Church of All Times, and who reject innovations that go against the deposit of the faith, of using private judgment in a Protestant sense. To label them as 'Rebels' or 'Protestants' because they refuse to change their beliefs is either an abuse of language or pure hypocrisy.

Private judgment in the Protestant sense is inimical to the spiritual life not only because it denies the authority of Revelation, but because it also denies intellection. God gave us an intellect by means of which we can know truth from falsehood and right from wrong. Reason is normally the 'handmaid' of the intellect, which means its function is that of ratiocination or discoursing from premises to conclusions. Truth does not depend on reason, but rather truth becomes explicit with the help of Reason. We do not say something is true because it is logical, but rather that it is logical because it is true. Reason must then feed on some sustenance, and this it gets from above or from below; above from intellection and Revelation; below from feelings and sense perceptions. Modern man, while occasionally using his higher 'cognitive' faculties, in the practical order refuses to grant their existence. More precisely, being Nominalist, he refuses to accept any premises from above and limits the function of reason to dealing with what comes from below, from his feelings or sense perceptions. In this schema Reason is placed at the apex of man's faculties (Rationalism). Given these truncated principles, it follows that all truth is based on feelings and sense perceptions and hence is relative(13). Modern man lives on 'Opinions divorced from knowledge', which in Plato's words 'are ugly things.'(14) At the same time there was a parallel attack on the will. While mechanists and evolutionists deny free-will altogether, pseudo-theologians obliterated it in the name of a false concept of grace. (What else is 'justification by faith', but the denial of 'good works', those acts we 'willfully' perform. Surely grace builds on nature and will abandon us in proportion to our refusal to cooperate with it.)(15)

Those who see the futility of resolving religious issues on the basis of their (or someone else's) personal and subjective opinions, and who seek objective and external sources for the Truth, must inevitably turn to the various 'churches' for a solution. Of all the various 'ecclesiastical communities' that hold out the possibility of finding objective truth, only one has consistently rejected 'private judgment' as a source. Only one proclaims that God Himself (through Christ and the Apostles) has revealed the truth, and only one claims and can demonstrate that it has retained this 'deposit' intact from Apostolic times down to the present. This is of course, the 'One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church'. To quote St. Alphonsus Liguori: 'To reject the divine teaching of the Catholic Church is to reject the very basis of reason and revelation, for neither the principles of the one nor those of the other have any longer any solid support to rest on; they can be interpreted by everyone as he pleases; every one can deny all truths whatsoever he chooses to deny. I therefore repeat: If the divine teaching authority of the Church, and the obedience to it are rejected, every error will be endorsed and must be tolerated.'(16)

FOOTNOTES

1. Atheists and those that deny the existence of any 'religious issue' also exercise private judgment - either their own or by submitting to the private judgment of others. Ultimately the only authority for private judgment is what an individual or group 'feels' is true. Some claim their beliefs are based on reason, but if reason were a sufficient guide to religious truth, and if all men reasoned alike, all would believe the same 'truths'. The Church teaches that we are not allowed to believe anything against reason, but at the same time offers to us many mysteries or truths which, even though they cannot be proved by reason, are in themselves reasonable. Such truths are said to be 'beyond reason' in the sense that they derive from Revelation. If neither Revelation nor reason is the source of our beliefs, then they must arise from our sub-conscious. Thus William James defines religion as the 'feelings, acts and experiences of individual men in their solitude, so far as they apprehend themselves to stand in relation to whatever they may consider the divine.' (quoted in Fulton Sheen, God and Intelligence in Modern Philosophy, Longmans: N.Y., 1925). The idea that religion is a feeling arising in the subconscious is a condemned proposition of Modernism (Immanentism).

2. 'Groups' or 'ecclesiastical communities' may agree on broad issues, but never on detailed doctrine. The Protestant denominations early found it necessary to distinguish between 'fundamental' and 'non-fundamental' beliefs - the latter of which their followers were free to 'pick and choose'. Catholics are forbidden to make such distinctions. They must believe all that the Church teaches - even those things of which they may not be specifically aware. Yet this is the basic concept that underlies the modern ecumenical movements: as long as we are 'baptized in Christ', we are free to believe anything we want. In order to get around the difficulty Vatican II teaches that 'when comparing doctrines, they should remember that in Catholic teaching there exists an order or 'hierarchy' of truths, since they vary in their relationship to the foundation of the Christian faith' (De Oecumenismo). Dr. Oscar Cullman (one of the Protestant 'observers') considers this passage the 'most revolutionary' to be found in the entire Council, and Dr. McAfee Brown concurs while adding that the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption which are 'stumbling blocks in the ecumenical discussion' should clearly be well down on the scale of the 'hierarchy of truths'. (Michael Davies, Pope John's Council, Augustine: Devon, 1977).

3. Religious Freedom, Paragraph 11.

4. Consider the following statement given out in June 1978 by the Catholic Theological Society of America: 'Any form of sexual intercourse, including both homosexuality and adultery, could be considered acceptable, so long as it is self-liberating, other enriching, honest, faithful, socially responsible, life-serving and joyous.'' (The traditional Church considers Homosexuality a sin 'crying unto heaven for vengeance on earth' - Gen. 18:20-21; Rom. 1:26-32.) It will be argued that Rome protested against this statement - however all the individuals responsible are still functioning as Catholic priests with full faculties to hear confession and some of them teach in seminaries. No recantation was ever required. Much closer to the Catholic position is the statement of the Rev. Jesse Jackson, a black activist leader. 'One has to have an ethical base for a society. Where the prime force is impulse, there is the death of ethics. America used to have ethical laws based on Jerusalem. Now they are based on Sodom and Gomorrah, and civilizations rooted in Sodom and Gomorrah are destined to collapse.'

5. To quote Michael Davies (Pope Paul's New Mass, p. 140): 'It was the Council as an event which gave the green light to the process of the formal deification of man.' He quotes Father Gregory Baum, one of the periti (experts) at the Council, and currently head of the Congregation in charge of seminaries, as stating 'I prefer to think that man may not submit to an authority outside of himself.' Or again, John Paul II's statement: 'To create culture, we must consider, down to the last consequences and entirely, Man as a particular and independent value, as the subject bearing the person's transcendence. We must affirm Man for his own sake, and not for some other motive or reason; solely for himself! Even further, we must love man because he is man, by reason of the special dignity he possesses' (Address to UNESCO, June 2, 1980).

6. A Catholic cannot deny any truth the Church teaches. He must accept them all. As Pope Leo XIII said, 'To refuse to believe in any one of them is equivalent to rejecting them all' (Sapientiae Christianae).

7. Few recognize the internal contradiction between returning to primitive practice and adapting the faith to the needs of modern man. The combination attacks the faith at both ends and leaves very little in the middle.

8. Pertinent is Paul VI's statement quoted in La Documentation Catholique of 3 May, 1970 to the effect that his Novus ordo Missae (the new mass) 'has imparted greater theological value to the liturgical texts so that the lex orandi conformed better with the lex credendi'. This is a frank declaration that either the liturgical texts in use for hundreds of years by the Catholic Church did not possess the degree of theological value which was desirable, or that his new 'mass' reflects a change in the lex credendi. Jean Madiran commented on this to the effect that 'the new Eucharistic prayers must conform better than the Roman Canon [did] with the true faith; this is also the opinion of the Taize community, the Anglicans, the Lutherans, and the World Council of Churches...' (Itineraires, Dec. 1973) I

9. 'the principal sin of heretics is their pride... In their pride they insist on their own opinions... frequently they serve God with great fervor and they do not intend any evil; but they serve God according to their own wills... Even when refuted, they are ashamed to retract their errors and to change their words... They think they are guided directly by God... The things which have been established for centuries and for which so many martyrs have suffered death, they begin to treat as doubtful questions... They interpret the Bible according to their own heads and their own particular views and carry their own opinions into it...' (Theological lectures on the Psalms, Dresden 1876; quoted by J. Verres,. Luther, Burns Oates: London, 1884). Ex ore tuo te judico!

10. It has also been said that a man who is his own spiritual guide has Satan for his spiritual director.

11. Cf. Dr. Orestes Brownson: 'Private judgement is only when the matters judged be out of the range of reason, and when its principle is not the common reason of mankind, nor a Catholic or public authority, but the fancy, the caprice, the prejudice or the idiosyncrasy of the individual forming it.' (Brownson's Quarterly Review, Oct. 1851). 'Here is the error of our Protestant friends. They recognize no distinction between reason and private judgment. Reason is common to all men; private judgment is the special act of an individual... In all matters of this sort there is a criterion of certainty beyond the individual, and evidence is adducible which ought to convince the reason of every man, and which, when adduced, does convince every man of ordinary understanding, unless through his own fault. Private judgment is not so called... because it is a judgment of an individual, but because it is a judgment rendered by virtue of a private rule of principle of judgment... The distinction here is sufficiently obvious, and from it we may conclude that nothing is to be termed 'private judgment' which is demonstrable from reason or provable from testimony.' (ibid, Oct. 1852).

12. 'Catholics establish with certainty, by objective criteria, the fact that the Church is infallible and then listen in docility to her teachings and at no point does mere opinion play any part in the procedure; whereas Protestants opine that Holy Scripture is Divinely revealed (this cannot be proved without the Church); they opine that it is to be interpreted by each individual for himself; they opine that their opinion as to its meaning will be sufficient for their salvation; and each and every interpretation they make of its meaning (except where no conceivable doubt exists from the text) is no more than an opinion.' John Daly, Michael Davies - An Evaluation, Britons Catholic Library, 1989. I am grateful to this author for his suggestions and corrections in this part of the text.

13. Father Smarius, S.J., puts it thus: 'The chief cause of this moral degeneracy may be traced to the principle of private judgment introduced by Luther and Calvin, as the highest and only authority in religion and morality. Since the time of these Reformers, religion ceased to be the mistress, and became the slave of man. He was no longer bound to obey her, but she was bound to obey him. His reason was no longer subject to her divine authority, but she became the subject of his prejudices and passions. The Scriptures although cried up as the supreme authority, lost their objective value, and men no longer listened to the words 'Thus saith the Lord', but gave ear to the freaks and fancies of every upstart prophet and doctor, whose best reason for the faith was, 'I believe so', 'it is my impression', 'it is my opinion'. Reason itself was dethroned, and feeling became the exponent of truth. Men judged of religion as they did of their breakfasts and dinner... new fashions of belief became as numerous as new fashions of dress...' Points of Controversy, O'Shea: N.Y., 1873.

14. Plato, Republic, IV, 506C.

15. The current expression of this error is the Protestant claim to be 'saved'. Those who are certain of their salvation would do well to consider the words of St. Paul: 'I fight, not as one beating the air: but I chastise my body, and bring it into subjection, lest perhaps when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway' (1 Cor. 10:1-5). The Church has always taught that as long as man has the use of his faculties, he is capable of denying God and falling from grace.

16. Appendix to his work on the Council of Trent

CHAPTER II, Part 5
THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH

'One Lord, one faith, one baptism'
St. Paul (Eph. 4:4-5)

Having determined the nature of the teaching authority of the Church we can now turn to yet another quality inherent in her nature: INERRANCY. In essence, she cannot wander from the original deposit and still claim to be the 'One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.'

It is amazing to what a degree these four qualities hang together - lose one and you lose them all. The Church is one in the doctrines she teaches. 'She is called holy and without spot or wrinkle in her faith; which admits of no sort of errors against the revealed word of God.' She is called Catholic not only because her teachings extend across time and space in this world, but because the term means 'universal' and the doctrines she teaches are true throughout the entire universe, in heaven, on earth and in hell. She is called Apostolic because she teaches the same doctrines which the Apostles taught, and because she retains intact the Apostolic Succession. Only the 'Catholic Church has these qualities, and it follows that other Churches which deny one or more of her teachings cannot be considered as the Church which Christ founded any more then they can claim 'union' with her.(1)

Oneness or 'unity' exists as a characteristic of this Church, not because the faithful agree with 'the bishops in union with the Pope', but because all its members, including the bishops and the pope 'agree in one faith' established by Christ, use 'the same Sacrifice' and are 'united under one Head'(2). It is not the agreement of the faithful with any faith the hierarchy may wish to teach, or to use any rite the hierarchy may wish to establish, but rather the agreement of both the laity and the hierarchy (who one hopes is also to be numbered among the faithful) with the doctrines and the rites that Christ and the Apostles established. Nor is the concept of unity restricted to the living, for by the very nature of things, we must be in agreement with all those Catholics who have gone before us back to the time of Christ, with those Catholics in the Church Suffering (Purgatory) and the Church Triumphant (Heaven).

It is repeatedly claimed by the present hierarchy that the Church has lost this 'unity' and that the various divisions among Christians constitute a scandal that must be repaired. The Latin title for the Vatican II document on Ecumenism is Unitatis redintegratio or 'The Restoring of Unity'. John XXIII established the 'Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity' and specified that Unity was the word, not Reunion. A new 'unity' is to be restored by claiming all Christian bodies that accept baptism are part of the true Church. In a similar manner the Documents of Vatican II state that the Church that Christ established subsists in the Catholic Church rather than is this Church. Recently the entire body of English post-Conciliar 'bishops' - some 42 individuals in all - publicly declared in an official communiqué on the nature of the Church that the Catholic Church embodies the Church of Christ in a special way, but that such a statement 'is not intended to exclude the fact that other Christian bodies also belong to the Church of Christ.' They further stated that the Church which Christ established also subsists in the Anglican Church. The response of an Anglican 'bishop' is pertinent: 'What has been swept aside from the ecumenical scene is the idea that the Church of Christ is identical with the Roman Catholic Church. Instead we have a picture of the Church of Christ embracing all the Christian churches, though not in the same way....'(3). If such is the position of the English hierarchy, it would seem clear that it has apostatized to a man from unity of the faith. And what of Rome which never reprimanded them?

As opposed to such a view, and based on what has been the constant teaching of the Church, unity exists and has always existed in the true Church. This unity exists even if the majority of the present hierarchy deviate from orthodoxy - indeed it is a matter of faith that such is the case(4). This is witnessed by the de fide statement of the Holy Office on November 8, 1865: 'That the Unity of the church is absolute and indivisible, and that the church had never lost its unity, nor for so much as a time, ever can.'(5)

If the new Church is telling us it lacks unity, it is also telling us that the pope and the bishops in union with him have deviated from orthodoxy and hence lost all magisterial authority. That the greater majority of modern-day 'Catholics' agree with such an errant hierarchy adds nothing to their authority. The personal views of the hierarchy do not make up the 'deposit of the faith', but rather, it is the 'deposit' that provides the hierarchy for their raison d'etre. 'It is the office of the Church... in fulfilling Christ's function as teacher, not to make new revelations, but to guard from error the deposit of faith, and authentically, authoritatively, to proclaim and interpret the Gospel of Jesus Christ'(6). As the Holy Office states, 'the Primacy of the Visible Head is of divine Institution, and was ordained to generate and to preserve the unity both of faith and of communion...'(7). Authority exists to protect the faith and not the other way around.

In the face of the post-Conciliar attitude, it is of interest to recall the statement of the Anglican convert Henry Manning: 'We believe union to be a very precious gift, and only less precious than truth... We are ready to purchase the reunion of our separated brethren at any cost less than the sacrifice of one jot of a little of the supernatural order to unity and faith... We can offer unity only on the condition on which we hold it - unconditional submission to the living and perpetual voice of the Church of god... it is contrary to charity to put a straw across the path of those who profess to desire union. But there is something more divine than union, that is the Faith'

'There is no unity possible except by the way of truth. Truth first, unity afterwards; truth the cause, unity the effect. To invert this order is to overthrow the Divine procedure. The unity of Babel ended in confusion... To unite the Anglican, the Greek and the Catholic Church in any conceivable way could only end in a Babel of tongues, intellects, and wills. Union is not unity... Truth alone generates unity. The unity of truth generated its universality. The faith is Catholic, not only because it is spread through the world, but because throughout the world it is one and the same. The unity of the faith signifies that it is the same in every place [and time]'(8). As the English Bishop John Milner said of the Anglo-Catholic Ecumenical movement in the 19th Century: 'if we should unite ourselves with it, the Universal Church would disunite itself from us'.

If we are then to speak of believing in the 'One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church' we must understand the phrase in the 'same sense and mind' that the Church has always understood it(9). 'There is only one true Church which remounts to Apostolic time by means of its traditions... For us, we recognize only one ancient and Catholic Church, which is one by its nature, by its principles, by its origin, by its excellence, which reunites all its children in the unity of one same faith...' (St. Clement of Alexandria). 'Such is the faith, which the Church received; and although she is spread throughout the universe, she guards with care this precious treasure, as if she inhabited but one house; she professes each of these articles of faith with a perfect conformity, as if she had only one soul and one heart. Behold what it is she teaches, what it is she preaches, what it is she transmits by tradition, as if she had only one mouth and only one tongue...' (St. Irenaeus). 'What they [the Church Fathers] believe, I believe; what they held, I hold; what they taught, I teach; what they preached, I preach...' (St. Augustine). It is with these principles in mind that we shall, in the next chapter, investigate the sources of the Church's teachings and practices.(10)

FOOTNOTES:

1. This paragraph is not intended to exhaust the meaning of this term in the Creed. The Church is holy, not only because she admits no errors against the revealed word of God, but also because she is holy in her Sacraments and morals; because her children, as long as they are preserved in their baptismal innocence or restored to it, are holy, and because of the communion of saints. The Apostolic Succession is the 'iniatiatic chain' which conveys the power of confecting the Sacraments from one generation to the next. This 'succession' pertains to the order of bishops who in this manner preserve the 'Apostolic function' down through the ages.

2. That 'Head' is Jesus Christ whose representative or 'vicar' on earth is the Pope. Hence it follows that to refuse to obey a pope who commands us to do what is against the laws of God is never to 'attack' the papacy, but rather to defend it.

3. The Remnant, Feb. 15, 1984. As the Documents of Vatican II state, 'all those justified by faith through baptism are incorporated with Christ. They therefore have a right to be honored with the title of Christian, and are properly regarded as brothers in the Lord by the sons of the Catholic Church... From her very beginnings there arose in this one and only Church of God certain rifts which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries more widespread disagreements appeared and quite large Communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic church - developments for which, at times, men of both sides were to blame. However, none cannot impute the sin of separation to those who at present are born into these communities and are instilled therein with Christ's faith. The Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers. For men who believe in Christ and who have been properly baptized are brought into a certain though imperfect communion with the Catholic Church.' Elsewhere the Document states 'the brethren divided from us also carry out many of the sacred actions of the Christian religion. Undoubtedly, in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community, these actions can truly engender a life of grace and can be rightly described as capable of providing access to the community of salvation' (Decree on Ecumenism). The Anglican minister James Atkinson makes the following comment on such passages: 'The council Fathers made a valuable concession, the significance of which has not been sufficiently grasped, when they conceded a unity in baptism, an insight of Luther himself and a frequent emphasis of the late Cardinal Bea when he headed the ecumenical commissariat.' (Rome and Reformation Today, Latimer Studies No. 12, Oxford). He quotes Luther as saying 'A Christian or baptized man cannot loose his salvation, even if he would, by sins, however numerous; unless he refuses to believe' (The Babylonian Captivity).
Now the idea that unity of any kind rests on baptism alone, or that we are 'justified through faith in Baptism' is false. These teachings violate a whole host of traditional Catholic doctrines such as 'there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church'. There is no such thing as being a partial Catholic; nor can the Church admit that the rites of non Catholics are a source of grace. How different is the statement of Pius XII: 'only those are to be included as real members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith and have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the body or been excluded from it by legitimate authority for serious faults.' St. Fulgentius teaches: 'for neither baptism, nor liberal alms, nor death itself for the profession of Christ, can avail a man anything in order to salvation if he does not hold the unity of the Catholic Church' (ad Petrum Diaconum. C. 39).

4. If not, the 'gates of hell' would have prevailed. Actually, if only one true Catholic were to be left alive on earth, unity would reside in him.

5. Quoted in The Reunion of Christendom, A Pastoral Letter to the Clergy, Archbishop Henry Manning, Appleton: N.Y., 1866.

6. Canon George Smith, The Teaching of the Catholic Church, Macmillan, N.Y., 1949.

7. op. cit. No. 39.

8. op. cit. No. 39.

9. Lutherans and Anglicans also use the Nicene Creed in which this phrase is found. They of course hold that Catholics teach a false religion, and that as such they have no right to use the phrase. John Paul II did not hesitate to repeat the Nicene Creed with the Lutherans when he joined them in their service in Rome in 1983. One wonders whether he understood the phrase in the Lutheran or the Catholic sense.

10. Quotations in this paragraph are respectively from Strom. lib. vii; Advers haeres. lib. 1. 10 and Lib. 1. Cont. Jul. cap. 3 The Quote from Augustine is given in Cardinal Joannes Franzelin's Tractatus de Divina Traditione et Scriptura, De Prop. Fide: Rome, 1870.

CHAPTER II, Part 6
THE PRESENT SITUATION

Few would deny but that the present situation in the Church is one of massive confusion. No two priests or bishops teach the same doctrine and every possible aberration is allowed in liturgical functions. How is a Catholic seeking to live the faith able to sort out the issues. The answer is the Magisterium. It is amazing to what degree this organ provides us with answers as to how to react and function, the limits of obedience to a false hierarchy, and even with regard to the authority of a pope who officially promulgates heresy under the cover of magisterial authority.

We can of course debate as to what is part of the ordinary magisterium and what is not. The criteria provided by Vatican I are all we really need to determine this. What we cannot do is deny the de fide teaching that the ordinary magisterium is just as infallible as the extraordinary magisterium.(1)

The greatest error possible is to deny the total authority of the Magisterium (remembering that there is only one magisterium that expresses itself in a variety of ways). To do so is to cut oneself off from truth and to turn one into a Protestant.(2) We have spoken of the possibility of holding theological opinions, but when one examines the magisterium, there is almost nothing significant left about which to have theological opinions.(3) Those who would tell us that the ordinary magisterium can contain error are wolves in sheep's clothing. If such is the case we must all become super theologians so as to pick and choose what is true and false among some 95% of the Church's teaching. Such an attitude allows one to reject anything one doesn't personally approve of while at the same time allowing for the introduction of every possible error. It is a satanic proposition.

And all this highlights the present situation in the Church with clarity. It is clear that Vatican II teaches a host of doctrines under the cover of magisterial infallibility that directly contradict what the Church has taught through the ages as true. If one accepts the teaching of Vatican II and the definition of the Mass that is promulgated in the General Instruction on the Novus Ordo Missae(4) - which all must do who accept the authority of the post-Conciliar 'popes,' one is forced to deny previously taught truths which is to apostatize from the faith.(5) Putting this in different terms, the Catholic today is forced to choose between two different magisteriums. That such is the case is glossed over by claiming that the living character of the Magisterium allows for development, progress or evolution of doctrine, another concept embraced by Vatican II. Now certain principles are clear. We can develop or deepen our understanding of the Magisterium, but the Magisterium itself cannot change under the euphemism of development. The reason for this is that Truth cannot change. Another principle involved is that once something is declared to be magisterial teaching, it takes priority over any change. Two contraries cannot be simultaneously true. It follows that one cannot remove what is magisterial from the Magisterium.

Once again this is affirmed by the Magisterium: 'Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be recession from that meaning under the species name of a deeper understanding [Can.3]. Therefore... let the understanding, the knowledge, and wisdom of individuals as of all, of one man as of the whole Church, grow and progres strongly with the passage of the ages and the centuries; but let it be solely in its own genus, namely in the same dogma, with the sane sense and the same understanding.' (Denzinger 1800)

We have then the Magisterium as it existed up to the death of Pope Pius XII which can be called 'authentic,' and that which, having it's roots in an attempt to bring the Church into line with the modern world, established during the reign of John XXIII. Apart from Roncalli's prior freemasonic connections, we have his first act on assuming the papal role was to delete the phrases referring to and praying for the conversion of the 'perfidious Jews' from the Good Friday services. (Obviously, there were perfidious and non-perfidious Jews, just as there are perfidious and nonperfidious Catholics. Who would say Nicoddemus or Simeon were perfidious? Who would not say Simon Magnus was not perfidious?) This seemingly simple act, disguised under the cover of a false charity, was a declaration on his part of the principle of non serviam. It was like a first step in establishing the new post-Conciliar Church. It was followed with a host of other doctrinal changes.(6)

Catholics are often confused about the term Faith. Faith has, as St. Thomas explains, two aspects. There is the objective side of The Faith - which is incorporated or expressed by the Magisterium (and this is a 'gift'), and there is the subjective side of Faith which is the assent we give to the Revelation as taught by the Magisterium. Thus to claim to have the Catholic Faith requires that we give our whole-hearted assent to the Magisterium including those parts that we may not be fully aware of. The same is true of those who follow the post-Conciliar pseudo-Magisterium. Those of us who believe in a Revelation that is true and who strive to be able to able to say with St. Paul 'I live, not I, but Christ within me,' must be sure to adhere to the authentic magisterium given us by Him who is 'the Way, the Light and the Truth.' People who hide behind the present confusions, the shibboleths of doctrine development, obedience to the popes, etc., are in essence refusing to make the choice and run the risk of being included among the 'lukewarm.' (The degree of responsibility varies greatly with circumstance but clearly falls more on the hierarchy responsible for preserving and teaching the 'deposit of the Faith.') The reason why Catholics who adhere to the authentic Magisterium call themselves 'traditional,' is because tradition is what is 'handed down.' Those adhering to the post-Conciliar pseudo-magisterium have no right to use this term.

One can in fact label the objective side of faith as being equivalent to the authentic magisterium. St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that faith (i.e., the authentic magisterium) holds the first rank in the spiritual life because it is by faith alone that the soul is bound to God and that which gives life to the soul is that which binds it to God, namely faith. God has opened to us no other way to eternal happiness than that of faith... he who has been raised to contemplation look not on faith as inferior to this extraordinary gift. The clearer and more comprehensive his vision, the stronger does one's faith become. As St. Catherine of Sienna said, 'the gift of prophecy can be recognized as true only by the light of the faith.'

This brings us to the issue of orthodoxy which is defined as 'true doctrine and sound faith.' It is only in light of the above need to be one with Christ and His Magisterium that heresy has meaning and also clearly risk. This is why the Magisterial condemnation of error always demands our assent. It is pertinent that the post-Conciliar Church has dropped the use of the Index and declares itself unwilling to condemn the grossest of errors. 'Pope' John Paul I publicly stated that in the Old Church 'only the Truth had rights, but now we know that even error has rights.' Once again however we must be careful. The True Church distinguishes between the possibility that we may be mistaken about some Magisterial point and therefore speaks of 'material' heresy (some 'matter' about which we are mistaken) as opposed to 'formal' heresy. She requests that 'competent authority' point out a material error to the individual involved and allow him six months to study the issue and correct him or herself. If after six months this correction is not made, the Church considers the individual to have added an attitude of 'obstinacy' to the error and normally deprives the individual of at least his teaching function. This is not 'thought control,' but the insisting on responsible people thinking correctly. 'Brethren, Let this mind be in you, which was also in Jesus Christ' (Phil.2,5)

All this highlights the dilemma of the Catholic in the post-Conciliar era and there is no rational way around this. Catholics who do not wish to drift are forced to choose. In order to get a perspective on the need to take a stand, one has only to ask how many Catholics would run their stock port-folio without investigations and choices. Despite all the supposed confusions fostered by 'the world, the flesh and the devil,' Holy Mother Church has provided us with all the criteria needed to make the right choices. The grounds for such choices are further delineated in other parts of 'The Destruction of the Christian Tradition' which is a text based on magisterial teachings.(7)

One further point. Those that assert their own opinions between the Magisterium and the faithful in essence create a cult in the pejorative sense of the word. Thus it is that both the post-Conciliar Church and such organizations as the Society of Pius X (advocating disobeying a Pope whose authority they recognize) are from this point of view 'cults' and not Catholic.(8)

All this raises the issue of obedience. Now obedience is a moral virtue. Faith Hope and Charity are theological virtues. Obedience without the theological virtues is an absurdity because it is always possible to give obedience to a wrong authority, even to Satan himself. Faith Hope and Charity are the proper objects of obedience - normally they are mediated through the Church hierarchy, but they reside ultimately in Him who is the Truth, The Way and the Light. Now this Truth, Way and Light resides above all in what He taught and teaches, which is incorporated in the Magisterium - once again, both the Ordinary and Extra-ordinary. Hence it follows that we must give our obedience (or what the Church calls our 'intellectual assent') to the entire Magisterium. Only by so doing can we think with Christ. And if we are to be Baptized with Christ, Buried with Christ and Resurrected with Christ, we must then also think with Christ.(9)

FOOTNOTES:

1. An excellent summary with documentation from over 50 recognized theologians dealing with 'The Infallibility of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church' by Father Bernard Lucien (in English) is available from the author for $15.00

2. Father Noel Barbara has stated: 'As soon as we accept the magisterium as the proximate rule of faith, we should make a firm determination to never in any way depart from her official teaching, and this not only with regard to matters of faith, but also with regard to matters of discipline. With regard to the authentic teachings we should forbid ourselves to make any distinctions between those things which we like while rejecting those we find difficult to accept. When I speak of the magisterium it should be clear that I am thinking of the authentic magisterium of the Church and not that of the popes of Vatican II. The teaching of the infallible magisterium and her disciplinary decisions are to be found in the authentic documents which are available for us to consult.' (Letter)

3. There can be no doubt but that the post-Conciliar 'popes' have rejected the authority of the Magisterium and would lead us to do the same. They thus have lost their authority because it cannot be said of them that he who hears them is hearing Christ. This is not a matter of 'theological opinion.' However, when it comes to describing or designating what these 'popes' should be called, or to explaining how this is happened, (materialiter/formaliter, sede vacante, etc., ) we are forced by circumstance into the realm of theological opinion.

4. There are those that argue that this document is not part of the magisterium. Once again we are being encouraged to become Protestants.

5. Despite disclaimers that Vatican II is a 'pastoral council' it should be clear that John XXIII claimed it was guided by the Holy Spirit. Paul VI in closing the Council stated that 'the teaching authority of the Church, even though not wising to issue extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements, has made thoroughly known its authoritative teaching.' Still later he stated that the Council 'avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility,' and added that it conferred on its teachings 'the value of the supreme ordinary magisterium' (Speech of Jan 12, 1966), and that 'It had as much authority and far greater importance than the Council of Nicaea.' Elsewhere he has called it 'the greatest of Councils' and 'Even greater than the Council of Trent.' Perhaps the most clear cut statement is to be found in a letter to Archbishop Lefebvre demanding his submission to the post-Conciliar Church: 'You have no right any more to bring ut the distinction between the doctrinal and pastoral that you use to support your acceptance of certain texts of Vatican Council II and your rejection of others. It is true that the matters decided in any Council do not all call for an assent of the same quality; only what the Council affirms in its �definitions' as a truth of faith or as bound up with faith requires the assent of faith. Nevertheless, the rest also form a part of the solemn magisterium of the Church to be trustingly accepted and sincerely put into practice by every Catholic.'

6. Documented in the Canon Law Digest, Vol V, p. 20 by T. Lincoln Bouscaren, S.J., and James I O'Connor, S.J., Milwaukee: Bruce.1963. As to his Freemasonic connections, these are documented by the Surite of Police in Paris when he was papal nuncio there. (Cf. L'Abomination de la Desolation by Professeur Gabriel Chabot and Commandant Rouchette, available from the latter at B.P. 151, 16105 Cognac, Cedex, France)

7. Available from James Wetmore, 343 Route 21C, Ghent N.Y., 12075

8. This issue is complex. One must remember that the grace of God floweth where it will. Cults have to be looked at objectively in terms of the degree to which they limit the flow of grace - do they for instance retain sacramental validity and to what extent do they enforce deviation? They must also be evaluated subjectively in the sense that the person participating may be able to ignore the deviation or by-pass it. But once again it is the authentic Magisterium which makes possible to proper use of judgement.

9. St. Catherine of Sienna once told the pope that if he acted in a certain way he would go to hell, and those that obeyed him would go to hell with him (Letters).

CHAPTER II, Part 7
SACRAMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

One of the most important functions of the Authentic Magisterium is to protect Sacramental integrity. The Faithful have an absolute right to the Sacraments as they were given to us by God as a 'vehicle' for the transmission of Grace. Now the post-Conciliar establishment has violated the Magisterial structures aimed at protecting these Sacraments in every possible way. Consider the traditional Mass.

This rite was protected by the Papal Bull Quo Primumwhich states that no priest can be forbidden to say this Mass, and that the faithful shall always have access to it. This Papal Bull was moreover re-affirmed by every Pope from Saint Pius V (who promulgated it) to the time of John XXIII. This is now a forbidden Mass.(1) Attempts to disguise this fact such as allowing for the so-called 'indult' Mass, or the Novus Ordo in Latin with Chant prevail. Similarly organizations of seemingly traditional priests such as the Society of St. Peter are organized, but ordained with post-Conciliar 'bishops' who almost certainly do not have the power to pass on Holy Orders. But the fact remains that the Mass of All Times is forbidden and if one doubts this statement, simply go and ask a post-Conciliar 'bishop' for permission to attend it. Now this rite is not only forbidden, it has been replaced by a false Mass in which the 'Words of Consecration' (no longer led such) given us by Christ Himself have been changed. Remembering that we are dealing, as Scripture says, with 'powers and principalities,' this action of the post-Conciliar establishment must be labeled diabolical.(2) In a similar manner all the Sacraments that depend upon the priesthood, and particularly that of Episcopal consecration have been rendered at least doubtful if not totally destroyed.

An excellent example illustrating many of these issues is provided by E. Sylvester Berry. 'According to Protestant teaching, all men are free to worship 'God according to the dictates of their own conscience.' the doctrine is widely proclaimed today as 'freedom of conscience' or 'freedom of worship.' It simply means that every man is free, not only to believe according to his own interpretation of the Scriptures, but also to worship God in his own way. This either denies that Our Lord established any definite form of worship in the New Law, or maintains that we cannot know with certainty what it is, for surely no Christian could believe that he is free to worship as he pleases, if he admits that Christ has established a definite form of worship to be used by His followers.(3)

FOOTNOTES:

1. Many attempts to disguise this fact behind such names as 'abrogated' are used. Groups petitioning for the return of this Mass are asked not to refer to the Bull Quo Primum, which is absurd.

2. Cf. Rama P. Coomaraswamy, M.D., The Problems with the New Mass, TAN: Rockford III. See also A History of the Traditional or Tridentine Mass, Sophia, Vol, No.2 &3, 1995-6 (Foundation for Traditional Studies, POB 370, Oakton, VA 22124.

3. The Church of Christ, E. Sylvester Berry, D.D., London : Herder Book Co, , 1927.

A WORD ON THE USE OF ONE'S CONSCIENCE

Many hold that their decision as to how to behave in the present circumstances is one of following their conscience. Catholics should be understand just what this means and again the Magisterium makes it quite clear. One's Catholic conscience is not a 'still small voice' such as Newman and the Protestants believe in. There is a theological and metaphysical teaching that Synderesis (the divine spark within us) cannot err, but conscience can. Our consciences are far too easily influenced by our emotions and passions, by the milieu in which we live, and this is to say nothing of the effects of Original Sin. For a Catholic the conscience is a faculty used to apply God's laws (knowable from the Magisterium) to a given circumstance where the Church has not provided clear guidance. One cannot perform an abortion because one's conscience 'allows' one to do so. Nor can one use one's conscience to choose the 'lesser of two evils,' when both are against God's laws. One of course is responsible for a well formed conscience, which is to say, for knowing the laws of God (as they pertain to one's station in life), as promulgated by the Church and how they apply. But it would be impossible for the Church to formulate specifics for every possible situation nuanced or otherwise. Hence it is that Our Lord provides us with a conscience that allows us to apply the laws we know to some specific circumstance.(1) Where there is doubt as to such application, the Church recommends consulting a competent (and orthodox) confessor.

It should be abundantly clear on the basis of what has been said that a Catholic cannot reject the authentic Magisterium of the Church on the grounds of conscience. The Magisterium, the 'proximate rule of faith,' is in fact God's law for man. It is the Truth, and one obviously cannot deny the truth on the grounds of conscience.

The idea that God's love will protect us from the consequences of our rebellion is fraught with danger. Love is a reciprocal affair and as St. Francis de Sales instructs us in his Treatise on the Love of God, it has three aspects: love of delight in the divine perfections; love of benevolence, by which we will to praise the Lord, to serve him and work for His glory; and love of conformity, by which we accept all that God wills or expects of us, a love which has its consummation in the total donation of ourselves to God.

In the final analysis the Church has not left us orphans. She has provided all that we need to be Catholic in the present circumstances. Those that would argue that rejecting the heterodox teachings of the post-Conciliar 'popes' leads to denying the indefectability of the Church are simply not rational. It is precisely the opposite. If one accepts them one proclaims that the post-Conciliar Church has in fact defected, for it has changed its teachings and practices which is the essence of defection. The same can be said about rebellion. It is those who have changed Christ's teaching (and those who knowingly accept the changes) who are in rebellion. As opposed to such, it is those who have loyally adhered to the traditions, and who have refused to change their beliefs who have proven that the Church, like the Truth she represents, has never and never can defect. The gates of hell cannot prevail against the truth.

There is a way back. The paradigm is found in the parallel of the Prodigal Son. Having demanded our inheritance and left our home, many of us have he ended up eating the swill of modernism fit only for pigs. When we came to our senses we must return home and the embracing bosom of Our Father. Then it is that the 'fatted lamb' who 'is slain and is yet alive' can be returned to us - the lamb which is none other than Christ Himself. Those of us who, for whatever reason have left our traditional home in Holy Mother Church must make the choice.

In the last analysis, we must all choose between Barabbas and Christ!

FOOTNOTES:

1. 'By following a right conscience you not only do I not incur sin, but am also immune from sin, whatever superiors may say to the contrary. For conscience obliges in virtue of divine command whether written down or in a code or instilled by natural law. To weigh conscience in the scale against obedience to legal authority is to compare the weight of divine and human decrees. The first obliges more than the second and sometimes against the second.' St. Thomas Aquinas, Disputations Concerning Truth, 17, 5.

CHAPTER III, part 1
THE NATURE OF REVELATION - SCRIPTURE

'The Church does not come out of Scripture, but rather, Scripture comes out of the Church.'
Father Urquart

Having considered the Church's Magisterium, its infallible character, the alternative 'sources' of truth in private judgment, and the nature of 'unity', we shall in the next two chapters consider the sources of the Church's teaching - namely that which for the sake of convenience is divided into Scripture and Tradition.

'It would be true in a sense, to say that there is but one source of Revelation (apart from God Himself), namely, divine Tradition - understanding thereby the body of Revealed Truth handed down from the Apostles... Nevertheless, since a great and important part of that tradition was committed to writing and is contained in the inspired books of Holy Scripture, it is the custom of the Church to distinguish two sources of Revelation: Tradition and Scripture.'(1)

Strictly speaking, Scripture is part of Tradition. The primacy of Tradition has been a constant teaching of the Church, and is indeed, as Tanquerey states, the 'principal source of Revelation'. He summarizes this teaching by saying: 'Tradition is more extensive than Scripture, and embraces truths which are not at all contained in Scripture or are contained there only obscurely; also Tradition is more essential to the Church than is sacred Scripture, for revealed truth at first was handed down orally by the Apostles, it was always proclaimed orally, always and everywhere it is to be proclaimed...' (2)

It is only just that such should be the case, for the Church existed long before the Scriptures were written. As far as we know, Our Blessed Lord Himself never wrote a line of Scripture; nor did he instruct his Apostles to do so. Indeed, the Apostles would have been surprised to note our dependence upon their writings, for when they portioned out the known world among themselves for purposes of evangelization, they carried no written word - handed out no Bible tracts - to the thousands upon thousands of converts they made. The books of the New Testament were produced and called forth by special circumstances - and only five of the twelve left us anything in writing. (St. Matthew's Gospel, the earliest, was written eight to ten years after the death of Our Lord; the Apocalypse, many years later). Moreover, as the Apostle John himself tells us, it was neither reasonable nor possible for every last word and action of Our Saviour to be committed to writing(3). Cardinal Manning puts it well in saying: 'We neither derive our religion from the Scriptures, nor does it depend upon them. Our faith was in the world before the New Testament was written.'(4)

Indeed, the fact that the books of the Old and New Testament are 'inspired' at all, cannot be demonstrated from the Bible, and is entirely based on Tradition . The contents of the 'canon' or list of books admitted as Scripture (as opposed to the Apocrypha), has been handed down to us as a result of the decisions made by the Church (under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost) at the Council of Carthage in 379. As St. Augustine said, 'I should not believe the Gospel, unless I were impelled thereto by the authority of the Catholic Church'.

To stress tradition is in no way to decry Scripture which is a major part of it, and as such remains one of the primary sources from which we come to know the Catholic Faith. And who can deny but that the Church has throughout the ages given the greatest possible veneration to what is called 'Holy Writ'? The Council of Trent taught that 'following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, [the Council of Trent] receives and venerates with equal affection of piety and reverence all the books both of the Old and the New Testament, - seeing that one God is the author of both... But if anyone receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic church... let him be anathema' (Session IV).

Pope Leo XIII taught that they 'in their entirety, and together with all their parts, were written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.' He further added that 'it is utterly impossible for the least error to be divinely inspired' (Providentissimus Deus). Whenever the Gospels are read at Mass, the faithful stand and make the Sign of the Cross over their foreheads, their mouths and their heart, thus symbolizing that what they believe in their minds, they confess on their lips and love in their heart. Anyone who has attended a traditional High Mass knows how the Gospel carried in procession, incensed and venerated. If the great hand-written and illuminated Bibles of mediaeval times were 'chained' in the Churches, this is but similar to the practice today in any rare-book library. If they were preserved in the Latin (Vulgate), this was but to prevent the introduction of error into the established text . They were from the earliest days read in both the liturgical language and the vernacular - this we know from the history of St. Procarp who was martyred in the year 303, and whose function it was at Mass to translate the sacred text into the spoken tongue - a custom that prevails to this day wherever the traditional Mass is said. Nor is it true, as Luther and the Protestants claim, that the Church 'kept the Bible from the laity'. For example, there were at least nine editions of the Bible published in the German tongue prior to Luther's birth, and he himself used one of these as the basis of his own work; there were many more - perhaps as many as a hundred - in Latin (8). It should be noted that prior to 1500 any literate man could handle Latin with ease. Multiple editions were also printed in the other countries. And this is to say nothing of the mediaeval sermons which were often little more than strings of biblical quotations strung together.

Again, the Church has not, as Protestant historians claim, ever forbidden the translation of the Scriptures into the vernacular. As the Preface to the King James Version and as Cranmer himself admitted, there were a host of pre-Reformation translations into the Anglo-Saxon and English tongues(9). The issue only came under discussion when false translations produced by heretics made their appearance. And when they did, the Church with her usual concern for preserving the integrity of the Scriptures, imposed and promulgated certain legitimate and necessary limitations. Thus in England, it was the Lollard (the followers of Wycliffe) cry 'An open Bible for all!', meaning the incorrect and mischievous translations being spread abroad and the free interpretation of Scripture, that led Bishop Arundel to promulgate the following article at a Diocesan Council held in Oxford in 1408: 'We therefore command and ordain that henceforth no one ON HIS OWN AUTHORITY translate any passage of Holy Scripture into English in a book, booklet, or tract, and that no one read, wholly or in part, publicly or secretly, any such book, booklet, or tract lately written in the time of said John Wycliffe or since, or that may hereafter be made, under pain of excommunication until such translation has been approved and allowed by the diocesan of the place...'(10).

Let the meaning of the article be clear. There is no prohibition against translations as such, but against unauthorized translations. And indeed, such was both legitimate and necessary, for as Belloc points out, the reformers used the Scriptures against the Church in three ways: 1) They appealed to the sacred books against the Church as if Scripture could be used to negate tradition; 2) If the authority of the clergy was to be removed or undermined, an alternative authority had to be found, and indeed the Scriptures proved most useful in so far as no Catholic was willing to deny but that they had a certain authority - hence the cry of the Reformers: 'Sola Scriptura'; and 3) Scripture could be translated in such a manner as to distort the original meaning by simply changing a few key words - to say nothing of the heretical commentaries that could lead the reader of even orthodox translations to understand their content in an incorrect manner(11).

Certain 'Key-words'. What were some of these? According to Thomas Ward's 'Errata of the Protestant Bible', they were above all the words that specified the sacrificial nature of the Mass and the Priesthood. Altar became 'table'; priest became 'elder', church became 'congregation' and grace became 'favor'. St. Thomas More lists yet others such as Penance changed to 'repentance'; Confession to 'knowledge' and Contrite to 'troubled'. The Reformers also had a penchant for adding and deleting phrases they objected to. A classical example of this is Luther translating Romans 3:29 as 'justified by faith ONLY.' There is absolutely nothing in the Vulgate to justify the addition of the word ONLY. When Luther was taken task for this he responded: 'You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because of the word 'alone' is not in the text of Paul. If your Papist makes such an unnecessary row about the word 'alone', say right out to him: Dr. Martin Luther will have it so, and say: Papists and asses are one and the same thing. I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word 'alone' is not in the Latin and Greek text, and it is not necessary for the Papists to teach me that... It shall remain in my New Testament, and if all the Popish donkeys were to get mad and beside themselves, they will not get it out.'(12). In parallel manner they deleted important portions (those referring to the need for good works or Purgatory) of both the New and the Old Testament.

The Church is not only concerned with the proper translations of the sacred text; she is also concerned that the obscure passages in Scripture be understood correctly - that is, after the manner of the Fathers, the Doctors and the Saints(13). How could she do otherwise? For centuries she had taken an almost excessive care to preserve the Scriptures intact - no one has ever accused her of falsifying them - and if she took such care to preserve them in the exact form that they were given to her, how could she not be concerned with their proper interpretation?(14) Where after all did the Protestants get their Scriptures which they so freely interpret? And how else can we expect a loving mother to act?

THE POST-CONCILIAR TRANSLATIONS OF SCRIPTURE

'A man is said to expound Holy Writ in another sense than that required by the Holy Ghost, when he so distorts the meaning of Holy Writ, that it is contrary to what the Holy Ghost has revealed... such are false prophets'
St. Thomas Aquinas (15)

The post-Conciliar 'popes' have approved a variety of new translations, and while not overtly condemning the Douay-Rheims version, have all but consigned it to oblivion(16). The one in most common use is The New American Bible, approved for use with the Novus Ordo Missae or new mass. It carries an introduction by Paul VI in which he states that it was 'produced in cooperation with our separated brethren...' so that 'all Christians may be able to use it'. What this means is that the translation is one the Protestants approve of. Yet another is the Jerusalem Bible (approved, but not specifically recommended for use during liturgical services.) It informs us in the introduction that it was created with aggiornamento or 'keeping abreast of the times' and approfondimento or 'deepening of theological thought' in mind. It also provides notes 'which are neither sectarian nor superficial.' Still another is The Way, the Living bible, complete Catholic Edition, which one writer to The Remnant has described as 'the killing bible, complete satanic edition(17).

It is not surprising then to turn to these ecumenical editions and find that the very key-words which the enemies of the Church in a previous era used so effectively to attack the deposit of the faith, have now been adopted and approved by the post-Conciliar Church. Consider I Cor., 11:27 where the Latin calicem is translated as a 'cup' rather than a chalice. Such is by no means innocent when one finds altar translated as 'table' and sacrifice as 'meal'(18).

In some ways these new versions are even worse than their Protestant prototypes. For example, those responsible for this translation seem to have a positive aversion for the term 'soul'. Consider the Magnificat: where Mary says 'My soul doth magnify the Lord'. We now read 'My being proclaims the greatness of God' (Luke 2:46). Where Luke quotes Simeon as saying 'and thine own soul a sword shall pierce' we now read 'and you yourself shall be pierced with a sword' (Luke 2:35). Again, where Matthew asks 'what doth it profit a man if he gain the whole world and suffer the loss of his soul' we find the following: 'what profit would a man show if he were to gain the whole world and destroy himself in the process?' (Matt. 16:26; Mark 8:36). Even Christ does not escape! His words uttered during the Agony in the Garden are changed from 'my soul is sorrowful even unto death' to 'my heart is nearly broken with sorrow' (Matt. 26:36).

'Hell' has also been all but abolished. It is only mentioned once in the New American Bible, while it is mentioned over 120 times in the Douay-Rheims translation and over 50 times in the Anglo-Episcopalian King James version. Moreover, in the various cycles that are read to the 'People of God' each Sunday, the pertinent passage is not included. No wonder that belief in Hell has greatly diminished among the faithful.

Another favorite distortion is to change the word 'charity' to 'love'. St. Thomas More addresses this falsification and shows the Protestants used it with the deliberate intention of discrediting the teaching of the Church. 'For although charity', he says, 'be always love, yet is not, ye wot well, love always charity.' He discusses the differences between the two words as commonly understood. 'But now, whereas charity signifieth in Englishmen's ears not every common love, but a good virtuous and well-ordered love, he that will studiously flee from that name of good love, and always speak of 'love' and leave out the 'good', I would surely say that he meaneth naughtily.' He concluded that Tyndale had altered the word 'in order to minish the name of holy virtuous affection into the bare name of love, common to the virtuous love that man beareth to God and the lewd love that is between some worthless fellow and his mate.' Charity means to More, and to every other Catholic, that degree of supernatural love for God enjoyed by each particular soul in a state of grace. And this supernatural state is one to which a man by his own efforts can never attain, one which is entirely beyond his deserts, and in which he is raised to the dignity of an adopted son of God and is endowed by grace with the powers befitting his new status. Charity, then, is a key-word of the Catholic faith. Tyndale's object, as More points out (and Tyndale never denied), was to displace it by the commoner word 'love', and thus to make way for another Protestant key-word, namely faith - a faith, which, as they believe, without works, without charity and without grace, is sufficient in itself for salvation(20).

Again, the New American Bible constantly translates the phrase resurrexit and surrexit (active voice) as 'Christ has been raised' (passive voice), rather than the correct 'Christ is risen'. The distinction may seem minor, but Christ was not raised by another. 'If Christ be not risen (being god, in and of Himself)... then is our faith in vain' (1 Cor. XV) (21)

Still further and truly offensive to pious ears is the new translation of the Angelic Salutation. 'Hail Mary full of grace...' (Ave Maria, gratia plena). We now find it translated by the most acquard 'Rejoice, O highly favored daughter' - hardly a phrase to use in the rosary, but one the Protestants of an earlier period had used to denigrate the Mother of God. As Father Robert Burns comments on this passage are pertinent: 'I'm sure that God had many highly favored daughters, but I know of only one who was informed by an angel from Heaven that she possessed the fullness of grace.' And indeed, when Pope Pius IX defined the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception in 1854, he pointed to his very phrase as evidence that the soul of the Blessed Virgin could never, even from the moment of conception, have been stained by sin (22).

Allow me to conclude with one final passage. In Genesis XXV, from whence comes the famous phrase of selling one's soul for a 'mess of pottage', Esau is quoted as saying to Jacob: 'Let me gulp down some of that red stuff, I'm starving...' How many parents would tolerate this type of language at the dinner table. Are we to assume the current crop of translators can't speak English? Or is there perhaps some attempt in all this to turn Scripture itself into a 'mess of pottage'?

FOOTNOTES:

1. Canon George D. Smith, The Teaching of the Catholic Church, N.Y.: MacMillan, 1949. Yves Congar tells us 'this expression, 'two sources of Revelation', was rejected by a nearly two thirds majority at the Second Vatican Council. This decision is of considerable importance for the future of the dialogue recently reopened on this question between the Protestants and ourselves. As a well informed commentator noted on this subject: 'With this vote of November 20th (1962), it may be said that the period of the Counter-Reformation is at an end, and that Christianity is entering a new era whose consequences are as yet unpredictable.'' The Meaning of Tradition, The Twentieth Century Encyclopedia of Catholicism, N.Y.: Hawthorn, 1964. Hardly unpredictable!

2. Ad. Tanquerey, A Manual of Dogmatic Theology, N.Y.: Desclee, 1959. It has been argued by some that Tradition is a 'post-Tridentine' phenomenon. Listen to the words of St. Epiphanus (circa 370): 'We must also call in the aid of tradition, for it is impossible to find everything ins Scripture; for the holy Apostles delivered to us some things in writing and others by Tradition' (Adv. Haeres). St. Basil similarly speaks of dogmas being found - 'some in doctrinal writings, others handed down from the Apostles... both of which have the same religious force' (De S. Sanc.).

3. 'But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.' (John, 21:25).

4. Cardinal Henry Manning, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost, London: Burns,Oates, 1909. Indeed, Joseph Wilhelm and Thomas Scannell point out in their Manual of Catholic Theology (Kegan Paul: London, 1910) that 'the reading of the Bible is not necessary for salvation, or even advisable for everyone under all circumstances.' The fact that the Revelation of Christianity was given intact prior to the writing of the Scriptures makes the Protestant rule of faith - 'sola Scriptura' - absurd.

5. Exposition of Christian Doctrine, op. cit.

6. Contra ep. fundament., c. 5: prior to 379 a variety of texts were read during Mass, including some which were not written by the Apostles. The Council fathers decided which texts were spurious and which were authentic. There were for example, 13 Epistles of St. Paul. This council drew up the 'canon' of the New Testament, and their decision was confirmed by the Holy See. The Church has with great care preserved this body of writing intact and has never admitted any changes. She has moreover renewed her anathema against all who should deny or dispute this collection at the Council of Florence, the Council of Trent and Vatican I. (Rev. Henry Graham, Where We Got the Bible, N.U.: Herder, 1911).

7. Witness to the importance of this principle are the almost countless English translations of the Scriptures currently available. Many different translations are approved by the post-Conciliar Church.

8. cf. Catalogue of Bibles in the Caxton Exhibition at South Kensington in London in 1877. The subject of Luther's translation is discussed in Father O'Hare's 'The Facts About Luther', N.Y Pusket, 1916. There were nine German editions available before Luther started his translation, and 27 in print before Luther's was published. In Italy there were 40 editions in the Vernacular before the first Italian Protestant version saw the light. These editions were authorized by the Church. In considering these issues one should remember that the printing press had just been invented.

9. Rev. Henry G. Graham, Where We got the Bible, N.Y.: Herder, 1911. Anglo-Saxon translations obviously pre-dated Wycliffe. And why not if King Alfred saw fit to translate such texts as Boethius's Consolation of Philosophy for his subjects.

10. Rev. (later Cardinal) F. A. Gasquet, The Old English Bible, London: John Nimmo, 1847. He also calls attention to the Anglo-Saxon translations that predated Wycliffe

11. Hilaire Belloc, Cranmer, Phil: Lippencot, 1931. W. Walker, an individual hardly friendly to the Church, calls Luther's translation 'very free... judged by modern canons of accuracy' (The Reformation). Zwingli was even more critical: 'Thou corruptist O Luther, the Word of God. How much we are ashamed of thee whom we had once so much respected.' De Sacramentis, Vol. II, quoted by Galitzin in Galitzin's Letters, Loretto, Penn: The Angelmodde Press, 1940.

12. Thomas J. Ward, Esq., Errata of the Protestant Bible, Sadler: Boston, 1841 (many editions). The quote from Luther is obtained in Bakewell Morrison, S.J., The Catholic Church and the Modern Mind, N.Y.: Bruce, 1933.

13. 'The reading of Holy Scripture is permitted to Catholics, and is very profitable to them; but the text used by them must have been authorized by the Pope, and must be provided with explanatory notes.' Rev Francis Spirago, The Cathechism Explained, N.Y.: Benzinger, 1899. The Church has always encouraged the study of Scripture. 'This fancy', says St. Chrysostome, 'that only monks should read the Scriptures is a pest that corrupts all things; for the fact is that such reading is more necessary for you [the laity] than it is for them' (In Matt. Hom. ii). The Church however also taught: 'let the reader beware how he makes the Scriptures bend to his sense, instead of making his sense bend to Scripture' (Regula cujusdem Patris, ap. Luc. Hols. Cod. Reg.

14. Mistranslations are nothing other than the application of private judgement to the sacred writings.

15. Summa, II-II, Q. ll, On Heresy.

16. Available through TAN, Rockford III. This translation was for centuries the Catholic standard. It remains such to this day.

17. The Remnant, Dec. 17., 1981. Space does not allow us to review or even list innumerable other translations being used by post-Conciliar Catholics. Mention should however be made of the translation by Msgr. Reginald Knox whose many defects are exposed in a publication available from Britain's Catholic Library, P.O. Box 554, London, W8 6RS, England.

18. Similar distortions are to be found in the Sacraments. Thus for example the Latin Presbyter, normally translated as ' priest' is translated as 'presbyter' in the 'Form' of the post-Conciliar Ordination rite. A 'presbyter' is, according to the Oxford English dictionary, 'a non-sacrificing priest'. The issue is discussed at some length in my article Once a Presbyter, Always a Presbyter, The Roman Catholic, (Oyster Bay, N.Y., Aug. 1983).

19. I am grateful to Roslie Cowles for pointing this out. The Remnant, Oct. 15, 1983.

20. St. Thomas More, A Dialogue Concerning Heresies and Matters of Religion, New Haven: Yale, 1982. Also quoted in W. E. Cambell's Erasmus, Tyndale and More, Milwaukee: Bruce, 1978. The commentary in this paragraph is essentially that of Professor Cambell.

21. It is to be admitted that St. Paul uses the passive form in at least one place. The defect in the new translations lies not in saying Christ was raised, but in suppressing the texts that say He rose by His own power. For He was as much raised by His own power as by the Father with whom He is one Person. Many other examples could be given such as 'He groaned in the spirit and troubled Himself' (John 11:33) by 'He shuddered with the emotions that flared up within Him' - the latter clearly suggesting that Christ was not in control of his passionate nature.

22. One finds the phrase 'favored' in the Authorized King James Version and in the Gideon Bible. I suppose we should be grateful that it wasn't translated 'Hi ya babe!

CHAPTER III, part 2
POST-CONCILIAR EXEGESIS

Exegesis is the explanation of the meaning of Scripture. As alluded to above, heretics not only mistranslate Scripture, they also misinterpret it, distorting its meaning so as to make it reflect their own private opinions. In an earlier age Catholic exegetes followed traditional patterns and a text published by an identified Catholic author (usually carrying a Nihil Obstat) guaranteed its authenticity(23). Prior to Vatican II authorized translations of the Bible carried annotated explanations of obtuse passages, such being required by canon law. Today Catholic authors frequently fail to identify themselves as such (it would be unecumenical) and priests allow themselves to be illustrated on book covers dressed as laymen (what we think of a surgeon who dressed like a garbage collector for the book cover of a medical text?) Moreover, when the Nihil Obstat is used, it guarantees absolutely nothing in terms of orthodoxy and functions only to seduce the unwary faithful(24). Official translations of Scripture are still required to have annotated commentaries of obscure passages, but these modern annotations are inspired by the same ecumenism as are the translations themselves.

'Traditions are necessary', says St. Alphonsus Liguori, 'that the Church may determine the true sense of the passages of Scripture.' Clear cut norms are available for the use of exegetes. Above all, these are the Fathers such as Sts. Augustine, Chrysostome and Jerome. Whenever they explain a given passage of Scripture pertaining to the teaching of faith and morals in a similar way, they have supreme authority (Ds. 1945). In addition, apart from the writings of the Church Fathers, there are excellent commentaries available. St. Thomas Aquinas's Catanea Aurea or 'Golden Chain' (translated into English in the 1850's - (strangely using the King James version of Scripture) provides a consensus of what the saints and fathers said on all the pertinent passages of the Gospels. Further, he has left us commentaries on the Epistles of St Paul. Another famous compilation is that of the 18th century Jesuit Father Cornelius Lapide running to some 35 large folio volumes. Unfortunately, only the commentary on the Psalms (that of St. Cardinal Bellarmine) and the New Testament are available in English(25). No one claims that these authors have exhausted every interpretive possibility, for as the ancient Jews taught, Scripture is like an anvil - when struck with a hammer, a thousand sparks fly forth(26). Clearly any given passage can have multiple meanings, but new insights, if such are developed, should fall within a traditional framework and be consistent with the entire corpus of the Church's teaching. Certainly, no amount of 'modern' or 'scientific' insight can contradict Church doctrines if for no other reason than that Science is of a lower order of knowledge than Revelation.

The Church has traditionally taught that Scriptural passages can be understood on four levels. To quote Dante's Convivio 'the first is called the literal and it extends no farther then the letter as it stands; the second is called allegorical (some use the term typical), and is the one that hides itself under the mantle of these tales... The third sense is called moral... [and] the fourth sense is called the anagogical (some say mystical) which is to say, 'above the sense'; and this is when Scripture is spiritually expounded.

Such is no longer the case. Modern Catholic Scripture scholars, following in the footsteps of Protestant exegetes, neglect these venerable sources and principles, and would replace the understanding of the sacred with what they call 'higher' and 'lower' criticism - philology, historical criticism, psychological interpretations, to say nothing of merely socio-economic and political expositions - reducing the Bible to the level of modern profane literature. It is on the basis of such a 'scientific' approach that individuals like Father Brown have the audacity to attack the Virgin Birth, Christ's Miracles, the Resurrection and a host of other doctrines. Those who do not accept these methods and conclusions are labeled 'Fundamentalists'(27).

Traditional Catholics would do well to be familiar with the jargon and methodology of these wolves. The term 'fundamentalist' was originally coined by the Modernists to describe, not those who insisted on limiting our understanding to the merely literal, but rather to describe those who wished to profess and defend the 'fundamentals' of the Catholic faith. As Stephen Clark tells us, it is used 1) to identify the early enemies of Modernism; 2) to describe the conservative interpreters of Scripture, and 3) as a term of abuse for those considered more conservative than oneself(28). As Father George Kelly notes, 'the Catholic Church of Pius X would be considered fundamentalist on all three counts'(29).

According to the canons of 'modern criticism', Scriptural Revelation can only be understood by a study of the original intent of the authors and this in turn can only be ascertained by a study of the context or circumstances in which they wrote - as if the contents of the Bible can be encased in the relativity of history. Such of course conflicted with the principle that the authors of these texts wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, so revised concepts of inspiration had to be developed. Rather than truths handed down in immutable form, these pseudo-savants hold that the Scriptures relate the experience of the Apostles - their reactions to 'inspirations' related in the idiom of their age. If such is the case, Scriptural passages can be seen as illustrations of God's action or influence on the men of that age rather than as the immutable Word of God and the unique communication of God's truth to mankind. As a result, the Bible becomes a record of the evolving religious consciousness of the human race. Needless to say, the modern exegete sees his function as reinterpreting this experience in such a manner as to make it applicable to the man 'of our times'. As The Cambridge History of the Bible puts it, this process 'makes man the judge of revelation; Man becomes the Lord of Scriptures.'

It was Luther who first distinguished between the critical study of the text (lower criticism) and the critical study of the context (higher criticism). The critical movement sharpened in the 18th Century, and developed most radically in the 19th. All this has culminated in the work of individuals like Rudolf Bultmann(30). His extreme historical scepticism, which showed in his work in the 1920s, subsequently developed into an insistence of the need to demythologize the whole New Testament. He argues that it is not only particular narratives and incidents (e.g. the Virgin Birth, the Ascension) which embody mythological elements, but that the entire Gospel accounts are based on a mythical conception of the universe (e.g., a three-storied heaven, earth, and hell) which cannot be accepted. Stripped of all such myths, the New Testament will disclose, according to him, its real meaning. He separates history from faith and makes of the latter an existentialist decision: Christianity [his Christianity] is true, whether it happened or not. Bultmann has been the driving force in New Testament studies since that time, not only in Germany, but throughout the entire world. He is one of the darlings and heroes of the modern Catholic exegete.

'Lower' or 'textual' criticism is used to 'study' and attack the accuracy and historical validity of Scriptural texts under the guise of establishing the original text of the biblical documents. The Latin Vulgate of St. Jerome looses its authority and Scripture is looked on as a piece of literature open to the kind of textual analysis given to the works of Virgil or Homer. Now, clearly there is a place for such studies - Sts. Augustine and Jerome both engaged in it. However their efforts were constructive, and despite mountains of effort, little of value has been added to their conclusions. The modernist uses this methodology however, not to demonstrate the consistency of his material, not to penetrate deeper into truth, but to attack the traditional teachings of the Church. An excellent example of this is the patently false contention that there was no word for 'all' in Aramaic, and hence that when our Lord said 'many' he really meant 'all'. (To demonstrate the absurdity of this contention one has but to change all the 'manys' in Scripture to 'alls'.) We see the effects of this in the mistranslations of the consecratory formula used in the Novus Ordo Missae, the rite used in the post-Conciliar Church to replace the traditional Mass.

An example of 'historical criticism' are the conclusions drawn regarding Melchisedech who is mentioned in the traditional Roman Canon of the Mass after the Consecration (God is asked to accept the Sacrifice of the priest, as he accepted the sacrifice of Able, that of Abraham, and that of Melchisedech -sanctum sacrificium, immaculatem hostiam. His name has been deleted from the Novus Ordo Missae. According to an explanatory footnote in the approved Anchor Bible, Melchisedech is thought to have been a king of Jerusalem in the Middle Bronze Age and a priest of the pagan god el Elyon. The New American Bible calls him a 'Canaanite priest' rather than an Israelite.) He brings out offerings and invokes his god, while Abraham, no doubt in a spirit of ecumenical dialogue, gives him a tithe of everything. Te reader is thus led to think that the Church prays (or prayed) in her most solemn rite that God would accept the sacrifice of Christ as he accepted the ministrations of a pagan hierodule, and that the Hebrew patriarch apparently recognizes the spiritual authority of a non-Israelite. He is further led to believe that in the post-Conciliar ordination rite, the presbyter is ordained according to the Order of the pagan Melchisedech. What the reader is not told in these various footnotes is that in Psalm 109 David is addressed as 'a priest forever after the order of Melchisedech,' and that the 'historical' Melchisedech of the commentator is a reconstruction based on pure conjecture - all the more so in that this mysterious individual had neither father nor mother. In the chapter on the nature of the traditional Mass it will become clear that the 'perpetual Sacrifice' is one of which Melchisedech represented a type.

Another aspect of historical criticism is the attempt to show that the Bible is a reworking of earlier 'creation myths' such as the Caldean or the Indian. No thought is given to the fact that we all derive from Adam (a de fide statement), and that other ancient peoples may have derived from him certain insights into the Creation of the world - what traditional exegetes have referred to as the remnant of some primordial revelation. And all this is to say nothing of the various attempts to explain away the miracles of the Old Testament as natural phenomena incompletely understood by those not as highly evolved as ourselves, or the attempt to show that Genesis is really two books, or that Moses could not have been the author of he first five books of the Bible (31).

Even more devastating is 'higher' criticism. This in turn is subdivided into: 1) 'Form criticism' which supposedly studies the literary form the author used to convey his meaning - is it poetry, fable, drama or history. Now of course Scripture is all of these things, but not in the sense that the modern understands them. To reduce the Sacrifice of the Cross to mere history is to deprive it of all metaphysical impact; to see the Canticle of Canticles as mere poetry is to place it on a level with the writings of Longfellow and Robert Burns, cute and pleasing, but void of intellectual content. (In his general Audiences of May 1984 John Paul II actually discussed the 'body language' of the Song of Songs!) 2) 'Redaction criticism' which attempts to delineate and reassemble the original source material that the New Testament author used in fashioning his particular Gospel or Epistle - asking such questions as what needs and purposes led the authors to write as they did, and where the original sources of their material lay. As a result of these techniques - essentially conjectural in nature - Scripture is divorced from the rest of tradition so necessary to its proper understanding, and is reduced to a collection of poetic myths, often borrowed from pagan sources. Individuals like Father Brown - their name is legion - have the impudence to raise such questions as: Was Jesus really conceived by the Holy Ghost or was he conceived by sexual intercourse? Are the stories on which the Church's understanding of Mary's conception of Jesus really true? Are they based on historical fact or are they legends drafted after the 'resurrection' to enhance Jesus' importance in the early Christian community? (...)

Conservative defenders of the post-Conciliar church will immediately claim that Father Brown, Hans Kung, Schillenbecxs and individuals of similar ilk - individuals in full communion with the post-Conciliar Church - are 'abuses' that do not represent real Catholicism. They are of course correct in this - they are indeed abuses that do not represent the true Church. But what is one to say when for example these individuals are given the full support of the hierarchy and are given free reign to spread their errors in post-Conciliar seminaries and priestly 'Renewal Programs'. Father Brown, despite innumerable complaints on the part of the Catholic laity, is repeatedly defended by such eminent post-Conciliar 'bishops' as James Rausch (General Secretary of the U.S. Catholic Conference), Archbishop Whealon of Hartford, Cardinal Humberto Medeiros of Boston and Cardinal Timothy Manning of Los Angeles - all men with the reputation of acting to restore the traditional Church. Despite all the talk of a 'return to orthodoxy' none of the post-Conciliar 'popes' has taken any effective action against these 'creeps'. It is an old story. These wolves who would, to use a phrase of St. Gregory of Nyssa, 'break the bones of Scripture' are given full freedom to attack the sheep - the shepherds, if not actively encouraging the resulting devastation, stand idly by 'like dogs who cannot bark'(32).

It is impossible to understand how anyone with a love of Scripture and Holy Mother Church can tolerate such abuse or ignore the terrible course pronounced against those who add to, detract from, or pervert the holy words of Scripture (Apoc. 22: 18-19). St. Augustine instructs us that 'heresy is derived from the Greek word for election, because each person chooses for himself that doctrine which he likes best. Wherefore, whosoever understands the Scriptures contrary to the sense of the Holy Ghost, by whom they were written, can, though he secedes not from the Church, be called a heretic.' He further tells the story of an African bishop who in preaching to his subjects desired to substitute for a single word of the Gospel, another which seemed to him more appropriate. The people revolted. Affairs came to such a pass that the bishop was obliged to retract what he had said, and to restore the ancient word, failing which the people would have abandoned him(33). Surely this provides an example for our times.

In the face of all this sloppy ecumenical compromise - the phrase is gentle, for in an earlier age it would have correctly been described as depraved innovation and heresy - on the part of the post-Conciliar hierarchy, one wonders just how they understand and explain away the instruction of St. Paul: 'Hold the form of sound words which thou hast heard of me in faith and in love, which is in Christ Jesus...' (2 Tim. 1:13) (34)

But our study carries us beyond the issues of Scripture. The Bible is by no means the only channel through which Tradition is preserved and handed down. Other organs of the Magisterium also sub-serve this function - above all the Liturgy (the traditional Mass, the Breviary, the Sacramental rites and traditional prayers), the Councils, the writings of the sub-Apostolic fathers and the historical documents of the Church. It is these 'traditions' of the Church, as much as Scripture, which function to preserve the original deposit. St. Francis de Sales tells us that 'the orthodox fathers received and honor with an equal affectionate piety and reverence, all the books as well of the Old Testament as the New, since the one God is the author of both, and also these Traditions, which as it were, were orally dictated by Christ or the Holy Ghost and preserved in the Catholic Church by perpetual succession.' He further states that 'the Scripture is the Gospel, but it is not the whole Gospel, for traditions form the other part... He then who shall teach against what the Apostles have taught, let him be accursed; but the Apostles have taught by writing and by Tradition, and the whole is the Gospel.' Hence it follows that, as St. John of Damascus said, 'he who believeth not according to the Tradition of the Catholic Church... is an unbeliever', and St. Augustine says, 'it is madness to quit the traditions of the church.' How could these saints say otherwise when the Apostle himself instructs us: 'Stand fast, and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle...' (2 Thes. 2:14).

It is the nature of Tradition that we shall discuss in the next chapter.

FOOTNOTES:

23. Nihil Obstat means there is nothing objectionable.

24. One can document case after case where errors are given such approval.

25. St. Thomas Aquinas, Catanea aurea, Oxford 1845. His commentaries on the Pauline epistles are available in English from Magi Books, Albany, N.Y., 1966. Cornelius Lapide's Commentary on the New Testament was published in English (Edinborough: John grant, 1908). If the post-Conciliar Church is truly interested in the salvation of souls, it could spend its money on republishing and translating such great works rather than in tearing Tabernacles out of Altars.

26. The Sayings of the Jewish Fathers (Pirke Aboth), translated by W.O.E. Oesterley, London: S.P.C.K.,1919

27. Father Brown remains a priest in good standing. He is currently teaching at Union Theological Seminary in New York and is called by Father Kelly 'the Catholic Church's premier ecumenical biblicist.'

28. Stephen B. Clark, Man and Woman in Christ. Quoted in No. 29.,

29. Father George A. Kelly, The New Biblical Theorists, Ann Arbor: Servent Books, 1983. Father Kelly exposes the new exegetes fro the frauds that they are, and argues that they are examples of 'abuses' in the post-Conciliar era. His argument falls short however in that they are not condemned (one knows what Pius X would have done), and in that he has nothing to say about the new false translations of Scripture that clearly have post-Conciliar approval at the highest level.

30. The nefarious origin of this type of scholarship in the 'Bible Destructive Group' established around the time of the French Revolution is well described by Dr. Ratibor-Ray M. Jurevich in The Contemporary Faces of Satan, Denver: Ichthys Books, 1985.

31. Those confused by the seeming contradiction of the Genesis explanation of the Creation and that offered in Ecclesiastes are referred to Wolfgang Smith, Teilhardism and the New Religion, TAN: III., 1988.

32. St. Gregory of Nyssa, Life of Poses, N.Y. : Paulest Press, 1978.

33. The first quote from his Commentary on Gal. V, the second is quoted in The Catechism of Perseverence by Monsignor Gaume, Dublin: Denzinger, 1888, vol. I.

34. This is now translated as 'take as a model of sound teaching what you have heard me say...' The other pertinent passage from 1 Tim. 6:20 - 'keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane novelties and words' is now translated as 'guard what has been committed to you. Stay clear of worldly, idle talk.' Other excellent references to the problem of bad translations are Ronald D. Lambert's Experiment in Heresy and Gary K. Potter's The Liturgy Club, both in Triumph (Wash. D.C.) March and May 1968. A similar pattern is to be found in the French translations. Cf. A propos d'une falsification do l'Ecriture par Gerard Garitte, Itinieres, Nov. 1977. An excellent discussion by a non-Christian is to be found in The Survival of English by Ian robinson, England: Cambridge, 1977.

35. St. Francis de Sales, The catholic Controversy, translated by the Rev. Cuthbert Hedley, O.S. B., London: burns Oates, 1909. The first quotation originates from the Fourth Session of the Council of Trent.

36. De fide ortho., IV, 10, col. 1128. Quoted by J. Tixeront, History of Dogmas, London: Herder, 1926.

37. Quoted by St. Canisius in his Summa doctrinae christianae, Augustae vincelicorum apud Carolum Kollmann, 1833.

CHAPTER IV, Part 1
JUST WHAT IS MEANT BY THE WORD 'TRADITION'? [1]

Etymologically tradition simply means 'that which is transmitted,' or 'handed on.' According to the Catholic Encyclopedia (l908), 'traditional truth was confided to the Church as a deposit which it would guard and carefully transmit as it had received it without adding to it or taking anything away...'

As to the hierarchy, as Cardinal Franzelin puts it in his work 'De Divine Traditione et Scriptura': 'The Lord chose a body of men to whom he entrusted his Revelation. He sent them to preach this truth and he threatened punishment on those who would not listen to them... Entrusted with this mission, the Apostles and their appointed successors have taught all generations the revealed truth which comes from Christ.'

It should of course be abundantly clear that the Christian Revelation was complete with the death of the last Apostle. There is no such thing as 'ongoing revelation.' The Teaching of the Magisterium is quite clear on this issue: 'The Revelation made to the Apostles by Christ and by the Holy spirit whom He sent to teach them all truth was final, definitive. To that body of revealed truth nothing has been, or ever will be, added.'(3)

It should also be clear that this restriction on the hierarchy applies as much to the Pope as it does to any other member of the body of the faithful. As Cardinal Hergenrother notes (in the Catholic Encyclopedia), 'He is circumscribed by the consciousness of the necessity of making a righteous and beneficent use of the duties attached to his privileges... He is also circumscribed by the spirit and practice of the Church, by the respect due to General councils, and to the ancient statutes and customs' Now, this Revelation is given to us in Scripture and Tradition, and is preserved for us in the writings of the 'Fathers,' and the 'traditions(4)' of the Church. It is passed on to us through the various 'organs' of the Magisterium, of which the Pope himself is but one.

We have already discussed Scripture and shown that in fact, it is but a part of tradition. In the present chapter we will consider in greater detail this broader concept. And in doing so, we shall follow the pattern of theological texts by initiating the discussion with the following de fide statement taken from Session IV of he Council of Trent: 'Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first promulgates with His own mouth, and then commanded to be preached by His Apostles to every creature, as the fountain of all, both saving truth and moral discipline; and seeing clearly that the truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand; [the synod], following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety and reverence all the books of both the Old and the New Testament - seeing that one God is the author of both, - as also the said traditions, those appertaining to faith as well as to morals, as having been dictated either by Christ's own mouth or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession... If anyone... knowingly and deliberately condemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.'

Despite the distortions that mistranslating and private interpretation leave Scripture open to, and despite the fact that the various Protestant sects reject certain of the Biblical books of the Catholic Canon (as Luther repudiated both the Epistle of St. James and the book of Esther), the meaning of the term remains relatively clear. Such however is not true of the term 'tradition' which has been used in such a wide variety of contexts, and with reference to different aspects of the divine depositum. Some would limit its use to the divinely revealed dogmas not contained in Scripture, while others apply the term to cover the whole spectrum of Catholic teaching and practice(5). In order to clarify the issue theologians have defined Tradition as dogmatic or disciplinary from the point of view of its subject matter; and divine or divine-Apostolic from the point of view of its origin. It is divine or divine-Apostolic to distinguish it, on the one hand from ecclesiastical traditions, which are the precepts and customs long observed in the Church, and which, even if they might have been revealed, can only be traced back to post-Apostolic times, and on the other hand, from human-Apostolic traditions which trace their origin to the Apostles indeed, but not in their capacities as channels of Revelation(6). Normally such distinctions are important only to theologians and historians. In the current situation, where the post-Conciliar church is abandoning many of its ancient practices faster than it can invent new ones, the defense of the faith requires that we be familiar with these concepts.

Several points can now be made: First of all Tradition (with a capital 'T') as a source of Revelation refers to immutable things which cannot be rejected or changed regardless of whether they have been defined in a de fide manner or solemnly proclaimed to be such. Second, such Traditions include both Truths and Disciplines which have as their source Christ and the Apostles. Third, it is extremely difficult if not impossible, at this point in time, to distinguish between what is 'sub-Apostolic', what is truly 'divine-Apostolic'and what is of' human-Apostolic' origins.(7) Thus for example, in the Canon of the traditional Mass, apart from the Words of Consecration, we are by no means sure which parts are of divine-Apostolic as opposed to ecclesiastical tradition. It must be remembered that, as Cardinal Bellarmin states in his De Verbo Dei, Tradition is called 'unwritten,' not because it was never written down, but because it was not written down by the first author.(8) It may be reasonably assumed that the sub-Apostolic authors to whom 'innovation' was anathema, codified many 'customs, precepts, disciplines and practices' that were truly of Apostolic origin. Further, it must be stated that ecclesiastical traditions, while not carrying the same weight as Apostolic ones, certainly deserve our greatest veneration, and to reject them on the grounds that they are not 'divine,' is as absurd as to reject the canons of the Ecumenical councils because they did not derive from Christ Himself. As St. Augustine says with regard to the early bishops: 'what they found in the Church, they held, what they had learned, they taught; what they had received from the Fathers, this they delivered to the children.'

Hence it follows that as St. Peter Canisius states in his Summa Doctrinae Christianae, 'it behoves us unanimously and inviolably to observe the ecclesiastical traditions, whether codified or simply retained by the customary practice of the Church.' All these points are summed up in the following, taken from a standard theological text: 'There are many regulations which have been handed down with Apostolic authority, but not as revealed by God. They are merely Apostolic Traditions, in contra-distinction to divine-Apostolic Traditions. This distinction, though clear enough in itself, is not easy of application, except in matters strictly dogmatical or strictly moral. In other matters, such as ecclesiastical institutions and disciplines, there are various criteria to guide us; e.g. (A) the distinct testimony of the teaching Apostolate or of ecclesiastical documents that some institution is of Divine origin...; (B) the nature of the institution itself - for instance the essential parts of the sacraments... Where these criteria cannot be applied and the practice of the Church does not decide the point, it remains an open question whether a given institution is of Divine right and belongs to the Deposit of the Faith. IN any case, we are bound to respect such traditions, and also those which are merely ecclesiastical. Thus in the Creed of Pius IV [Creeds are part of the Solemn Magisterium - Ed.] we say: 'I most steadfastly admit and embrace Apostolic and Ecclesiastical Traditions and all other observances and institutions of the said church... I also receive and admit the received and approved ceremonies of the Catholic Church used in the solemn administration of all the Sacraments.'

Among the Traditions which are clearly of Apostolic origin are included 'the inspiration of the books of the Old and the New Testament, the power of the sign of the cross, the determination of the precise number of the sacraments, the baptism of infants, the validity of baptism administered by heretics, the substitution of Sunday for the Sabbath, the Assumption of the most Blessed Virgin, etc...'(10). One can add to this list the 'form' and 'matter' of the Sacraments, especially that of the Holy Mass, and the establishment of the Episcopate as the legitimate descendants of the Apostles. It is this latter act that carries with it the concept of tradition (with a small 't'), for the legitimate pastors of the early Church established the ecclesiastical traditions - the 'precepts, customs, disciplines and practices,' not as men establishing human customs, but either as codifying those they had received or learnt from the Apostles, or as members of that one body fashioned by God Himself and animated and directed by His Holy Spirit. 'Hence their testimony is not the testimony of men, but of the Holy Ghost.' As it states in the Epistle of Diognetus, Christians 'have no earthly discovery transmitted to them, and are not careful to guard any mortal invention.'

One is hardly surprised to find the majority of Church Fathers failing to make any clear distinction between Apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions. Cardinal Tixeront in his St. John Damascene states: 'St. Leo uses the word Tradition in its primitive sense of teaching and custom transmitted by word of mouth or practice.' He states elsewhere in the same text that St. John Damascene, 'like St. Basil... admits as a rule of faith, besides Scripture, certain unwritten traditions that have come down from the Apostles, and certain ecclesiastical customs that must be accepted as authoritative.' St Jerome also conceives of tradition in this broader contest: 'The traditions and customs of the Church can make up for the silence of Scripture [on many points] as may be seen in many of her practices.' Such an understanding is also reflected by Father Barry writing as recently as 1906: 'Catholics assuredly mean by Tradition the whole system of faith and ordinances which they have received from the generations before them... so back to the Apostles of Christ.' Finally, as st. Basil points out, it is always the heretics that reject tradition.

The Councils also reflect the mind of the Church on this issue. Thus Cannon III of the Council of Carthage and Cannon XXI of the Council of Gangra state that it is 'insisted that the unwritten traditions shall have sway.' the Seventh Ecumenical council states that 'if anyone disregards any ecclesiastical tradition, written or unwritten, let him be anathema,' and 'let everything that conflicts with ecclesiastical tradition and teaching, and that has been innovated and done contrary to the examples outlined by the saints and the venerable Fathers, or that shall hereafter at any time be done in such a fashion, be anathema.' The Second Council of Nicaea also condemned 'those , who dare, after the impious fashion of heretics, to deride the ecclesiastical traditions and to invent novelties of some kind.'

Such also is the attitude of the saints and the Popes. St. Peter Damian (a 'doctor' of the Church) writes that 'it is unlawful to alter the established customs of the Church... Remove not the ancient landmarks which thy fathers have set.' St. John Chrysostome states: 'Is it Tradition, [if so] ask nothing more.' As Pope Benedict XV said, repeating almost verbatim one who held the Chair of Peter almost a thousand years before (Pope Sylvester), 'Do not innovate anything. Rest content with the Tradition.' Not one Church Father, not one saint or doctor of the Church, and not one Pope (prior to the present era) has ever decried or attempted to change the ecclesiastical traditions.

All this is a far cry from the teaching of the New and post-Conciliar Church whose erstwhile leader, Paul VI tells us 'it is necessary to know how to welcome with humility and an interior freedom what is innovative; one must break with the habitual attachment to what we used to designate as the unchangeable traditions of the Church...' Judas could not have said it better!

FOOTNOTES

1. A Manual of Catholic Theology, based on Scheeban's 'Dogmatic' by Joseph Wilhelm and Thomas Scannel, London: Kegan Paul, 1909.

2. Canon George D. Smith, The Teaching of the Catholic Church, op. cit.

3. In a similar vein: Fr. Daniel Lyons, Christianity and Infallibility, N.Y., Longmans Green, 1892: 'Neither the Church nor the Pope has power to add to it, or to take from, or to alter, in one jot or title, the contents of this Apostolic Revelation or deposit of faith.'

4. Tradition is further classified as objective when referring to dogmatic truths, and active by some in reference to the 'customs, precepts, disciplines, and practices,' and by still others when referring to the various organs of transmission such as the rites of the Church and the teaching Magisterium. It is called constitutive if it is established by the Apostles and continuative if of later origin. With regard to its relationship with Scripture, it is termed inherent (if what is handed on is clearly stated in Scripture), declarative (only stated in an obscure manner in Scripture and needing the help of Tradition to be understood, and constitutive (if not to be found in Scripture).

5. 'Every truth, every proposition of the deposit of Revelation is and has ever been implicitly of Catholic Faith; but that only those portions of it which have been authenticated by the infallible authority of the Church and by her proposed for the belief of all the faithful, are explicitly of Catholic faith.' Franzelin, op. cit, quoted from Daniel Lyons, op. cit., p. 214. The distinction is also discussed in Chapters II and V.

6. Many assume that Revelation only comes from Christ. While it is ultimately true that all Revelation comes from God, it may also come to us through the medium of the Apostles. The Christian Revelation was complete with the death of the last Apostle.

7. St Clement, fourth Bishop of Rome and travelling companion to St. Paul, is described by the early Fathers as 'sometimes Apostolic, sometimes Apostle, sometimes almost Apostle.'

8. contra Jul. Pelag. The Fathers of the Council of Trent were quite specific that 'truths and disciplines are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions,' but declined to specify these in an exact manner. The following passage from Rev. J. Waterworth's Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent (London, Burns Oates, 1848) is pertinent: 'These regulations having been completed, the private congregations proceeded to consider divine and apostolic traditions - such doctrines that is, and practices, as, taught by Jesus Christ and his Apostles, have not been recorded in the sacred writings, but have been transmitted in various ways from age to age. Numerous congregations, both particular and general were held on this subject. On the existence of such traditions all were agreed; but whilst some insisted that the received traditions should be distinctly specified, others were as urgent that they should be approved of in the most general manner possible, even to the exclusion of the distinctive term Apostolic, for fear of seeming to repudiate such usages and rites as could not be traced to that source... In the general congregation of the 5th of April, the Bishop of Chioggia raised a more intemperate opposition; regarding the traditions as laws, not as revelations; and pronouncing it impious to declare them as of equal authority with the written word. This sentiment had no approvers, but excited the indignation of the whole assembly...'

9. Tertullian in the following passage shows that the practices of the Church fall in the category of Tradition. 'If for these [the practices of the Church] and other such rules, you insist upon having positive Scriptural injunction, you will find none. Tradition will be held forth to you as the originator of them, custom as their strengthener, and faith as their observer. That reason will support tradition and custom, and faith you will either yourself perceive, or learn from some one who has.' Discussing the practice of women veiling their hair at Church, he continues: 'This instances, therefore, will make it sufficiently plain that you can vindicate the keeping of even unwritten tradition established by custom; the proper witness for tradition when demonstrated by long-continued observance...' De Corona, Chapter IV.

10. A Manual of Catholic Theology, based on Scheeban's 'Dogmatic' by Joseph Wilhelm and Thomas Scanell, London: Kegan Paul, 1909.

CHAPTER IV, Part 2
JUST WHAT IS MEANT BY THE WORD 'TRADITION'? [2]

In order to better understand the relationship between Divine tradition and Ecclesiastical Tradition, we may draw a parallel between what is termed de fide definita or fide Catholica (truths divinely revealed by Christ or the Apostles and declared by the Church to be such), and what is termed de fide ecclesiastica (divina) or proxima fidei (revealed truths not as yet formally so declared by the Church). As Father Faber has said: 'There are three kinds of faith, human, which rests on human authority, and as such is uncertain and open to error; divine, which rests on divine authority, and ecclesiastical faith, which rests on the authority of the Church defining anything with the assistance of the Holy Ghost, through which she is preserved from the possibility of error; and this faith is infallible with a participated and borrowed infallibility, inferior in degree to divine faith, but with a certitude raising it far above human faith. If therefore anything be shown to be de fide ecclesiastica it is not only entitled to our acceptance, but it even overrules all opposition, as a man, though not formally a heretic, would, to use the common phrases, be rash, scandalous, and impious if he asserted the contrary.'

Yet there is one difference between Divine and ecclesiastical traditions. The former are immutable but the latter can be modified by appropriate authority. Such of course assumes that they can clearly distinguish - as in the various parts of the Mass - between these two. But 'modification' is a vastly different thing from the abrogations and changes that have been introduced by the post-Conciliar Church. How then do such legitimate modifications come about? The answer lies in the following principle. The true Church and faith are characterized as 'Living,' and the vine Christ established can always sprout forth new branches. It is not the newness of the leaf, but the 'sap' that runs in its veins that maintains both spiritual health and traditional integrity. The fact that the feast of Corpus Christi with public processions may have been introduced in the late Middle Ages (such was hardly a possibility in the times of Nero) changed nothing in the Revelation Christ gave us. It destroyed no pre-existing tradition, and indeed functioned to make teachings of the Church more explicit. Our ways of showing respect and honor to the Sacred Species may be modified, but this in no way changes our traditional reverence for the Body of Christ. Such an 'introduction' is in no way to be compared to the distribution of the Eucharist by unconsecrated hands under modern circumstances, or to the removal of tabernacles from our altars. And most certainly they have nothing in common with the promulgation of rites that allow for a Protestant understanding of the Sacrifice of the Mass. Such acts represent no 'flowering forth' of the vine, but rather desecrations and clear cut breaks with tradition. Again, 'new' customs can be introduced into the practice of the Church which are 'traditional' such as the Feast of the Sacred heart or the Rosary, but they are in no way 'innovations,' for they have their roots in sound doctrine, and are as it were, reverberations of the original deposit which can be likened to the ripples that a stone cast in to a quiet pond inevitably send forth.

A further extension of the concept of 'tradition' is to be found in the various 'organs' that are used to transmit the 'customs, precepts, institutions, disciplines and practices' of the Church to our generation. Thus Franzelin, the papal theologian at the First Vatican Council, describes what is handed down as 'objective tradition.' and the process of handing it down as 'active tradition.' Primary among these 'organs' are the Solemn Magisterium (dogmatic definitions of the Roman Pontiffs or Ecumenical councils, Professions of the Faith and theological censures, etc.); and the Ordinary or Universal Magisterium - which includes among other things the universal customs or practices associated with dogma and above all the traditional Roman Liturgy.

Clearly the traditional Mass combines all these aspects of tradition. Indeed, as Pope Pius XI said, 'it is the most important organ of the ordinary Magisterium of the Church,' and of 'the teaching of the Church.' It is, as the A.M. Henry, O.P. states, 'a theological locus of the first importance in knowing the living tradition of the Church.' Its content is partially of Divine origin, partially of Apostolic origin, and partially of Ecclesiastical derivation through as regards the Canon (the fixed and central core of the mass), with the exception of a few phrases, we are not sure which part belongs to which category - for as the Council of trent teaches, the Canon is 'composed out of the very words of the Lord, the traditions of the Apostles, and the pious institutions of the holy Pontiffs.' Though it has undergone various modifications throughout the ages, its essential nature has remained immutable and none of the parts known to be in its original form have ever been - prior to 1969 - deleted. As one theologian put it, 'were any of the early Christians to rise from their tombs in the catacombs, they would recognize in the Catholic worship of our times (needless to say, one is referring to the traditional Mass, and not the Novus Ordo Missae), not merely the elements, but also some details in the form of worship to which they were accustomed.' To quote Nicholas Gihr: 'Christ's example was the norm for the Apostles at the celebration of the Sacrifice. They did, first, only that which Christ had done before. According to His directions and under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they observed other things besides, namely, according to circumstances, they added various prayers and observances, in order to celebrate the Holy Mysteries as worthily and as edifying as possible. Those constituent portions of the sacrificial rite, which are found in all the ancient liturgies, incontestably have their origin from Apostolic times and tradition; the essential and fundamental features of the Sacrificial rite, introduced and enlarged upon by the Apostles, were preserved with fidelity and reverence in the Churches founded by them... certain ceremonies, for instance, the mystical blessings, the use of lights, incense, vestments and many things of that nature, she [the Church] employs by Apostolic prescription and tradition...'

No wonder then that the Abbe Gueranger states: 'It is to the Apostles that those ceremonies go back that accompany the administration of the sacraments, the establishment of the sacramentals, the principal feasts... The Apostolic liturgy is found entirely outside of Scripture; it belongs to the domain of Tradition...'

We must conclude then that the traditional Mass (as well as the other sacraments) are part of the Catholic Tradition. One cannot divorce the Magisterium from tradition for the Magisterium is, as the Catholic Encyclopedia states, 'the official organ of tradition.' Our faith then is totally dependent upon tradition and cannot under any guise depart from it. It is, as the Dictionaire de Theologie Catholique puts it, 'the faith that the Church (i.e., the Magisterium) teaches, for she has received it from the Apostles, and it is the norm of Truth.' And how could it be otherwise, for as Cardinal Saint Bellarmin says in his De Verbo Dei, one of the characteristics of tradition is that it is 'perpetual - for it was instituted that it might be continuously used till the consummation of the world...' Among the customs of the Church that he lists as examples of 'continuous usage' from the time of Christ to his day are 'the rites of administering the Sacraments, the feast days (Easter, etc;), the times of fasting, the celebration of the Mass and the divine office, et alia generis ejusdem (and things of a similar nature). Admittedly Bellarmin takes little pains to distinguish between what is 'divine' and what is 'ecclesiastical' in tradition; rather he describes it as an integral whole in which the distinctions are between the various parts. And indeed the distinctions that are are forced to make have about them a certain air of artificiality. One suspects that modern theologians have created such distinctions primarily to enable them to whittle away at the content of the faith. Thus it is that Boussuet defines Tradition as the 'interpreter of God's law,' and the 'unwritten doctrine coming from God and preserved in the feelings and universal practices of the Church.'

The 'traditions' - that is to say, the customs and practices of the Church which are not clearly Apostolic or sub-apostolic - are not opposed to Tradition, but the legitimate offspring of it; like Christ, the son is father to the parent. Thus it follows that one can speak of tradition in a still broader sense as the total influence of a Catholic society and culture upon the souls of its members. For example, however offensive it may be to modern eyes, the crawling of the Mexican peasant on her knees to venerate Our Lady of Guadaloupe can be called 'traditional' with complete legitimacy. The Catholic Encyclopedia (1908) expresses this well: 'This concept of tradition,' it states, 'is not always clear, but we endeavor to explain it to ourselves in the following manner: We are all conscious of an assemblage of ideas or opinions living in our mind... a common sentiment... a common spirit... The existence of tradition in the Church must be regarded as living in the spirit and the heart, thence translating itself into acts, and expressing itself into words and writings... this sentiment of the Church is peculiar in this that it is itself under the influence of grace. The thought of the Church is essentially traditional thought.' And why is this so' It is because those who are deeply steeped in the faith, whose patterns of life conform to the established and formal 'traditions,' find that their every act and thought is correspondingly influenced. Generosity, gentleness, courtesy, dignity and a whole host of similar qualities that reflect the divine virtues become a normal part of living. Such are not the qualities of the modern world, for 'the spirit of our times' is a rebellious spirit and has its origins in a very different source - one that can well be described as 'anti-traditional.'

Tradition then is a term that can be applied to the entire Christian ethos, and as such can be envisaged as a stately tree. Its roots are divine, and are often not clearly seen. They blend into the trunk which is solid, firm, and clearly visible - conforming to its 'ecclesiastical' and 'visible' nature. The branches can be likened to the various 'organs' of the Magisterium through which the 'sap' of the Holy Spirit constantly flows. The leaves, the flowers and the fruit complete the analogy - a living organism always changing with the seasons, always growing, occasionally losing a branch or bough, and yet always remaining essentially the same.

* * *

Now, if we have treated the subject of Tradition at great length, it is because the present situation demands a deeper understanding of the concept. The New and 'post-Conciliar' Church, despite its attempt to disguise the situation, represents a RUPTURE WITH TRADITION OF APOCALYPTIC PROPORTIONS. It is, to use the words of Pope Saint Pius X in his Encyclical Pascendi against the modernists, 'using all its ingenuity in an effort to weaken the force and falsify the character of tradition, so as to rob it of all its weight and authority.' In so far as the New Church teaches falsely (either by omission or commission) and replaces the 'customs, institutions, precepts, disciplines, and practices' of the traditional Church, not with alternative Apostolic actions, but with 'forms' of purely human origin, it follows the footsteps, not of Christ, but of the Protestant reformers such as Luther, Calvin and Cranmer. As to its magisterium, it can hardly be called the 'official organ of tradition' when it sets out to introduce among the faithful, entirely new rites modelled after the heretical forms of worship introduced by those who avowedly hat the true Church and deny her basic teachings. Nor can this 'new' and 'post-Conciliar' Magisterium proclaim as 'true' what the traditional Magisterium has defined as 'false' without in doing so denying the very possibility of truth, to say nothing of the inerrancy and indefectibility of the Church. To deny the traditions is to deny the inspired character of the Scriptures, to deny the rites of the Church, to deny the wisdom of the Fathers, the saints and the Popes, to deny many of the Sacraments, and indeed, to deny all that is truly cultured in the present world.

It will be argued and is to be admitted that the post-Conciliar Church has retained many 'traditions,' as indeed, in fact, the Protestants also did (such as going to Church on Sunday). In doing so however, she has preserved only those which are acceptable to the modern world and our 'separate brethren.' Listen to the words of Paul VI addressed to those Catholics who insisted on retaining the traditional Mass: 'It is for the Pope, the College of Bishops [and] the Ecumenical Council [Vatican II] to decide which among the innumerable traditions must be considered the norm of faith.' Now, apart from the fact that he places the Mass among the 'traditions' which can be changed, his statement is a reflection of that quality of 'picking and choosing' that St. Thomas Aquinas characterizes as typical of the heretic - it is nothing else than the exercising of private judgment - the collective private judgment of the modernists who have 'captured' the Church. Surely we should accept and revere all the traditions, and not just those which the modern world or our 'separate brethren' find acceptable. And such must be the case, for as Canon George Smith States, 'the duty of the Apostles and their successors was clear: to guard jealously the precious thing committed to their care and to transmit it whole and entire to posterity.' 'Even,' as St. Athanasius stated many years ago, 'if Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are in the true Church of Jesus Christ.'

In the present confusion is to Tradition and the continuous teaching of the Magisterium of the Church that the faithful must turn for guidance. Tradition is what the magisterium teaches and must for all times remain the 'rule of faith.' When doubt arises, the fathers and the saints have always turned to this source for clarification.

'I have often then enquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of the Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical depravity; and I have always and in almost every instance received an answer to this effect: That whether I or anyone else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they arise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways: first by the authority of the Divine law, and then, by the tradition of the Catholic Church.'

No one can deny but that the post-Conciliar Church has abandoned many of the traditions of the Catholic Church - some of them, as the liturgy and sacraments, of fundamental importance. It has gone further and replaced these sacred traditions with man made creations which it demands that we accept under obedience. Those who have resisted have been placed under every form of psychological pressure to abandon their stand. (The use of physical force when it comes to religion is not the style of our age.) Faced as we are with innovation upon innovation - one is reminded of the complaint of St. Basil during the Arian persecution - 'only one offence is now vigorously punished, an accurate observance of our fathers' traditions.'

To argue that we need only accept what in tradition is clearly 'divine,' is similar to arguing that Catholics need only believe what has been proclaimed by the Church as de fide by the Supreme Magisterium. It is to attack the 'trunk' of the tree and to presume that the 'roots' will survive in spite of this. To divorce tradition from custom is to divorce faith from practice; to separate Christ's teaching from His actions, to consider the Apostles and their immediate spiritual descendants as inferior to ourselves in wisdom, and to refuse to Truth its legitimate manner of expression. To separate the Church from her traditions is to disrupt her 'unity,' and to proclaim she is no longer to wear the 'wedding garments' that characterize her as the 'Spouse of Christ.' To claim that we are other than traditional Catholics is to state that we are not Catholics at all.

Unless the New Church can claim and proclaim with her founding Apostles 'Ego enim accepi a Domino quod et traditi vobis - For I have received of the Lord that which I have transmitted unto you...' it is not the Church that Christ founded. As Cardinal Cajetan has said: 'note well that God's teaching alone is really the rule of faith. Although the universal Church cannot err in her faith, she is, however, not herself the rule of faith: the divine teaching upon which she is founded alone is such.' The faithful have every right to protect and preserve their faith and the only way they can effectively do so is to preserve intact the traditions of the Church of All Times. Beset as they are with every conceivable innovation, they have every right to ask with St. Chrysostome: 'Is it Tradition?,' and if not, to reject the change. Let us ask for nothing more.

'And we charge you, brethren, in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received of me' (II Thes. 3:6).

'It is the most insolent madness to dispute whether that ought to be done which the whole Church does... impious... scandalous.... dishonoring the Church.... Not with those who invent and change, who propose and modify, who select and adjust, or who teach that men may change and modify, select and adjust, but with those who hold fast, who guard and follow what was once delivered.'

CHAPTER IV, Part 3

FOOTNOTES to CHAPTER IV

1. A Manual of Catholic Theology, based on Scheeban's 'Dogmatic' by Joseph Wilhelm and Thomas Scannel, London: Kegan Paul, 1909.

2. Canon George D. Smith, The Teaching of the Catholic Church, op. cit.

3. In a similar vein: Fr. Daniel Lyons, Christianity and Infallibility, N.Y., Longmans Green, 1892: 'Neither the Church nor the Pope has power to add to it, or to take from, or to alter, in one jot or title, the contents of this Apostolic Revelation or deposit of faith.'

4. Tradition is further classified as objective when referring to dogmatic truths, and active by some in reference to the 'customs, precepts, disciplines, and practices,' and by still others when referring to the various organs of transmission such as the rites of the Church and the teaching Magisterium. It is called constitutive if it is established by the Apostles and continuative if of later origin. With regard to its relationship with Scripture, it is termed inherent (if what is handed on is clearly stated in Scripture), declarative (only stated in an obscure manner in Scripture and needing the help of Tradition to be understood, and constitutive (if not to be found in Scripture).

5. 'Every truth, every proposition of the deposit of Revelation is and has ever been implicitly of Catholic Faith; but that only those portions of it which have been authenticated by the infallible authority of the Church and by her proposed for the belief of all the faithful, are explicitly of Catholic faith.' Franzelin, op. cit, quoted from Daniel Lyons, op. cit., p. 214. The distinction is also discussed in Chapters II and V.

6. Many assume that Revelation only comes from Christ. While it is ultimately true that all Revelation comes from God, it may also come to us through the medium of the Apostles. The Christian Revelation was complete with the death of the last Apostle.

7. St Clement, fourth Bishop of Rome and travelling companion to St. Paul, is described by the early Fathers as 'sometimes Apostolic, sometimes Apostle, sometimes almost Apostle.'

8. contra Jul. Pelag. The Fathers of the Council of Trent were quite specific that 'truths and disciplines are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions,' but declined to specify these in an exact manner. The following passage from Rev. J. Waterworth's Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent (London, Burns Oates, 1848) is pertinent: 'These regulations having been completed, the private congregations proceeded to consider divine and apostolic traditions - such doctrines that is, and practices, as, taught by Jesus Christ and his Apostles, have not been recorded in the sacred writings, but have been transmitted in various ways from age to age. Numerous congregations, both particular and general were held on this subject. On the existence of such traditions all were agreed; but whilst some insisted that the received traditions should be distinctly specified, others were as urgent that they should be approved of in the most general manner possible, even to the exclusion of the distinctive term Apostolic, for fear of seeming to repudiate such usages and rites as could not be traced to that source... In the general congregation of the 5th of April, the Bishop of Chioggia raised a more intemperate opposition; regarding the traditions as laws, not as revelations; and pronouncing it impious to declare them as of equal authority with the written word. This sentiment had no approvers, but excited the indignation of the whole assembly...'

9. Tertullian in the following passage shows that the practices of the Church fall in the category of Tradition. 'If for these [the practices of the Church] and other such rules, you insist upon having positive Scriptural injunction, you will find none. Tradition will be held forth to you as the originator of them, custom as their strengthener, and faith as their observer. That reason will support tradition and custom, and faith you will either yourself perceive, or learn from some one who has.' Discussing the practice of women veiling their hair at Church, he continues: 'This instances, therefore, will make it sufficiently plain that you can vindicate the keeping of even unwritten tradition established by custom; the proper witness for tradition when demonstrated by long-continued observance...' De Corona, Chapter IV.

10. A Manual of Catholic Theology, based on Scheeban's 'Dogmatic' by Joseph Wilhelm and Thomas Scanell, London: Kegan Paul, 1909.

11. Exposition of Christian Doctrine, op.cit

12. J. Tixeront, History of Dogmas, London: Herder, 1923.

13. J. Tixeront, op. cit.

14. dialogus contra Luciferanos, viii.

15. John Barry, Tradition and Scripture, London: Longmans, 1906

16. De Spiritu Sancto, 25, 66, 67, 71.

17. It is pertinent to note that 'The Profession of The Catholic Faith for Converts' required by the traditional Church states: 'I admit and embrace most firmly the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and all the other constitutions and prescriptions of the Church' (Collectio Ritum, 1964). St. John Fisher taught that 'Those Apostolic traditions which are not recorded in Scriptures must none the less be observed. In addition to these traditions, the customs received by the universal Church must not be rejected by any Christian.' (Quoted by E.E. Reynolds, in his St. John Fisher, N.Y.:Kennedy, 1955).

18. The Book of 'The Lord Be With You', Selected Writings on the Spiritual Life, translated with an Introduction by Patricia McNulty, London:Faber and Faber, 1959. there are some 35 or 40 theologians who have been declared Doctors of the Church, and whose writings therefore have weighty authority. Among them are St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Alphonsus Liguori, St. Augustine, St. Jerome, etc.

19. Homily IV on Tessalonians, available in translation from Michel Erdmans Publ. House, 1969

20. Encyclical Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, Nov. 1, 1914.

21. La Croix, Sept 4., 1970

22. Introduction to The Life of St. Alphonso Maria de Liguori, London:Richardson, 1848.

23. In times of persecution the Sacred Species was distributed to the faithful in the hand (and usually in a pure linen cloth), for transport to those who could not come to the catacombs because of age or illness. Such circumstances do not prevail today.

24. In writing about the Feast of the Sacred heart, Gerald Manley Hopkins said: 'This is what the Church does or the Holy Ghost who rules the Church: out of the store which Christ left behind him he brings forth from time to time as need requires some doctrine or some devotion which was indeed known to the Apostles and is old, but is unknown or little known at the time and comes upon the world as new. Such is the case with the worship of the Sacred Heart.' (Sermons and Devotional Writings of Gerald Manley Hopkins, Edited by Christopher Devlin, London:Oxford, 1959).

25. Tractatus De Divina traditione et Scriptura, Roma:Typis S.C. De Propag. Fide, 1870.

26. Later theologians have labelled 'objective' tradition as the 'remote rule of faith'; and the magisterium or 'active' tradition as the 'proximate rule of faith.' Still others have reversed the terms 'remote' and 'proximate.' Pius XII used the phrase 'proximate and universal norm for every theologian' with regard to the Magisterium (A.A.S. XLII, l150, 567), but at the same time made it clear that the magisterium is the 'guardian and interpreter of revealed truth,' and not 'a separate source of truth.'

27. Rev. Greg. 1937, p. 79.

28. A.M. Henry, O.P., An Introduction to Theology, Ill.: Fides, 1952.

29. A. H. Mathew, Ecclesia: The Church of Christ, London: Burns Oates, 1906.

30. Nicholas Gihr, The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, London: Herder, 1929.

31. Abbe Gueranger, Institutions Liturgique, he also notes that one of the characteristic s of the various Protestant changes in the liturgical forms is 'the hatred of all that is Traditional in the formulas of divine worship.'

32. Dictionaire de Theologie Catholique, Paris: Letouzey et Ane, 1911-49. The well known authority Deneffe states 'In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries many theologians say it quite clearly: Tradition is the Church teaching... Indeed, some say, TRADITION IS THE CHURCH MAGISTERIUM.' (Der Traditionsbegriff, quoted by J.P. Mackey, The Modern Theology of Tradition, N.Y.: Herder, 1963.) Such was the opinion of Father C. Pesch: 'we understand by Tradition that organ by which revealed truths are handed on, and the organ in question is the Church Magisterium.' (Praelectiones Dogmaticae, Freiburg: 1909.)

33. The faithful Catholic finds no need to make these distinctions because he is prone, almost by the vary nature of his soul, to accept what is divine, divine-apostolic and ecclesiastical with the same reverence and love. he would not more think if changing his rites than would a devout Moslem, Hindu or Buddhist. Is the traditional Mass any less 'Catholic' than Scripture? Surely it deserves at least the same respect.

34. Cardinal Boussuet, Defense de la tradition des saintes Peres, various editions.

35. It may be added that the new Cathedral of Guadaloupe has virtually made this impossible by means of a conveyer belt that brings pilgrims through a side door beneath the picture rather than letting them approach it from the main aisle. Such a change is certainly 'anti-traditional. They have compounded this offense by claiming a new building was necessary because the old one was in danger of falling down, and then turning the old one into a museum!

36. As might be expected, the Modernist attack was directed primarily against the traditions of the Church. Under the guise of 'historical criticism,' they attacked the Apostolicity of her practices as well as her doctrines. As Loisy said, 'what disquiets the faithful as far as Tradition is concerned is the impossibility of reconciling the historical development of Christian doctrine with the claim made by theologians that it [Tradition] is immutable.' Let us have no illusions. The Faithful were not disquieted; Loisy was, as are the modernists in control of the new Church. Then as today, they claimed they were attacking tradition in the name of the 'faithful.' Others such as Tyrrell attacked tradition on the grounds that it derived, 'not from a deposit of doctrine committed to the care of the teaching Church, and of which the faithful are to receive authoritative interpretation from time to time,' but from 'the life of the collectivity of religious souls, or rather, of all men of good will who aspire to realize an ideal higher than the earthly aims of egoists' (Archbishop Mercier's Encyclical, 1908). The Protestants of course attack tradition, for it above all condemns them. Listen to Paul Tillich: 'We must forget everything traditional we have learned about God, perhaps even the word itself' (Quoted by Thomas Molnar in Utopia, the Perennial Heresy, N.Y.: Funk and Wagnalls, 1967.)

37. L'Osservatore Romano, June 3, 1976.

38. St. Thomas Aquinas defines heresy as 'a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas... the right Christian faith consists of giving one's voluntary assent to Christ in all that truly belongs to His teaching. There are, therefore, two ways of deviating from Christianity: the one by refusing to believe in Christ Himself, which is the way of infidelity of the pagans and Jews; the other by restricting belief in certain points of Christ's doctrine selected and fashioned at pleasure, which is the way of heretics. The subject-matter of both faith and heresy is, therefore, the deposit of the faith, that is, the sum total of truths revealed in Scripture and Tradition.... The believer accepts the whole deposit as proposed by the Church; the heretics accepts only such parts of it as commend themselves to his own approval' (Summa II-II, Q. 11, a. 1). It would be one thing - though still offensive - if Paul abrogated certain traditional pious practices, but is quite another for him to abrogate the Mass - especially as no one can say with certainty which parts are divine, apostolic and or ecclesiastical in origin.

39. Canon George Smith, The Teaching of the Catholic Church, op. Cit.

40. Discourses against the Arians. He also said of the Arians, 'they have the churches, but we have the faith.'

41. The Commonitory, Chapter II, A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1969.

42. Ep. 243.

43. Traditional Catholics should avoid the terms 'traditionalism' and 'traditionalist' as these pertain to a condemned heresy. The Catholic Encyclopedia (1908) states: 'according to Traditionalism, human reason is of itself radically unable to know with certainty any truth or, at least, the fundamental truths of the metaphysical, moral, and religious order. Hence our first act of knowledge must be an act of faith, based on the authority of revelation. This revelation is transmitted to us through society, and its truth is guaranteed by tradition or the general consent of mankind.' This was the error of Lamennais who saw tradition as a reflection of the common beliefs and practices of society, and not the other way around - essentially a modernist position.l

44. Commentarium, IIa-IIae, qu. 2, art.6

45. Liber de Vera Religione, 6.

CHAPTER V, Part 1
THE NATURE OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH

'Without faith, it is impossible to please God'
(Heb. 11:6)

We have demonstrated that the Catholic 'rule of faith' must be 'the Bible and Divine Tradition', and that the Magisterium can in no way depart from these primary sources (1). We have further demonstrated that the 'traditions' of the Church are part and parcel of the Magisterium, for it is through them, as well as through other organs, that 'the teaching authority of the Church is manifest'. It behooves us now to consider the concept of Faith in greater detail. The topic is of considerable importance because the meaning conveyed by this term when used by traditional Catholics is quite different than that generally given to it by those outside the faith, and/or by post-Conciliar Catholics.

According to The Catholic Encyclopedia (1908), Faith must be considered both objectively and subjectively. 'Objectively' it stands for the sum of truths revealed by God in Scripture and Tradition (the 'rule of faith') and which the Church presents to us in a brief form in her creeds [and in her other Magisterial organs such as the Liturgy and the famous Catechism of the Council of Trent - editor(2)] ; 'Subjectively' it stands for the habit or virtue by which we assent to these truths.' According to St. Thomas, 'the principles of the doctrine of salvation are the articles of faith.' (Commentary on 1. Cor. 12:10). As the Blessed John of Avila said, 'the entire foundation of the spiritual life is the faith... by the faith we listen to God Himself, for it is not a human, but a divine teaching...'(3). This faith having been given to us by Christ and the Apostles in a total manner, to be preserved intact 'till the end of time' CANNOT NOT CHANGE, HAS NEVER CHANGED AND WILL NEVER CHANGE.

'The Revelation made to the Apostles by Christ and by the Holy spirit whom He sent to teach them all truth was final and definitive. To that body of revealed truth nothing has been, or ever will be added. The duty of the Apostles and their successors was clear; to guard jealously the precious thing committed to their care and to transmit it whole and entire to posterity'(4?).

Objective Faith

If the Catholic Church is the one true Church, and not just one Church among others, then the faith she teaches is the one true faith, and not just one faith among others. What then does a Catholic understand by 'the Faith'? In what must he place his belief? The answer is made clear by his traditional 'Act of Faith'.

'O my God, I firmly believe in all that Your Holy Catholic Church approves and teaches, since it is You, the Infallible Truth, who has revealed it to your Church.'

One must believe everything that the Church teaches

'Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected' (Pope Benedict XV, Ad beatissimi Apostolorum). As Father Hahel explains, this means that 'to believe rightly... everything without exception that God teaches us through the Catholic Church, be it written or tradition; be it Holy Writ or not, must be believed. For Christ commissioned His Apostles to teach all nations and to teach them everything that He had told them. By that He has imposed upon everybody who hears His teachings, the duty to believe all of it. If any one were to reject one simple truth of the faith, though he accepted all others, he would come under the category of those of whom St. James says: 'now whosoever shall keep the whole law, but offend in one point, is become guilty of all''(5).

This teaching of the Church is particularly important in our day. If we reject any of the truths of the Catholic faith - even one - we can no longer call ourselves Catholic. If the acceptance of Vatican II (to which the post-Conciliar conscience is bound) involves a single change in the teaching of the Church Magisterium, this principle applies. Consider the statement of the Martyr St. Edmund Campion given to the Anglican Bishop Chaney during his 'trial': 'What is the use of fighting for many articles of the Faith, and to perish for doubting a few. He believes no one article of the Faith who refuses to believe any single one. In vain do you defend the religion of Catholics, if you hug only that which you like, and cut off all that seems not right in your eyes. There is but one plain known road: not enclosed by your palings [fences] or mine, not by private judgment, but by the severe laws of humility and obedience.' As Pope Leo XIII said in his Encyclical Sapaentiae Christianae: 'To refuse to believe in any one of them is equivalent to rejecting them all', and as Pius XII taught in his address to the Bishops of the Sacred Congregation in 1949: 'The Catholic doctrine must be set forth and taught completely and entirely. One cannot allow that anything should be omitted or veiled in ambiguous terms...'

There may of course be certain Truths that the Church teaches and that a given Catholic may be unaware of. His attitude however, is that of a person who wishes to think correctly, rather than of one who wishes to think for himself. When faced with a doctrinal or a moral question, the Catholic hastens to ask 'what does the Church teach?' The Church in turn makes no demand that the faithful know all that she holds true (the average person might not know the application of moral principles to a highly technical medical situation). She considers certain truths to be necessary (necessitate medii) for salvation, and these must be believed by all men in an explicit manner(6). She insists that the faithful be instructed in their catechism in accord with their ability to understand, and it goes without saying that the Catholic has an obligation to know those truths necessary for him to life a Catholic life. Beyond this however, there are still other truths that the Church teaches and which the ordinary Catholic may be unaware of without thereby endangering his soul - truths which he must nevertheless believe implicitly - that is to say, the Catholic must give assent to them because the Church proposes them for belief. A Catholic must believe them for the simple reason that he must believe that the Church derives her truths from Christ and hence is incapable of teaching error.

This teaching should not be confused with the Protestant idea that there are certain 'fundamental' and other 'non-fundamental' truths - the former to be held by all, while the latter can be subject to individual choice. A Catholic must accept all the truths of the Church with the same faith and assent(7). (The Protestant sects had to make such distinctions if they were ever to cooperate with each other.) Yet Vatican II has introduced just such a concept in teaching that there is a 'hierarchy' of truths in the Church's teaching. To quote the documents directly: 'when comparing doctrines, they [Catholics] should remember that in Catholic teaching there exists an order or 'hierarchy' of truths, since they vary in their relationship to the foundation of the Christian faith' (de Oecumenismo) (8). Dr. Oscar Cullmann, one of the Protestant 'observers', considered this one of the 'most revolutionary' statements to come out of Vatican II, and Dr. McAfee Brown suggested that such truths as the Immaculate Conception and Assumption, 'stumbling blocks in ecumenical discussion', should be placed well down on the scale of the 'hierarchy of truths'.

CAN DOCTRINE 'EVOLVE' OR 'DEVELOP'?

Modernists who believe that truth is the expression of humankind's 'religious consciousness', and who see this 'consciousness' as constantly evolving, necessarily find themselves in conflict with the stance of the Church on the fixed nature of truth. The only way they can introduce their ideas into the bosom of the Church is by resorting to ambiguity and 'double-speak'. Under the guise of interpreting the Faith in new ways to make it more acceptable to modern man, they proceed to apply the label of 'adaptation', 'development', and even 'evolution' to doctrine. Claiming that throughout the course of history God reveals himself more fully, they managed to introduce such ideas into the documents of Vatican II: 'As the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward towards the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her... thanks to the experience of past ages, the progress of the sciences, and the treasures hidden in the various forms of human culture, the nature of man himself is more clearly revealed and new roads to truth are opened.' (9)

It is of course quite true that we can explain our faith to non-believers in terms that may be understandable to them, indeed, we have a certain obligation in charity to do so. It is however totally false to state that our Faith must adapt itself to modern man, and equally false to state that our faith 'evolves' in anything like the Darwinism process. There has been, since the days of Cardinal Newman, a great deal of loose talk about the 'Development of Christian Doctrine'(10). The term 'development' requires precise definition, for some of the faithful use this term to describe the 'flowering' of the Faith, much as a tree grows and blooms that it might be 'fruitful', while others use this same term to disguise what is in fact radical change.

One must understand just what a given author means by 'development', for, as we have shown it is de fide that Christian Revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle. Dogmas implicit in this revelation may become explicit and more clearly stated, but by definition cannot be altered, abrogated or added on to. How then does dogma 'develop'? Van Noort tells us it can do so in three ways: '1) In a more finished exposition of dogma the gist of which had always been taught explicitly; 2) in an explicit proposal of dogmas which had formerly been taught implicitly; and 3) in the clear-cut proposal of dogmas which formerly were proposed in a less obvious fashion.' (11). St. Albert the Great, a doctor of the Church, succinctly describes development as 'the progress of the faithful in the faith, rather than of the faith within the faithful.'

In other words, the whole of revealed truth is contained in the sources of revelation, but in the course of ages it has undergone, and still undergoes, a process of 'unfolding' whereby the faithful, under the infallible guidance of the Church, arrive at a fuller understanding of the truths which God has revealed. As St. Vincent of Lerins put it, the development of Christian doctrine is the 'perfectus fidei, non permutatio - the perfection of the faith and not its alteration' (Commentaria). Obviously, such a 'development' in no way involves 'adapting' the teaching of the Church to the modern world. Nor does it imply that the Church's understanding of a given doctrine can change. Vatican I made this quite clear: 'The doctrine of the faith which God has revealed has not been proposed to human intelligence to be perfected by them as if it were a philosophical system, but as a divine deposit entrusted to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted... The meaning of the sacred dogmas must always be retained which Holy Mother Church has once taught, nor may it ever be departed from under the guise, or in the name of, deeper insight... If anyone shall say that, because of scientific progress, it may be possible at some time to interpret the Church's dogmas in a different sense from that which the church understood and understands, let him be anathema!... THEREFORE, LET THERE BE GROWTH... AND ALL POSSIBLE PROGRESS IN UNDERSTANDING, KNOWLEDGE, AND WISDOM, WHETHER IN SINGLE INDIVIDUALS OR IN THE WHOLE BODY, IN EACH MAN AS WELL AS IN THE ENTIRE CHURCH, ACCORDING TO THE STAGE OF THEIR DEVELOPMENT; BUT ONLY WITHIN PROPER LIMITS, THAT IS, IN THE SAME DOCTRINE, IN THE SAME MEANING, AND IN THE SAME PURPORT.'

The idea that God reveals Himself more fully during the course of time may have been true prior to the Incarnation, but clearly it is not so since. There is no such thing as an 'ongoing revelation' (13).

CAN WE ADOPT OUR FAITH TO THE MODERN WORLD?

�Let them [the faithful] blend modern science and its theories and the understanding of the most recent discoveries with Christian morality and doctrine.'
(Vatican II)

Those who talk of 'aggiornamento' or 'adapting' the teachings of the Church so as to make them acceptable to the modern 'world' forget that the so-called modern world is intrinsically opposed to the to the Church's constituency, 'Kingdom of Heaven'. Indeed by its very nature the modern world represents a rupture with traditional values. It is founded on principles that reflect a basic infidelity to Christ - it has replaced the fire of love with the arson of rebellion, and cries out with Rousseau 'Ecrase l'Infamy'. How can the Church, the Bride of Christ, adapt itself to this infidelity? Those who foster such ideas commit spiritual adultery and call down upon themselves the anathema Jeremias laid upon the Jews of his day who had become a 'generation of harlots'. How can one adapt truth to error? The absurdity of the adaptionist position, promulgated under the banner of aggiornamento, becomes even clearer when we consider the parable of the Prodigal Son. It was not for 'the father' to join his son who had become a herder of swine, but for the son to return to his father's home. In no other way can the 'fatted lamb' be killed. It is modern man who must change and not the Church. The results of his apostasy are manifest. Revolution always results in devastation. 'Hold firmly that our faith is identical with that of the ancients. Deny this and you dissolve the unity of the Church.'

IS OUR FAITH LIMITED TO ONLY WHAT IS TAUGHT BY THE EXTRAORDINARY MAGISTERIUM?

'All those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by her ordinary and universally teaching (Magisterium) proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed.'
(Vatican I)

The authority of the Ordinary or Universal Magisterium, if not openly denied, is currently diminished in a variety of ways. The post-Conciliar Church, following in the footsteps of the 'Inopportunists' of Vatican I, has further obscured this teaching by claiming that it changed nothing de fide. When Catholics protest against the new orientations being enforced, such as the teaching on Religious Liberty, or question the appropriateness of common worship with heretics (Communicatio in sacris), they are told ad nauseum that nothing de fide has been changed. Implicit in such a statement is that the contents of the Ordinary Magisterium are not de fide, or that the Ordinary Magisterium contains virtually nothing of a doctrinal nature. Thus for example, Father Curren, who holds a variety of clearly heteredox positions (such as denying the Virgin Birth of Christ), loudly proclaims that his dissent is in matters outside the realm of the infallible teaching of the Church. Cardinal Ratzinger in turn demands that he give assent, not only to what the Cardinal calls the 'infallible magisterium', but also to what he calls 'the authentic but not infallible magisterium'. The former is apostasy (Father Curran remains a priest in good standing) and the latter is nonsense.

This claim that nothing de fide has been changed has a further consequence. In so far as it obfuscates the limits of the Magisterium and implicitly declares that what comes under the heading of the Ordinary Magisterium is not de fide, it allows the faithful to ignore a wealth of documents wherein they would normally come to a deeper understanding of the faith. Even if they do not embrace formal heresy, they are as a result constantly exposed to un-Catholic and anti-Catholic material which corrodes their faith. It is not in the least bit unusual to find them embracing views that are 'savoring of heresy, suspect of heresy, close upon heresy, schismatical, Jewish, pagan, atheistical, blasphemous, impious, erroneous, close upon error, savoring or suspected of error, scandalous, temerarious, seditious, ill-sounding, offensive to pious ears, lax, likely insane...', and still claiming to be Catholic.

As Mgr. Van Noort points out, the belief that 'one may reject or call into doubt any non-revealed truth one chooses, without committing sin or injuring the Catholic profession of faith' is an 'extremely serious error'. He continues, 'some truths are so necessarily intertwined with revelation that to deny or doubt them would cause injury to revelation itself... Other truths are connected to revelation as a necessary consequence (conclusio theologica)... finally, some truths are necessarily connected with revelation by reason of its goal (decisions relating to the universal discipline of the Church). Truths not formally revealed but bound up with Revelation in one of these three ways just pointed to, look directly to the guardianship and practical application of the deposit of the faith; thus indirectly they belong to the deposit itself and to Catholic faith.'

It is important to once again point out that dogmas are declared de fide in a solemn or extraordinary manner only when they are brought into question. And truths so proclaimed have no greater claim on our assent then they had when they were considered part of the ordinary magisterium. Proclamations regarding the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption of Our Lady are not additions to our faith but rather formal authoritative and definitive declarations of what the faith teaches(20). Prior to Vatican II, no Council or Pope ever claimed or professed to be doing more than making explicit what was contained in the original Revelation and hence already of implicit faith. If this false concept that only what is declared de fide in an extraordinary manner were true, or only what is contained in the Solemn Magisterium is true, then what would the Catholic of the first centuries have had to believe? Listen to the words of Pope Pius XI: 'Not because the Church had defined and sanctioned truths by solemn decree of the Church at different times, and even in times near to us, are they therefore not equally certain and not equally to be believed. For has not God revealed them all?...The Church has the duty to proceed opportunely in defining points of faith with solemn rites and decrees, when there is a need to declare them to resist more effectively the errors and the assaults of heretics or to impress upon the minds of the faithful clearer and more profound explanations of points of sacred doctrine. However, in this explanatory use of the teaching authority nothing is invented nor is anything new added to the sum of the truths that are, at least implicitly, contained in the deposit of divine revelation that was entrusted by God to the church. Instead, points of faith are defined that could by chance still seem obscure to some, or truths are established as matters of faith that for the first time are called into question'(Mortalium animos).

One cannot limit the faith of Catholics to what has been declared de fide by the Supreme or Extraordinary Magisterium. Catholics must believe in all the ex Cathedra teachings contained in the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium the extent of which is covered in Chapter II. They must also believe those truths which are implicitly contained in revelation, as well as those which are indirectly related to what has been revealed.

Such then in summary is the 'objective' aspect of the Catholic faith. It is to these truths which we must give our assent.

'The faith of the Church is not made by our faith, but by our assent, which assent commeth to us, and is the work of our soul'

SUBJECTIVE FAITH

The 'subjective' nature of the Faith is 'the habit or virtue by which we assent to these truths'.

CHAPTER V, Part 2

FAITH IS A 'GIFT'

Now both the 'facts' we believe and the grace we have to give our assent to them are 'gifts' from God. As Vatican I states: 'Faith itself and in itself, even if it does not work through charity, is a gift of God, and its act is a work pertaining to salvation; by it a man offers to God Himself a free obedience insofar as he consents and cooperates with His grace which he could refuse.'

That faith is a 'gift' in no way means that those who lack it are somehow excused and free of all responsibility. The faith is a 'gift' because it is freely given us by God, and, as with any 'gift', we must be willing to accept it - it cannot be forced upon us. God could not in charity (which is His very nature) hold back from any soul the necessary grace required. As St. Augustine teaches in his commentary on the passage 'no one can come to me [by faith] unless the Father who sent me draw him', says: 'And yet no one comes [to the faith] unless he wills to. He is drawn therefore, in marvellous ways to will by Him who knows how to work interiorly in the very hearts of men; not that men - something which is impossible -should believe unwillingly, but that from unwilling they should be rendered willing... God acts with persuasions that we may will and believe; what is more, God Himself brings about in a man the very will to believe.'

In similar manner, Msgr. Van Noort states that 'the vocation to the faith... is a free gift of God, which, just as it is denied to no adult except through his own fault, cannot be merited by any natural work.'. God is always calling us to give our assent to truth, and it is within our power to refuse this assent. Thus man is responsible for examining the claims of the Church while remaining free to accept or reject the these claims.

FAITH IS NOT 'BLIND'

Catholics are often accused of giving 'blind' assent to the teachings of the church. By 'blind' is meant, 'unreasoning' and 'unthinking'. Now such an accusation is doubly false, for Catholics give no blind assent to the Church, and indeed, are forbidden to do so. As Vatican I teaches, 'Faith is by no means a blind action of the mind' but rather, by faith 'man yields free obedience to God.' 'Free obedience' can never be unreasoning or unthinking. The Church by infallible definition cannot teach anything as true which is manifestly against reason. To again quote Vatican I: 'although the faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, and God cannot deny himself, or can truth ever contradict truth. The false appearance of such contradiction is mainly due, either to the dogmas of faith not having been understood and expounded according to the mind of the Church, or to the invention of opinion having been taken for the verdicts of reason.' The Catholic then gives his assent, in the words of this same Council, 'by yielding to Him [God] the full homage of our intellect and will'. Hence, although the act of faith is an intellectual act, yet it is also an act of homage which is in the power of the will to withhold. It will be argued that a child accepts the faith without any such refinements - and such is indeed true, for he accepts it on the testimony of his parents. (It is the same reason that leads a child not to play in the street.) Or more exactly, the Faith is infused into him by Baptism and the parents later teach him the material objects of the Faith. Thus Catholic parents have the obligation of teaching their children the truths of the faith as soon as they reach the age of reason, and the child in turn has the obligation to study and 'know' his faith, and to freely give his assent to it.

The habit or virtue by which we give our assent to the teachings of the Church is never a 'cool feeling' arising from some evolutionary subconscious. This of course, in no way precludes our feeling strongly about the faith.

POST-CONCILIAR CONCEPTS OF FAITH

'69 of the bishops and only 45 of the priests agreed that 'faith means essentially belief in the doctrines of he Catholic Church', whereas 46 of the bishops and 69 of the clergy would agree that faith is 'primarily an encounter with God and Jesus Christ rather than an assent to a coherent set of defined truths.'
(Andrew Greeley, l973)

There has been no post-Conciliar concept of faith as such, and put to the question, most authorities would claim that there has been no change in the meaning of the term. Yet the word 'faith' is used by members of this Church in such a wide variety of circumstances as to make its definition virtually impossible. What is fostered by this institution is an 'open' attitude - if some Catholic want to believe in the traditional way, this is acceptable, providing they also tolerate the new 'pluralism' and don't insist upon participating in the traditional rites, and providing they don't insist others maintain the same standards. Others are equally free to call themselves 'Catholic' while denying fundamental tenets of the Catholic Faith. As Cardinal Bernadine, formerly president of the U.S. Bishop's conference admitted, 'many consider themselves good Catholics, even though their beliefs and practices seem to conflict with the official teaching of the Church.' Of course he finds this in no way objectionable, for when he was asked how a person like Avery Dulles S.J. could publicly deny the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Our Lady (thus declaring himself a 'depraved heretic' and outside the Church), and continue to teach theology at the Catholic University of America, he responded by stating that it was his 'belief that it was legitimate for those theologians to speculate about the removal of doctrines that had already been defined, and to request the Magisterium to remove such doctrines from the content of the faith!'. Karl Rahner, a darling of the post-Conciliar Church, tells us that 'the historicity of the creed, the opinions about the nature of the Church's unity... the difficulties created by a Christendom that has lost its self-evidence... has brought to the fore in a most distressing fashion, the problem of reformulation of the Creed.'. This priest who remains in good standing points out in the same article that 'the pluriformity of philosophies must lead to a legitimate pluriformity in thinking about the faith.'(25). John McKenzie states 'Faith is a response to revelation; doctrine the product of theology, is an understanding and an application of the faith. The Church uses theology and doctrine; indeed, these are the means by which the Church evolves with the world and with history. Faith never becomes antiquated; doctrine easily does.'. (26)

An excellent example of this is provided by the statement of the entire French hierarchy which, after the publication of Paul VI's Humane vitae forbidding artificial methods of birth control, stated that any couple could use contraceptive methods providing that to do so was in their conscience 'a lesser evil'. Now the idea that the faithful can choose a 'lesser evil' than the direct disobedience of God's laws, or that they can under any circumstances cooperate in an intrinsically evil act violates the Catholic faith. What is even more extraordinary is that Paul VI sent them a telegram thanking them for 'so clearly interpreting his thinking' on the issue .(27)

It will be argued that these examples are 'abuses' and do not reflect the mind of the Church. Let us look to the hierarchy for a contrary stance. When Cardinal Suenens declared himself a Pentecostal, he stated (sometime later) that if the Pope were to ask him to deny the 'Pentecostal creed', he would do so at once. Paul VI never made such a request, and indeed has given this movement his blessing and approval(28). And what of John Paul II? Consider his comments made to the seminarians at the Lateran University (Feb. 15, 1980): Loyalty to the Church, he said, is not to be defined 'in a reduced sense, as maintaining standards, nor does it mean staying within the bounds of orthodoxy - avoiding positions that are in contrast to the pronouncements of the Apostolic See, the Ecumenical councils and the learned doctors of the Church... We must have a divergence of positions, although in the end, we must rely on the synthesis of them all.'

Typical of the modernist theologian is vagueness and ambiguity of expression. Faith is described as 'man's response to God's revelation', as an 'encounter with Christ', as a 'birth in the Spirit', and as 'personal' or 'religious experience'. Such phrases speak of a 'visceral Christianity' in which the individual cannot be openly accused of heterodoxy and at the same time is free to believe anything he wants. The quotation from Father Andrew Greeley at the head of this section proves beyond doubt that such ideas are rampant in the post-Conciliar Church. To state that the faith is an 'encounter with God' might possibly allow for an orthodox interpretation, but to state along with this 'rather than an assent to a coherent set of defined truths' can never be reconciled with the Catholic position. Our faith is 'no simple sublimating aspiration', no 'experiential' sort of 'encounter with Jesus' such as any Protestant can claim, no sort of 'personal understanding', 'commitment', or 'feeling'. It is, to use the words of St. Thomas Aquinas, 'the act of the intellect assenting to a Divine Truth owing to the movement of the will, which is itself moved by the grace of God' (Summa II-II, iv, a.2). Those who doubt this should consider the Oath against Modernism which, as we have noted, is part of the Solemn Magisterium: 'I hold with certainty and sincerely confess that faith is not a blind impulse of religion welling up from the dept of the unconscious under the impulse of the heart and the inclination of amorally conditioned will, but the genuine assent of the intellect to a truth which is received from outside...'

CAN ONE HAVE DOUBTS ABOUT THE FAITH?

'Faith is for doubting'
(Paul VI)

Finally, to believe rightly means not only to believe fully, but also to have no doubts about what one believes. One must believe what the Church teaches with such a steadfastness that neither doubt, temptation or persecution can unsettle one's soul. After all, that which the Church teaches and charges us to believe, has been revealed to her by God. 'He who doubts any revealed truth, seriously offends God... He who allows himself willfully to doubt of any of the doctrines of the Church, commits a serious sin against faith.' Sara doubted God's promise that she should bear a son in her old age and was reproved by God for incredulity. Zacharias doubted the announcement of an angel and lost the power of speech.

Yet doubts that come into our mind involve no sin, if we do not willfully consent to them. A doubt is a temptation against the faith. One does not sin by being tempted, but only by giving consent to temptation, or by 'toying' with the idea of doing so. When doubts occur we have an obligation to 1) Pray ('I believe Lord, help Thou my unbelief') and 2) to seek help from appropriate authority - that is to say, by study and inquiry so as to remove any ignorance and misunderstanding (32). One must not forget that faith, which as Vatican I teaches, 'is the beginning of man's salvation', is 'a supernatural virtue, whereby, inspired and assisted by God;s grace, we believe.' Now if the grace of God is essential, it is also true that it is never insufficient. We are never, as Scripture teaches, tried beyond our strength. (If we were, we would not be responsible for sin) It is not the lack of grace that man should fear, but rather his own power to resist and reject it.

A Catholic can never have a just reason for abandoning the faith that he has once embraced. (This is far more true of the clergy than for the laity, for with greater knowledge comes responsibility.). Such is so, not only because he has a sufficient motive of credibility in the divinely instituted Church, but also because faith is the result of supernatural grace and carries with it the additional graces necessary to preserve in it. God's providence will not allow the faithful to lack the helps which they need to protect their faith. As St. Augustine says, 'God does not abandon us until we first abandon him.'

IS FAITH ENOUGH?

Important as having the faith is, it is not enough to guarantee our salvation. According to Spirgo and Clark, 'Faith is like the root of the tree, without which it cannot exist; it is the first step on the road to heaven; it is the key which opens the door', but 'it must be a living faith; that is, we must add to it good works and must be ready to confess it openly.'(33).

It is a de fide teaching of the Church that 'besides faith, further acts of disposition must be present.' Father Ott comments on this: 'According to the teaching of the Reformers faith, in the sense of fiducial faith, is the sole cause of justification (sola fides). In opposition to this teaching, the Council of Trent declares that, side by side with faith, other acts of disposition are demanded. As such are named: fear of Divine justice; hope in the mercy of god for the sake of the merits of Christ; the beginning of the love of god; hate and detestation of sin; and the purpose of receiving Baptism and of beginning a new life.'

Father Ott continues: 'When St. Paul teaches that we are saved by faith without works of the Law (Rom. 3:28), he understands by faith, a living faith, active through love; by the works of the law he means the works of the law of the Old Testament, for example, circumcision... When St. James, in apparent contradiction to this, teaches that we are justified by works, not merely by faith... he understand by faith, dead faith; by works, good works proceeding from Christian Faith.' Hence it is clear that, as St. Augustine says: 'Without love faith can indeed exist, but can be of no avail' (De Trin. XV).

CONCLUSION

Our faith is essentially a belief in all the doctrines which the Catholic Church teaches, and is based on a Truth that is entirely independent of our personal feelings or emotional reactions, a truth given us by Christ and the Apostles and one constantly upheld and preserved by the traditional Church throughout her existence. Faith is never 'blind' for it involves the assent of the intellect to truths taught by the Church. The intellect is by its very nature a faculty which 'sees' and hence does not operate in the 'dark'. Faith is never unreasonable, though it gives assent to what is beyond the grasp of reason.

Faith does not arise in our sub-conscious or any other 'immanent' source. Our assent is never the result of 'an impulse of the heart', or of a 'morally conditioned will'. One must utterly reject the teaching of Vatican II that in matters of faith 'man is to be guided by his own judgment, and he is to enjoy freedom.' Rather, man is to be guided by the teachings of the Church, and his freedom exists in his ability to accept or reject this guidance. Faith is always free, for it cannot be coerced. In giving our assent to 'the teaching Magisterium of the Church', we give our assent to that Truth which Christ and the Apostles gave to the Church to preserve. It is in this act that the possibility of freedom lies, for it frees us from our own subjectivity. Our refusal to give assent makes us slaves of our own 'personal judgments', and in the last analysis, to our own passionate natures.

CHAPTER V, Part 3

FOOTNOTES to CHAPTER V

1. 'For thus doth our faith teach, that is the true, the right Catholic faith, gathered not by the opinion of private judgment, but by the witness of the Scriptures, not subject to the fluctuations of heretical rashness, but grounded upon Apostolic truth...' (St. Augustine, Serm. xxxiv).

2. This Catechism is a most remarkable one. It is unlike any other summary of Christian doctrine, not only because it is intended for the use of priests in their preaching, but also because it enjoys a unique authority among manuals. In the first place, it was issued by the express command of the Ecumenical Council of Trent, which also ordered that it be translated into the vernacular of different nations to be used as a standard source of preaching. Moreover, it subsequently received the unqualified approval of many Sovereign Pontiffs, including Pius VI and Gregory XIII. Clement XIII said in a papal Bull (June 14, 1761) that the Catechism of the Council of Trent contains a clear explanation of all that is necessary for salvation and useful for the faithful and that no other catechism could be compared to it. He called it 'a norm of Catholic teaching and discipline'. Pope Leo XIII recommended that every seminarian should possess it and considered it to be on a par with the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas. Of the several people responsible for compiling it, six subsequently became canonized saints of the Church, including St. Charles Borromeo. One could go on endlessly giving testimony to its authority and excellence. As Father Hogan (former rector of the Irish college in Rome) has stated: 'at the very least it has the same authority as a dogmatic encyclical'.

3. The Blessed John of Avila, Audi Filia, translated from the French, Paris: Aubier, Paris, 1954.

4. Canon George Smith, The Teaching of the Catholic Church, N.Y.:MacMillan, 1949. St. John of the Cross states: 'since He has finished revealing the faith through Christ, there is no more faith to reveal nor will there ever be... Since there are no more articles to be revealed to the Church about the substance of our Faith, a person must not merely reject new revelations about the faith, but he should out of caution, repudiate other kinds of knowledge mingled with them' (Ascent of Mount Carmel). St Vincent of Lerens teaches: 'to announce to Catholic Christians a doctrine other than that which they have received [from the Apostles] was never permitted, is no where permitted and never will be permitted. It was ever necessary, is everywhere necessary, and ever will be necessary that those who announce a doctrine other than that which was received once and for all, be anathema' (Commintoria, XI).

5. Rev. P. Heleh, S.J., Short Sermons on Catholic Dogma, N.Y.:Wagner, 1902.

6. There is some difference in theological opinion as to just what constitutes necessitate medii, though certainly all agree that a knowledge of the existence of God and of the fact that we will be judged for actions is essential. This is the basis of a priest asking a stranger in danger of death if he loves God and is sorry for his sins. Others also include a knowledge of the Incarnation and of the Blessed Trinity.

7. 'In matters of faith it is not permitted to make a distinction between fundamental and so-called non-fundamental articles of faith, as if the first ought to be held by all, and the second the faithful are free to accept or not. The supernatural virtue of faith has as its formal cause the authority of God, the revealer, which suffers not such a division' (Pius XI, Mortalium animos).

8. Footnote in the Abbott translation. The Conciliar statement is ambiguous as is shown by the manner in which the Protestants understood it. There are of course 'degrees of certainty' about the revelatory nature of the Church's teaching, but not to what must be believed and how firmly we must believe. For the sake of completeness, and following Father Parente's Theologica Fundamentalis, these are:
1) Maximum certitude is to be found in formal dogma which is truth divinely and formally revealed and set forth as such by the Magisterium of the Church. Such truths are de fide definita, divina et Catholica. To reject such with obstinacy is a formal heresy.
2) Following closely on this is revealed truth, not as yet so defined by the Church, and which is referred to as proxima fidei (proximately of faith), and to deny these is proximum haeresi (proximate heresy). Other theologians call these truths de fide divina, and state that to deny them with obstinacy is also formal heresy.
3) Third are those truths which are virtually revealed (virtualiter revelata) ,,which is to say, derived from what is revealed with the help of reason (conclusio theologica or a theological conclusion)'. Such truths carry theological certitude (theologica certa) and are said to pertain to the faith (ad fidem pertinens). To deny these is a theological error or an error in faith.
4) Next are the non-revealed truths, but truths nevertheless connected with revelation which the opinion of the theologians (sententia theologorum) refer to as communis (commonly held). To deny these is considered temerous.

These distinctions are of theological use, but not in themselves de fide. Many popes have for example described heresies as 'errors in faith'.

9. The Church in the Modern World. John Courtney Murray, S.J., tells us in his introduction to the Document on Religious Freedom that 'the course of development between the Syllabus of errors (1864) and Dignitatis Humanae Personae (1965) still remains to be explained by theologians. But the Council formally sanctioned the validity of the development itself; and this was a doctrinal event of high importance for theological thought in many other areas' (The Documents of Vatican II, Ed. Walter M. Abbott, S.J., N.Y.: Guild, 1966).

10. Newman's doctrinal views are ambiguous and open to a variety of interpretations. It is pertinent that he was the most quoted theologian in the debates of Vatican II (Christopher Hollis, Newman and the Modern World, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1968) and that his orthodoxy has been questioned by such individuals as Cardinal Manning. It has been said that he was a crypto-Catholic while and Anglican, and a crypto-Protestant when a Catholic. He distinguished between 'the notional assent to truth', the academic recognition of certain beliefs as valid, and the real assent inspired by personal experience. Despite the fact that he died in complete submission to the Church, he is not always a safe source of doctrine.

11. Mgr. G. Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology, Vol III, divine Faith, Maryland:Newman, 1960

12. Canon Smith, op. cit.

13. As Avery Dulles, S.J., one of the Conciliar periti states: 'While stressing that God's self-revelation reached its unsurpassable fullness in Christ, the Council left ample room for development in the Church's assimilation of that fullness in new and unpredictable ways. Without using the term 'continuing revelation', Vatican II allowed for something of the kind. Echoing a favorite term of John XXIII, it spoke repeatedly of the need to discern 'the signs of the times' through which God continues to address his people' (Doctrines do Grow, Ed. John T. McGinn, NU.: Paulist, 1972).

14. The Church in the Modern World, Para. 62.

15. Disputations Concerning Truth.

16. Cf. Chapter II.

17. Catholica, March 1987.

18. Father William Faber, Introduction to the Life of St. Liguori, Richardson: London, 184.

19. op. cit.

20. For example, the Assumption has always been believed by Catholics. It is one of the mysteries of the Rosary.

21. St. John Fisher, quoted in E.E.Reynold's Biography of St. John Fisher, N.Y.: Kenedy, 1955.

22. op. cit.

23. Andrew Greeley, Priests in the United States, Reflections on a Survey, N.Y.: Doubleday 1973. A Statistical survey carried out under Father Greeley's supervision.

24. The first quote is from Time, May 24, 1976 and the second from The Wanderer, June 17, 1976. Archbishop Bernadine has also advocated that cake be used for the 'matter' of the Eucharistic Sacrament, and was rewarded for his loyalty to the faith by being made a Cardinal!

25. Karl Rahner, The Creed in the Melting Pot, published 'cum approbatione ecclesiastica' in concilium, 1973.

26. John McKenzie, The Sword and the Spirit, N.Y.: Paulist, 1972. A more specific Modernist exposition of faith would be hard to find. Father McKenzie remains a priest in good standing.

27. Hubert Monteilhet, Rome n'est plus dans Rome, Pauvert: Paris, 1977. In such a statement the entire French hierarchy placed themselves outside the Church.

28. Paul VI told the leaders of the Pentecostal Movement: 'We are very interested in what you are doing. We have herd so much about what is happening among you. And we rejoice.' (L'Osservatore Romano, Oct. 11, 1975). for a full discussion of Pentecostalism, see The Roman Catholic, vol. I, Nos. 3 and 4, 1979.) A classic example of post-Conciliar attitudes is provided by Bishop Milvaine of the Diocese of Pocahontas. 'The Faith is not a collection of abstract propositions to be memorized. Faith is an encounter with Christ. It should be a deep experience. For several generations we have made a serious mistake in making catechesis mainly a matter of religious instruction (almost 2000 years - Coomaraswamy) and religious instruction a watered-down theology course. We must be aware that the central goal of catechesis is to strengthen faith. To accomplish this we must build up vibrant faith communities' (The Wanderer, Jan. 26, 1978). The editor of The Wanderer then continues to describe the 'faith community' of Pocahontas as 'priests and nuns in rebellion against the Pope; heresy in the Catechisms; immorality passed off as virtue in the confessional; all apparently with the Bishop's approval!' One may be permitted to ask what parishes in the United States are free of such 'abuses'?

29. Veritas, Feb. 1981.

30. Rev. Francis Spirago, The Catechism Explained, N.Y. Benzinger, 1899.

31. While it is true that a Catholic must 'follow his conscience', conscience is itself nothing but the application of God's law to specific circumstances. Putting this in different terms, there is no possible reason apart from insanity for a Catholic to decide the teaching of the Church is false. Only a false Church can teach falsely.

32. De natura et gratia, c. 26. Canon Smith (op. cit.) makes the following statement: 'It is clear, then, that in this matter the Catholic has serious duties. Not only must he avoid temptations against the faith, not only must he pray for an increase of faith, but he is bound to take care that his mental development in secular branches of study shall is accompanied by equal development in the knowledge of his religion. If he feels difficulties regarding fundamentals, it is his duty to inquire of those who are able to solve them; and here he needs a humility of mind which recognizes that what he does not know is well known to many others. There can be little doubt that many defections from the Church are due to a culpable lack of knowledge -culpable because the ordinary means of information upon this important matter, whether they be Catholic books, sermons, or instructions, have been culpably neglected.'

33. 'Good works' includes, not only acts of charity towards our neighbor, but also 'acts of charity' towards God, namely 'fasting and prayer'.

34. Dr. Ludgwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Cork Mercier, 1955.

CHAPTER VI
THE ATTITUDE OF THE MAGISTERIUM TOWARDS INNOVATION

Webster's Dictionary defines 'innovation' as a 'change or novelty, especially in customs, manners or rites,' and reminds us that a more obsolete usage equates the term with 'revolution and insurrection.' The traditional Catholic Church has always been strongly opposed to all innovation(1). Even prior to the coming of Christ, we find Plato calling the innovator 'the worst kind of pest' in society, and stating that it was 'our own irrational impulses which yearned for innovation.'(2) The same attitude prevailed in ancient Rome. Sallust described the innovator as an 'unprincipled character, hating the established order of things... bent on general upheaval, turmoil, and rebellion,' and Cicero said 'sic est vulgus, ex veritate pauca, ex opinione multa estimant.'(3)

Our Lord never presented himself as an 'innovator.' He clearly stated that 'My doctrine is not mine, but His that sent me' (John 8:16) and further stated that 'I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill the law' (Matt. 5:17). The warning of St. Paul against those who would teach us a new kind of gospel ('even though an Angel') are quite clear, for as it says in Proverbs: 'Add not a thing to His words lest thou be reproved and found a liar' (30:6). This attitude was preserved by the saints with care. Thus St. Papias (whom St. Irenaeus describes as a 'hearer of the Apostle John and friend of Polycarp'(4)) says, 'I do not take pleasure as many do... in those who relate foreign precepts, but in those who relate the precepts which were given by the Lord to the faith and come down to us from truth itself,' and Tertullian said 'It is not lawful to introduce anything of our own choice... we have for our authors the Apostles of the Lord who did not even themselves choose anything to be introduced of their own will, but faithfully delivered over to the nations the religion which they had received from Christ...' and 'I do not accept what you introduce... on you own authority.'

The Church fathers maintained this attitude with clarity. St. Simeon of Thessalonica begins his book on the Church with the following words: 'With love, we pass on to you that which we have taken from the Fathers. For we offer nothing new, but only that which has been passed on to us, and we have changed nothing but we have retained everything, like a creed, in the state in which it has been given to us. We worship exactly as Christ Himself did and as did the Apostles and the Fathers of the Church.' St. Isidore taught: 'We have the Apostles of God as authorities who did not choose what they would believe but faithfully transmitted the teachings of Christ. So, even if an angel from heaven should preach otherwise, he should be called anathema.' St. Vincent of Lerins said, 'the more a man is under the influence of religion, the more prompt is he to oppose innovation.' He further noted that 'if there is a beginning of mixing the new with the old, foreign ideas with genuine, and profane elements with sacred, this habit will creep in everywhere, without check. In the end, nothing in the Church will be left untouched, unimpaired, unhurt and unstained. Where formerly there was a sanctuary of chaste and uncorrupted truth, there will be a brothel of impious and filthy errors. It is therefore, an indispensable obligation for all Catholics who are eager to prove that they are true sons of Holy Mother Church to adhere to the Holy Faith of the Holy Fathers, to preserve it, to die for it, and, on the other hand, to detest the profane novelties of profane men, to dread them, to harass and attack them. I cannot help wondering about such madness in certain people, the dreadful impiety of their blinded minds and their insatiable lust for error, such that they are not content with the traditional rule of faith as once and for all received from antiquity, but are driven to seek another novelty daily. They are possessed by a permanent desire to change religion, to add something and to take something away - as though the dogma were not divine, so that it has to be revealed only once. But they take it for a merely human institution, which cannot be perfected except by constant emendations, rather, by constant corrections.' St. Augustine taught 'for thus doth our faith teach, that is the true, the right Catholic faith, gathered not by the opinion of private judgment, but by the witness of the Scriptures; not subject to the fluctuations of heretical rashness, but grounded upon Apostolic truth.' He further stated that 'the heretic... is one who for some temporal advantage, especially for the sake of glory and preeminence, originates or follows false and new opinions.' St. Basil said, 'We accept no new faith, written out for us by others, nor do we proclaim the results of our own cogitation, lest mere human wisdom should be accounted the rule of faith; we communicate to all who question us that which the Holy Fathers have taught us.' St. John Climacus in his famous Ladder of Ascent states, 'We should constantly be examining and comparing ourselves with the Holy Fathers and lights who lived before us,' and further adds, 'this I ask, that you should not imagine that we are inventing what we write, for such a suspicion would detract from its value.' St. Bruno teaches 'we ought to relate not our own words, but those of the saints; not those which we can draw from our own heart, but those which we can derive from the fountains of Israel.' St. Maximus the Confessor stated 'I have no private opinion, but only agree with the Catholic Church.'

Coming down through the later centuries we find St. Bernard teaching that heretics 'mix novelties of speech and meaning with heavenly words like poison with honey.' He describes what happens as a result: 'Churches without people, people without priests, priests without reverence due to them, and Christians without Christ. The churches are regarded as synagogues, the holiness of God's sanctuary is denied, the sacraments are not considered sacred, the holy days are deprived of their solemnities...'(14) M. Olier, the founder of the Sulpicians says 'God forbid that I should ever innovate anything in religious matters.' St. Francis de Sales said 'I have said nothing which I have not learned from others,' and in doing so reflected the very words of Cassian: 'I am not inventing this teaching, but simply passing on what I learned from others.' St. Vincent de Paul stated his fear 'that God is allowing the faith gradually to perish from among us on account of the depravity of manners, the novel opinions which are spreading more and more, and the generally evil stage of things,.' and Alphonse de Liguori cried out against those 'who taught not the Gospel but their own inventions. One could go on quoting the saints in similar fashion ad infinitum. Suffice it to conclude with just two more - both of recent vintage. Alban Butler speaks to us of 'Pride... which often attends knowledge' and continues: 'of this there cannot be a more dangerous symptom in a scholar than a fondness for novelty and singularity, especially if joined with obstinacy and opinionateness.' And finally the Abbe Gueranger in his Introduction to the Season of Advent states: 'the reader will rightly infer, from what we have said, that the object we have in view is not in any way to publish some favorite or clever method of our own.'

Pope St. Gregory said with regard to his Commands: 'know, my brother that these orders are not of our own invention, but that we proclaim them as decrees of the ancient fathers taught to them by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.'. Pope St. Sylvester declared 'Let there be no innovations,' and about one thousand years later his statement was repeated by Pope Benedict XV in his encyclical Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum.

The great Councils also held to this attitude. The Seventh Ecumenical council stated 'let everything that conflicts with ecclesiastical tradition and teaching, and that has been innovated and done contrary to the examples outlined by the saints and the venerable Fathers, or that shall hereafter at any time be done in such a fashion, be anathema.' The Second Council of Nicaea also condemned 'those, who dare, after the impious fashion of heretics, to deride the ecclesiastical traditions and to invent novelties of some kind.'

And such has ever been the seemingly monotonous plainchant of the Church which sees her function as one of preserving the Truth which Christ entrusted to her. As Mgr. Van Noort states, 'THE POINT IS HAMMERED HOME MORE FORECEABLY BY TRADITION WHICH FROM THE VERY EARLIEST DAYS WAS WILLING TO FOLLOW ONLY THE DOCTRINE OF THE APOSTLES, AND ALWAYS CONSIDERED ANY INNOVATION IN MATTERS OF THE FAITH TO BE A CLEAR HALLMARK OF HERESY.' Not one saint, not one pope from a previous era, no council prior to Vatican II and not one line of Holy Scripture can be brought forth in defense of innovation. And such is not surprising for the Law of the Church with regard to the canonization of saints promulgated by Pope Urban VIII requires that: 'A most diligent inquiry be made as to whether the servant of God whose canonization is sought wrote any books, tracts, meditations, or the like; for if any such have been written, no inquiry is to be carried on until such books are carefully examined by the Congregation to see whether they contain any errors contrary to faith or morals, or any novel doctrine opposed to the sound and pure teaching of the Church.'

Such however is by no means the attitude of the post-Conciliar Church. On the contrary, Paul VI, despite the fact that he took a coronation oath (in which he swore 'to change nothing of the received tradition, and nothing thereof that I have found before me guarded by my God-pleasing predecessors, to encroach upon and to alter nothing, nor to permit any innovation therein...'), has done everything in his power to foster innovations of the most horrendous character.

Thus in his General Audience of July 2, 1969 he said that: 'We desire to make our own the important words used by the council, the words which define its spirit, and in a dynamic synthesis form the spirit of all those who place their confidence in it, whether they be in or outside of the Church. The (key) word is NOVELTY (nouveaute - change, innovation, newness), a simple word, in common usage, and most dear to the hearts of modern man... This word... has been given to us as a command and as a program.' and further on in the same discourse:
'Two terms characterize the Council: renovation and aggiornamento. We very much desire that the 'spirit of renewal', to use an expression sanctioned by the Council, should be understood and lived by everyone. It is a response to one of the characteristics of our times, engaged as it is in an enormous and rapid transformation which creates change and innovation in all domains of modern life. How can one fail but to spontaneously reflect that IF THE WORLD CHANGES, SHOULD NOT RELIGION ALSO CHANGE?... It is for this very reason that the Church has, especially after the Council, undertaken so many reforms... The religious orders reforming their statutes... The Liturgy undergoing a reform the extent of which is clear to everyone... And we are about to reform the whole of Canon Law... And how many other consoling and promising INNOVATIONS... We can say... of the Council that it marks the opening of a NEW ERA in which no one will be able to deny the NEW POINTS OF VIEW which we have indicated...'

Not everyone was entirely happy with the 'new era' and these 'new points of view.' Hence it became necessary for Paul VI to once again discuss the subject. In his General Audience of August 4, 1971 he stated that 'it is necessary to know how to welcome with humility and an interior freedom what is innovative.' He proceeded to explain to the faithful that the 'renewal' achieved since Vatican II was: '...that of a renewal conceived in correct terms, and according to the 'good spirit' promised by the Heavenly Father... We could, by the grace of the Lord, give many proofs, and not trivial ones either, that seem to us convincing... If we think of the sum total of innovating measures that have been put into effect in this period, particularly if we consider the liturgical reform - a great innovation indeed!'.

And indeed, as he states elsewhere that the 'chief innovation affects the Eucharistic Prayer...' which is to say the Mass itself.

Some will ask, what is wrong with innovations? The answer is that they essentially deny and disrupt the integrity of Revelation as handed down to us by Tradition. Hence the are intimately associated with heresy, and indeed, the Church Fathers frequently join the two terms in a single phrase - the terms being virtually synonymous. As St. Augustine said with regard to the teaching of the Church on original sin: 'It is not I who devised the teaching of the Church which the Catholic faith holds from ancient times, but you who deny it are undoubtedly an innovating heretic.' If the Church functions to preserve the deposit of the faith, she has an absolute obligation to speak out and expose those who would dilute or distort this deposit, and she has an absolute obligation to do everything in her power to prevent such heretics from misleading the faithful. The Catholic Encyclopedia (1908) states that 'heresy is a deadly poison generated within the organism of the Church.' As Father Faber says, 'there is no possibility of measuring the harm done to a man's religious habits by the admission and temporary entertainment of error, however ignorance might seem to excuse such an admission.' St. John Fisher (who did not die in vain) tells us that 'the sinner remains joined to the Mystical Body by faith,' but 'the heretic cuts himself off from the body and its vivifying spirit.'(24) Pope Pius X taught in his Encyclical Editae Saepe himself quoting the words of St. Charles Borromeo: 'It is a certain well-established fact that no other crime so seriously offends god and provokes His greatest wrath as the vice of heresy.'(25)

The idea that it is not necessary for those in authority to condemn heretics was labeled as 'scandalous' by Pope Alexander VII in 1665 (Denz. 1105). The very first council of the Apostles in Jerusalem was convened to put an end to the judaizing tendencies of the first Christians. Pope Leo confirmed the conciliar condemnation of Pope Honorius I on the grounds that 'he was wanting the vigilance expected from him in his Apostolic office and thereby allowed heresy to make headway which he should have crushed in its beginnings.' During the traditional rite for the Ordination of bishops, the following words are read: 'I have made thee a watchman to the house of Israel' (Ezech. 3:17). and the very next sentence continues: 'If thou declare not to the wicked his iniquity, I will require his blood at thy hand.' (Needless to say, these phrases, to accommodate Protestant prejudices, have been dropped from the post-Conciliar ordination rite. The Conciliar 'bishops' are 'ordained' to 'loose,' but not to 'bind'! cf. Chapter XIV or Ordination Rites.) Canon Law (2396) states that 'he is suspect of heresy who spontaneously and consciously helps in any way with the propagation of heresy.' Pope Felix III stated: 'Not to oppose error is to approve of it, and not to defend truth is to suppress it, and indeed, to neglect to confound evil men, when we can do it, is no less a sin than to encourage them.'(26)

It should not be thought that such 'anti-heretical' attitudes on the part of the traditional Church are not Scriptural. Christ Himself warned us that 'many false prophets shall arise, and shall seduce many...' He further stated that 'he who is not with me is against me;.. and he who will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican.' He was not ambiguous when he said 'he who believeth not shall be condemned.' the Apostles spoke in a similar vein. St. Paul warned us against those 'who would teach a Gospel besides that which we had received of him.' St. John calls the heretic 'a seducer, an Antichrist, a man who dissolves Christ,' and instructs us 'to receive him not into the house nor say to him God speed you.' St. Peter, with his characteristic ardor, calls the heretics 'lying teachers who shall bring in sects of perdition, and deny the Lord who bought them; bringing upon themselves swift destruction.' He called them 'clouds without water and clouds tossed in whirlwinds, to whom the mist of darkness is reserved.' St. Jude speaks in a similar strain throughout his whole Epistle. And St. Paul tells us how to act with regard to heresy. He instructs Timothy to 'war on them a good warfare, having faith and good conscience, which some rejecting have made a shipwreck concerning the faith...' He exhorts the ancients of the Church at Ephesus to 'take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you Bishops to rule the Church of god... I know that, after my departure, ravening wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock... therefore watch.' :Beware of dogs,' he writes to the Philippians, the 'dogs' being the same false teachers as the ravening wolves. Is it any wonder that St. Jerome calls the congregations of heretics 'synagogues of Satan' and says that their communion is to be avoided 'like that of vipers and scorpions?' St. De Montfort warned his own father 'not to touch pitch, for it would defile him; not to swallow earth, for it would choke him, not to inhale smoke, for it would stifle him.' (29) As St. Bernard warns, 'it is not safe to sleep near serpents.' (30)

And what do we have today in the new and post-Conciliar church? As Frank Sheed has said, 'every week brings news of some revolutionary-sounding denial by some theologian somewhere - and not a sound out of the hierarchy!... There is hardly a doctrine or practice of the Church that I have not heard attacked by some priest.'(31) Now, who are the great theologians of the new Church? Surely no one will balk at the name of Bernard Haring, Karl Rahner, Hans Kung, Joseph Suenens, Edward Schillebeeckx and Yves Congar, to give but a few names that are almost household words - and everyone of these has denied one or another of the Church's teachings. They are all well known to Paul VI and his successors - many as personal friends. All of them are 'priests in good standing.' Not one of them has been declared heretical, much less excommunicated(32). When Hans Kung was brought up on charges of heresy - he denies the doctrine of transubstantiation, that Christ established a hierarchy or even a priesthood, the reality of all the miracles in the Gospel and even the Resurrection - even the Lutherans object to his Christology - it was declared that 'he was not a Catholic theologian' but in no way deprived of his priestly function or his power to influence the Catholic faithful. As Michael Novak commented, 'neither Kung nor those theologians who have leaped to his defense argue that the Vatican has misunderstood or misrepresented him... The Vatican has not, however, limited his freedom; it has only revoked his authority to speak in its name. Nor has the Vatican accused him of heresy - defined as deviation from the teachings of Christ, accompanied by deliberate scorn for orthodoxy - or impugned his person, motives or good will. The Vatican recognizes Kung's intention to remain a Catholic.' Father Schillebeeckx, one of those responsible for the 'Dutch Cathechism,' and a man who has denied as many teachings of the Church as has Hans Kung, after a thorough investigation was declared 'a priest in good standing' both by his order and the Vatican. These investigations were instituted during the reign of Paul VI and carried to completion during that of John Paul II.

Paul VI recognized that the 'smoke of Satan' was rising within the Vatican itself. But what of his actions? He has never condemned heresy, but rather stated that 'you will have noticed my dear friends to what extent the style of our government of the Church seeks to be pastoral, fraternal, humble in spirit and form. It is on this account that, with the help of God, we hoped to be loved.' And to be loved by the world, he abolished the Index (35), and effectively abolished the Holy Office, one of the primary functions of which was to prevent heretics from doing harm, and then openly declared that: 'We are going to have a period of greater liberty in the life of the Church, and hence for each of her sons... Formal discipline will be reduced, all arbitrary judgment will be abolished, as well as all intolerance and absolutism.'

Now such a statement from a person who claimed to be a reigning Pontiff - Christ's representative on earth, can only be termed extraordinary. First of all, the judgments of the Church have never been 'arbitrary,' but based on sound doctrine, and often taken after years of careful study. Secondly, the Church must be intolerant of error. After all, she is here to proclaim Christ's truth. Now either she is the Church that Christ founded, and therefore has, whether the world accords her recognition and love or not, special rights and privileges, or she is only one Church among many others and must bow and kowtow to those she would emulate. Either she teaches the absolute Truth, or there is in her eyes, no absolute truth. What parent would ever fail to censor the reading and activities of his children or those entrusted to his care? What government in power has ever allowed seditious organizations the freedom to undermine its structures? And heresy for the Church of Christ is sedition. What physician would ever allow the disease to play havoc with his patient when he was in a position to prevent it?

It should by now be quite clear to the reader that the New and post-Conciliar church has departed from unity with the traditional Church, the 'Church of All Times,: the Church that Christ founded, the Roman Catholic Church as she exists now and will continue to exist till the end of time. To those who argue that all such departures are in the nature of 'abuses,' let it be stressed that throughout this book, almost all examples of the RUPTURE WITH TRADITION are taken from either statements of the post-Conciliar 'popes,' the documents of Vatican II, or illustrated from the new Sacramental rites as they are officially promulgated. No post-Conciliar Catholic can refuse to accept these three sources without defeating his own argument. He cannot 'pick and choose' just what he will accept in the New Church without declaring that it is in fact his own 'private opinion' that is the basic authority for his decision. The 'post-Conciliar Catholic' no matter how 'sincere' is plainly and simply, NO LONGER A ROMAN CATHOLIC.

'To use the words of the fathers of Trent, it is certain that the Church 'was instructed by Jesus Christ and His apostles and that all truth was daily taught it by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.' Therefore, it is obviously absurd and injurious to propose a certain 'restoration and regeneration' for her as though necessary for her safety and growth, as if she could be considered subject to defect or obstruction or other misfortune. Indeed these authors of novelties consider that a 'foundation may be laid for a new human institution', and what Cyprian detested may come to pass, that what was a divine thing 'may become a human church.'

FOOTNOTES:

(1) Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos

(2) Plato, Laws, VII: 797. Reference to the Loeb Classical Liberation edition index under 'innovation' will give several statements along parallel lines. Plato especially speaks out against those who would innovate in musical and ritual matters.

(3) Sallust, Histories. Cicero, Lat. Dict. 521. We are of course not speaking of those who would make a 'better mouse trap,' but about those who would replace what is traditional with 'novelties.' One must be aware of the Platonic distinction between 'new songs' and 'a new kind of music.'

(4) Papias was Bishop of Hieropolis during the post-Apostolic period - there is some debate as to whether he was a disciple of John the Apostle or of John the elder. Cf. The Oracles of Papias, London: Longmans Green, 1894.

(5) The Anti-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, Mich.: Eerdman, 1968.

(6) Ad Praxeam, quoted in 'The Faith of Catholics,' Rev. James Waterworth, London: Dolman, 1896; and Flesh of Christ, quoted in 'Faith of the Early Fathers,' William Jurgens, Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1970

(7) PG 155:701 a-b.

(8) Etymologies.

(9) Commenataria, available from same source as No. 4.

(10) Sermon 34., and De utilitate credendi.

(11) Quoted by J. Tixeront, History of dogmas, St. Louis, Mo.: Herder, 1926

(12) St. Brunonis, de Ornatu Eccles.

(13) Quoted in From the Housetops, No. 22, St. Benedict Center, Still River, Mass., 1982.

(14) The Letters of St. Bernard of Clairvaux, (No. 318) e.d. and translated by B. S. James, Chicago, Regnery: 1953

(15) Catechism Chretien, IIe part., Chap. 14.

(16) Preface to his The Love of God.

(17) Conferences.

(18) Letter to Mr. d'Horgny.

(19) The Lives of the Saints.

(20) Van Noort, op. cit.

(21) Taken from the Liber diurnus Romanorum Pontificum, PL 105, S 54. This oath was also taken by John XXIII, but refused by both John Paul I and II.

(22) De Nupt, II.

(23) Life and Letters, page 72.

(24) Quoted in Works and Days of John Fisher, E. Sturtz, S.J., New Haven, Yale, 1981.

(25) Vatican II, under the heading of 'religious liberty' would concede to all religious sects, and to non-religious organizations, the right to propagate their views, no matter how heretical, and even in situations where the Church could prevent it. This is, the Council teaches, to be 'guaranteed' as a 'civil right.' What father would ever allow such in his family?

(26) In passing, the accusation that the Church 'burned' heretics is false. Heretics, especially anarchists and satanists were considered enemies of the state. The Albigensians (in France) denied all civil as well as all spiritual authority. The Church and her 'inquisition' functioned to determine whether or not they were in fact heretics, and always insisted that they be given a chance to 'recant.' Our modern 'jury' system is an outgrowth of the Inquisition as all evidence had to be presented, not to a jury of peers, but to one of experts. In many situations the Inquisition functioned to 'protect' the faithful from the state. It was those who clearly were attempting to destroy the civil order who were turned over to the state for punishment. That abuses occurred is unfortunately true, but these were surprisingly few in number. Those who are interested in an unbiased view of this institution are referred to William Thomas Walsh's 'Characters of the Inquisition' (available from TAN) and to a most remarkable study by Professor Jean Dumont of the Sorborne in Paris entitled 'L'Eglise au risque de l'Histoire', Limoge: Criterion, 1985. Professor Dumont is non-Catholic and hence cannot be accused of historical bias.

(27) The Church has always taken the position that error can under certain circumstances be 'tolerated,' but never that it gives approval or treats it on an 'equal footing' (to use a phrase culled from Vatican II). Thus while forced conversions are clearly forbidden by Canon Law, she has always done all in her power to prevent the faithful from being seduced by heretical teachings. Convinced of her sacred function and duty, how else should she behave?

(28) Quoted by Msgr. John Vaughan in Dangers of the Day, Ave Maria Press, 1909.

(29) Letter to his father quoted by George Rigault, St. Louis de Montfort, His Life and Work, N.Y., The MOntfort Fathers, 1947.

(30) Letter 318, op. cit.

(31) Frank Sheed, The Church and I, N.Y., Doubleday, 1974.

(32) One or two theologians have in fact been reprimanded recent years - men like Jacques Pohier whose names are completely unknown. One or two like Father Boff in Brazil were 'silenced' for a period of one year (with no retractions required). One or two others have been removed from their teaching positions. Such of course is mere 'tokenism'.

(33) New York Times Magazine Section, March 23, 1980.

(34) Quoted by the Abbe Georges de Nantes in his Liber Accusationis in Paulum Sextum, available from Ligue de la contre-Reforme Catholique, Maison Saint-Joseph, 10260 Saint-Parres-Les-Vaudes (France).

(35) July 15, 1966. The Index dates back to the Council of Nicaea in 325 when the works of Arius (specifically, his book Thalia) were condemned because of the author's views that the Word of God was a creature were 'set forth in a loose, free style, reminding one of the works of Sotades.' The 'loose free style' was not invented by the 'periti' of Vatican II. It should be noted in passing that any Catholic who has an adequate reason and the requisite intellectual background can get permission from his pastor to read books on the Index. The Holy Office of the Inquisition was changed to 'The Congregation for the Defense of Doctrine.' Paul VI diminished its role by eliminating its office for censorship of books and the Roman Index of Prohibited Books (Cf. The Remnant, Dec. 15, 1979).

(36) Quoted in 31.

CHAPTER VII
CAN A POPE DEPART FROM UNITY OF FAITH AND WORSHIP?

Catholics hold the Papacy in such veneration that it is almost inconceivable that anyone would presume to criticize the individual who sits on the Chair of Peter. The Pope is the Visible Head of the Church. He is the Head because he is the Vicar of Christ and clothed with Christ's authority. He is said to be visible not only because he is the one that is seen, but also because one sees through him with the eyes of the faith, the invisible Head (Christ). He is called the Pastor of Pastors (from the Latin Pasco, to feed) because he 'feeds and confirms' all the other Pastors (bishops). He is also in like manner called the 'Doctor of doctors' (from docere, to teach), for he is the 'universal' or 'supreme' Doctor. And he is also called the 'Vicar' (from the Latin vicarius, to take the place of) because he stands in the place of Christ.

I - THE POPE IS HELD IN THE HIGHEST AUTHORITY BY CATHOLICS

A Pope then stands above all other men. Yet he stands below Christ. His authority, as all authority, comes from God, and no one who stands beneath him has the authority to command, confirm or teach him. His power is so great that he can dispense the faithful from any ecclesiastical law(1), but not great enough to dispense anyone from the natural or the divine law. He cannot be removed from his office even by an Ecumenical Council, though such a council can declare him a formal heretic, which if true, puts him in the situation of removing himself from office. But despite the power he welds and despite the authority he holds, he is limited by one important factor - even though he is Christ's Viceroy (which literally means 'Voice-King') on earth - he is not himself Christ. He can over-rule others, but never over-rule his divine Master. This is why he cannot dispense anyone from divine law. This is why he he can no more change our faith then he cannot 'unmake' the Truth. As St. Cyprian said: 'God is one, and Christ is one, and the Church is one, and the chair is one, founded by the Lord's word upon a rock. Another altar or a new priesthood, besides the one altar and the one priesthood, cannot be set up. Whosoever gathereth elsewhere scattereth.' (2)

It is because the Pope is Christ's highest representative on earth that he is given governance over the faithful. The reason we owe him obedience is that, as St. Norbort of Magdeburg says, 'obedience to the Pope is obedience to Christ' . As Msgr. Grou expresses, the Pope 'is one hierarchical person with Our Lord'. As such he is endowed with the charism of infallibility. Just as he is clothed with Christ's authority, so also he is clothed with Christ's infallibility, and it goes without saying that our Divine Lord could not teach anything but the absolute truth (3).

The Pope is infallible when he functions as Pope, when he speaks from the Chair of Peter (ex Cathedra as explained in Chapter II). This infallibility does not extend to him as a private person or even as a private theologian. There is no limit to the pope's infallibility except that of teaching error, for error can never be infallibly true. The pope is unlimited in his function of preserving the deposit of the faith, but he is limited by this function, for he cannot teach anything contrary to this deposit. 'The Holy Spirit is not promised to the successors of Peter so that, through His revelation, they may bring new doctrines to light, but that, with His help, they may keep inviolate and faithfully expound the revelation handed down through the Apostles, the deposit of faith' (Denzinger 1836).

The Church has always recognized the limitations under which the Pope rules. As St. Bernard wrote to Pope Eugene in his Five Books on Consideration (otherwise known as Advise to a Pope): 'You have been entrusted with stewardship over the world, not given possession of it. Leave possession and rule to Him; you take care of it. This is your portion: beyond it do not stretch your hand. You should not think that you are excluded from those about whom God complains, (when He says in Hos. 8:4) 'They have reigned, but not by Me; princes have arisen, but I do not recognize them'' (4)

It should be clearly understood that the charism of infallibility does not deprive the pope of his free will. He is not turned into a robot. If he were, every pope would be a canonized saint. A Pope, like every man, can be a sinner - omnis homo mendax, and indeed some were. But even though he sin, he still retains his function as Pope (5). It is one thing to sin against the flesh, for all men are weak ; it is quite another to deny the truth with obstinacy which is a 'sin against the Holy Ghost' (6).

II - CAN A NON-CATHOLIC BE ELECTED TO THE PAPACY?

Non-Catholics include those who have never been Catholic, and those who once were Catholic but who either apostacized or were excluded from the Body of Christ by legitimate disciplinary action. Those who are not Catholic are not and cannot be, suitable candidates for the papacy. Pope Paul IV made this clear in his Apostolic Bull Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio (1559): 'Should it happen that a bishop, cardinal, legate, or even the Roman Pontiff had deviated from the Catholic Faith before his nomination as bishop, cardinal or pope, the following dispositions are compulsory. The promotion or election, even if the cardinals have consented to this of common accord, [i.e. all of them], is null and void. They cannot acquire validity by the fact of the subject's entry into function or by the fact of consecration or subsequent exercise of authority - in the case of a pope - by the fact of enthronement, or the act of veneration or subsequent general obedience... Nor can they confer upon such persons... any power to command either in the spiritual or temporal domain... Whoever does not refuse his fidelity and obedience to such persons thus promoted or called are tearing the Lord's robe..'

III - CAN A POPE LOOSE HIS AUTHORITY?

A Pope may loose his authority in several ways. He may loose it by death; by insanity, by schism (separating himself from the Church) and by apostasy (which is spiritual death). There is no difficulty in understanding the principle behind death or insanity. Hence the question can be rephrased thus: CAN THE POPE SEPARATE HIMSELF FROM THE CHURCH (SCHISM); AND CAN HE FALL INTO HERESY?

A) CAN A POPE BECOME SCHISMATIC?

Schism is defined as the rupture of ecclesiastical unity. St. Augustine tells us that 'By false doctrines (7) concerning God heretics wound faith; by iniquitous dissensions schismatics deviate from fraternal charity, although they believe what we believe' (8). The Church has always held that a pope can become schismatic.

'One (a Pope) also falls into schism if he himself departs from the body of the Church by refusing to be in communion with her by participating in the sacraments... The Pope can become schismatic in this manner if he does not wish to be in proper communion with the body of the Church (i.e., the Church of All Times), a situation which would arise if he tried to excommunicate the entire Church, or , as both Cajetan and Torquemada observe, IF HE WISHED TO CHANGE ALL THE ECCLESIASTICAL CEREMONIES, FOUNDED AS THEY ARE ON APOSTOLIC TRADITION.' - Francis Suarez, S.J.

And indeed, what Ecclesiastical Ceremonies have the post-Conciliar 'popes' left unaltered?

'By disobedience the Pope can separate himself from Christ despite the fact that he is head of the Church, for above all, the unity of the Church is dependent on its relationship with Christ. The Pope can separate himself from Christ by either disobeying the laws of Christ, or by commanding something that is against the divine or natural law. By so doing, the Pope separates himself from the body of the Church because this body is itself linked to Christ by obedience. In this way, the Pope could without doubt fall into schism.'

'The Pope can also separate himself from the Church and her priests if he so wishes to do and without any specific reason. [i.e., by the exercising of his free will]. He also does this if he refuses to do what the Universal Church [i.e., the Church of All Times] does, based as these things are, on the Tradition of the Apostles; or again, if he does not observe those precepts which the Holy and Ecumenical councils or the Holy See have determined to be of universal application. Especially is this true with regard to the divine liturgy, as for example, if he did not wish personally to follow the universal customs and rites of the Church. Such would be the case if he did not wish to celebrate Mass with the sacred vestments or with candles, of if he refused to make the sign of the cross in the same manner as other priests do. The same holds true for other aspects of the liturgy in a very general fashion, and for anything that might go against the perpetual customs of the Church as incorporated in the Canons Quae ad perpetuum, violatores, Sunt Quidem and Contra Statua. By separating himself from the observance of the universal customs of the Church, and by doing so with obstinacy, the Pope is able to fall into schism. Such a conclusion is only just because the premises on which it is based are beyond doubt. for, just as the Pope can become a heretic, so also is he able to do so with the sin of obstinacy. Thus it is that Pope Innocent states (De Consuetudine) that, it is necessary to obey a Pope in all things as long as he does not himself go against the universal customs of the Church, but should he go against the universal customs of the Church, he need not be followed...' - Jean de Torquemada.

B) CAN A POPE FALL INTO HERESY?

Heresy is the sin of denying a revealed truth with obstinacy. Properly speaking, obstinacy does not constitute the sin of heresy, but rather manifests it and permits one to distinguish the heretic who wishes to deny a truth of the faith, from a person who is in error from ignorance and without any desire to deny a truth of the faith. This is the distinction between material and formal heresy. Any one who holds to an erroneous belief in ignorance of the teaching of the Church is materially wrong, but in so far as he has no desire to be in error, he is not formally wrong. However, a person who is a material heretic, and who once having been corrected, persists in his error, adds obstinacy to his attitude and becomes a formal heretic (9). Such 'willful error' is a mortal sin.

Every mortal sin results in the loss of the state of grace, but even when deprived of this divine grace, the sinner remains a member of the Church. He is like a branch of the vine in which the sap of grace no longer flows, but a branch not cut off, and hence one that can be brought back to life. Even though such a person is 'spiritually dead', he remains within the Church. As Pius XII pointed out, 'sinners are in the Church of which they are always members' (Mystici corporis).

However, the sins of schism and heresy not only cause spiritual death, they also separate those who are guilty of such from the Mystical Body of Christ which is the Church. Unlike a sinner, a heretic is no longer a member of the Church. Should the heretic be in Holy Orders (a deacon, priest or bishop), he retains the powers inherent in the order received, but looses the right to use them. In addition, he looses all jurisdiction or authority. (10)

The principle involved is enshrined in Canon Law (1917). Canon 138 states: 'Through tacit resignation, accepted by the Law itself, all offices become vacant by the very fact (ipso facto) and without any declaration, if a cleric... has publicly defected from the Catholic Church.

It should be clear that the Pope, like anyone else is free and hence perfectly capable of apostatizing from the faith. This he does by becoming a 'formal' heretic. As some would deny it is possible for a Pope to apostatize from the faith, let it be noted that Dante has never been criticised by the Church for placing several Popes in hell. The promise of Christ - 'I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not' (Luke 22:31) in no way guarantees papal indefectibility. It is the Church which is indefectable, and not the pope.

IV - WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A POPE BECOMES A HERETIC?

It is of course true that a pope cannot be deposed, even by a Council (for no act of a Council has authority until it receives papal approval), but should a pope fall into notorious or formal heresy, he automatically falls from his high station and looses all his authority. Let the teaching of the Church be clear: 'There is no doubt but that a Pope, even if he should be a notorious heretic - if for example, he taught a doctrine contrary to the divine faith - could not be deposed by a Council; the council would simply declare that he was a heretic and as a result that he had fallen from his pontificate.' - Saint Alphonse de Liguori.

'(A Pope) who is a notorious heretic automatically ceases to be the pope and chief, just as he automatically ceases to be a Christian and a member of the Church.' - Cardinal Saint Robert Bellarmin.

'A pope who makes himself the mouthpiece of heresy is no longer a pope, and when he is mistaken, he is not the less mistaken because he is a pope. In such a situation, it is not the Church which errs, for she can always elect another pope.' - Francis Suarez, S.J.

'A Pope, by the simple fact that he is guilty of heresy, places himself outside the Church, and he is relieved of his function by God himself.' - Thyrsus Gonzales, S.J.

'In the situation where the pope becomes a heretic, he finds himself by that sole fact and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. In effect, a head separated from the body can no longer, as long as it is separated, be the head of that body from which it is separated. Thus, a pope, who become separated from the Church by heresy, ceases by that fact to be head of the Church. He cannot be a heretic and remain pope because one who is outside the Church cannot hold the keys of the Church.' - St.Antonin of Florence

'If the pope is a heretic, by that very fact (ipso facto) he falls out of the Church.' - St. Francis de Sales.

V - CAN ONE PRESUME THE GOOD WILL OF A POPE WHO OFFICIALLY TEACHES ERROR WITH REGARD TO DOCTRINAL MATTERS?

The pope can fall into heresy as a private doctor. (He is prevented from doing so in his capacity of Universal Doctor - that is, in his official capacity as pope.) He can manifest this doctrinal error in two ways.

As a private doctor: In such a case, as would be the situation with any of the faithful who made a mistake, one not only can, but one should, presume good faith, especially if he retracts as soon as he is made aware of his error. Such was the situation with St. Peter, and Pope Pascal II.

In an official manner: In this situation his good faith cannot even be presumed. In effect, it is a dogma of our faith that in the exercise of his function of pope, he cannot teach error. Hence it follows that if a pope should teach error in his official capacity, by that very fact he makes it manifestly clear that prior to this he had fallen into error and lost the papacy . To refuse to accept this statement is to either deny the dogma of infallibility, or quod absit, to accuse Christ of teaching falsehood. As Leo XIII stated, 'if, which is impossible, the official teaching of a pope should be erroneous, it would follow that God Himself would be the author of error among men. O Lord, if we are in error, it is You Yourself who have deceived us' (Satis cognitum)

VI - THE PROBLEM OF A DOUBTFUL POPE

There are three ways in which doubts can arise as to whether a given individual is truly the pope. The first is as to whether he was a Catholic prior to his election. Section 2 above points out that it is impossible for a non-Catholic to be elected to the Papacy. Doubt about a person's orthodoxy prior to election can lead to doubt about the validity of his election.

Secondly, one can question the election process itself. Here the laws of the Church (The Apostolic Constitution Vacante sede, Dec. 25, 1904) must be clearly followed, laws set up precisely to prevent undue influence by the powers of this world in the final result (13). The rules to be followed in this situation are given below.

The third area relates to the status of a given pope after his election and acceptance of the papacy. An individual who is unquestionably pope can still defect from the faith and place himself outside the Church. Should such be the case, he would, as shown above, loose all authority and jurisdiction.

Where the issue is uncertain, the principle that 'a doubtful pope is no pope at all' applies. Such is the statement of Father Wilmers: 'In the case where the election of a pope has become so doubtful that it is impossible to know with certitude whether or not he is a true pontiff, he whose election is doubtful should, according to most authors, step down in order to allow a new election to take place. If he refuses to do so, the Church and the bishops can declare that he is not a pope because his election is in doubt. This follows from the principle that 'a doubtful pope is no pope at all.' In effect, he whose authority is uncertain is unable to oblige anyone to obey him, in the same fashion that one is not obliged to obey a law before it is promulgated.'

In view of what has been said in previous sections, the ability of a council to declare a doubtful Pope as without authority may be questioned. Consider the words of Cardinal Saint Robert Bellarmin: 'A doubtful pope should not be considered as a pope, and hence to exercise authority over him is not to exercise authority over a pope... Even though a council cannot convene in the absence of a pope in order to define new dogmas, it nevertheless can convene, during a period of schism, to determine who is the true pope and, if the first [shown to be either] null or doubtful, to furnish the Church with another pastor.'

VII - THE PROBLEM FOR THE FAITHFUL

It is not for the faithful to declare that a given individual is or is not the pope. This decision resides with the Magisterium of the Church (14). What the faithful can and must do however, is decide whether a given person sitting in the Chair of Peter is Catholic or not. To argue that no member of the Church has the right to judge the Pope's orthodoxy is to argue that the faithful have no right and hence no obligation, to distinguish between truth from error. If such be the case, than none of us will be held responsible for being Catholic Once one determines that a given pope teaches error 'with the appearances of and the solemnity of an ex cathedra pronouncement', one can decide that he is not Catholic and that the rules of the Church apply. This may seem to beg the issue, but in point of fact functions to protect both pope and laity from rash judgements. At issue is not what one thinks or feels, but what is fact. If a given pope teaches error in an ex cathedra manner, it is prima facie evidence that he has lost the faith.

Lest there be any doubt about this the following quotations are offered: 'When the shepherd turns into a wolf, the first duty of the flock is to defend itself. As a general rule, doctrine comes from the bishops to the faithful, and it is not for the faithful, who are subjects in the order of faith, to pass judgment on their superiors. but every Christian by the virtue of his title to the name Christian, has not only the necessary knowledge of the essentials of the treasure of Revelation, but also the duty of safeguarding them. The principle is the same, whether it is a matter of belief or conduct, that is of dogma or morals' - Dom Gueranger, The Liturgical Year.

All this is incorporated in Canon Law. 'Any member of the faithful may at all times denounce the offence of another... and the obligation of denouncing another becomes urgent... when one is obliged to do so in virtue of the natural law where there is a danger to faith or religion or other imminent public evil.' - Canon 1935 (1917).

Finally, the importance of all this becomes clear in that obedience does not excuse one or abolish the responsibility for sin. Listen to the words of St. Catherine of Sienna as addressed to Pope Gregory XI: 'Alas, Alas, my most sweet Father... those who obey [an evil pastor] fall into disorder and iniquity. Alas, I say this with sorrow. How dangerous is the consuming road of self-love [on the part of a pastor], not only because it destroys his own sou, but also because it leads so many others to hell.'

VIII - DOES ONE ALWAYS HAVE TO OBEY THE POPE?

While the next chapter will provide an in detail study of obedience, the subject will be briefly discussed at this point. Many doubts have been raised about the validity of the post-Conciliar 'popes'. Strictly speaking, if they are true popes, they are to be obeyed as one would obey Christ. Their teachings are to be accepted as if they came from Christ Himself. Logically speaking, in order to disobey them one would have to come to the conclusion that they had lost their authority in one of the ways discussed above.

But it is to be admitted that many are confused by current events. They see the evil fruits of Vatican II and hear the voice of a stranger (the sheep know their Master's voice) coming from Rome. They are asked in the name of obedience to discard all that they once were taught to hold sacred, the liturgy and practice of the Church. Yet they find it difficult to conclude that those sitting in the Chair of Peter lack valid authority. For those in doubt about whether one should be in doubt about the validity of these 'popes'; and until the issue has been resolved, there are still principles of behavior that apply. Such is the care with which the Church protects the faithful.

'Although it clearly follows from the circumstances that the Pope can err at times, and command things which must not be done, that we are not to be simply obedient to him in all things, that does not show that he must not be obeyed by all when his commands are good. to know in what cases he is to be obeyed and in what not... it is said in the Acts of the Apostles: 'One ought to obey God rather than man'. Therefore, were the Pope to command anything against Holy Scripture, or the articles of faith, or the truth of the Sacraments, or the commands of the natural or divine law, he ought not to be obeyed, but in such commands, to be passed over (despiciendus).' - Cardinal Turrencremata (Summa de Eccl.).

'It is lawful to resist him [the Pope] if he assaulted souls, or troubled the state, and much more if he strove to destroy the Church. It is lawful, I say, to resist him by not doing what he commands and hindering the execution of his will' - Cardinal Saint Bellarmin (De Rom. Pont.).

'If the Pope, by his orders and his acts, destroys the Church, one can resist him and impede the execution of his commands.' - Francisco de Vitoria.

'If the Pope lays down an order contrary to right customs, one does not have to obey him...' -

Francis Suarez S.J.

All this is well summed up by Bishop Robert Grosseteste, himself a man who found it necessary disobey the pope: 'Those who preside in this most Holy See are most principally among mortals clothed with the person of Christ, and therefore it is necessary that in them especially the works of Christ should shine, and that there should be nothing contrary to Christ's works in them. And of the same reason, just as the Lord Jesus Christ must be obeyed in all things, so also those who preside in this see, insofar as they are clothed with Christ and are as such truly presiding, must be obeyed in all things. But if anyone of them, (which God forbid!) should put on the clothing of kingship and the flesh of the world or anything else except Christ, and for love of such things should command anything contrary to Christ's precepts and will, anyone who obeys him in such things manifestly separates himself from Christ and from His Body which is the Church.

IX - A CONSTANT TEACHING OF THE CHURCH

Traditional Catholics vary in their attitude towards the post-Conciliar pontiffs. Some reject their validity outright; others see them as material, but not formal 'popes' - as individuals sitting in the Chair of Peter but void of all spiritual authority; still others consider them legitimate pontiffs who are 'tainted with error', or as material, but not formal heretics, and hence as individuals who have not lost their high estate. The latter group tend to disobey them when they command the faithful to act against the traditions of the Church but are inevitably forced into the position of picking and choosing just what they accept and what they reject.

The principles involved in such decisions have always been with the Church. I quote below the statement of William of Ockham (circa 1324) on which he founded his opposition to John XXII. In doing so the author of this book in no way intends to defend the Nominalist position, but only to show that the theological principles involved.

'Because of the errors and the heresies mentioned above and countless others, I turned away from the obedience of the false Pope and all who were his friends to the prejudice of the orthodox faith. For men of great learning showed me that because of his errors and heresies the same pseudo-pope is heretical, deprived of his papacy and excommunicated by canon law itself, without need of further sentence.... In proof thereof several volumes have been published... For against the errors of this pseudo-pope I have turned my face like the hardest rock, so that neither lies nor calumnies nor any persecution (which cannot touch my innermost self in any bodily fashion), nor great numbers of men who believe in him or favor him or even defend him, shall be able to prevent me from attacking or reproving his errors, as long as I shall have hand, paper, pen and ink...

If anyone should like to recall me or anyone else who has turned away from the obedience of the false pope and his friends, let him try to defend his Constitutions and sermons, and show that they agree with Holy Scripture, or that a Pope cannot fall into the wickedness of heresy, or let him show by holy authorities or manifest reasons that one who knows the Pope to be a notorious heretic is obliged to obey him. Let him not, however, adduce the great number of his adherents, not base his arguments on reporaches, because those who try to arm themselves with great numbers of with lies, reproaches, threats and false calumnies, show that they are void of truth and reason. Therefore let none believe that I mean to turn away from the recognized truth because of the great number of those in favor of the pseudo-pope, or because of proofs that are common to heretics and to orthodox men, because I prefer Holy Scripture to a man unlearned in holy science, and I have a higher esteem for the doctrine of the Fathers who reign with Christ than for the tradition of men dwelling in this mortal life.' (16)

FOOTNOTES:

(1) Ecclestical law refers to those laws established by the Church.

(2) St Cyprian, Ex. xl., Ad Plebem, , De Quinque Presch., n. 5 and De Unitate. 'Adoration is necessary, but adorationwhich is not out of the Church, only that ordered in the very court of God. Invent not, He saith, your own courts and synagogues for Me. One is the holy court of God' (St. Basil, Hom. in Ps. xxviii. n. 3).

(3) St. Norbert, founder of the Canons regular (Premonstratensians) told Pope Innocent II that 'the seat of Peter exercises the office of Peter. Because of the promise of Christ, he who obeys Peter obeys Christ. But if you command obedience to this proposition (regarding investitures), you place yourself in opposition to the entire Church' (Vita A. de San Norberto, Cited by R.P.J. Campos in Un defensor energico del Papa, Roma, No. 36, pg. 63. The problem of 'Obedience' is discussed in the next chapter.

(4) Eugene IV was formerly a monk in St. Bernard's community. This famous text, described as 'both a treatise on the politics of theocracy and a paternal admonition to a spiritual son whose very soul, Bernard believed, was imperiled by his high office', subsequently became a standard text on papal behavior. Cistercian Publications, Kalamazoo, Mich., 1976.

(5) It is a principle of theology that a priest's sacraments are valid even though he himself is in a state of mortal sin. The reason is that the sacramental act is Christ's and not the priest's.

(6) The Pope, like every Catholic, goes to Confession. Sins against the flesh are not limited to the sexual domain. They also include such things as anger, glutony and sloth. Sins against the intellect are of a different order for one is not led into them by pleasure.

(7) It is presumed the reader has read the previous chapter on The Nature of the Catholic Faith. In essence, to be Catholic, one has to believe all that the Church teaches. If one believes something that goes against what the Church teaches, one is a material heretic. If one persists for 6 months after being corrected, in holding to such an opinion, one adds obstinacy to the material error and becomes a formal heretic. A formal heretic automatically places himself outside the Church.

(8) De fide et symbolo, ix. In point of fact, as St. Jerome points out, Schism rarely exists apart from heresy.

(9) The Church allows a period of six months for this to become evident.

(10) 'A manifest heretic cannot be a Christian�, as states St. Cyprian in Book IV, Epistle 2; St. Athanasius, in his second sermon against the Arians; St. Augustine in his book De gratia Christi, Ch. 20; St. Jerome (Contra Lucifer) and many others. It follows that 'a manifest heretic cannot be Pope'. Those interested in a fuller discussion are referred to Father Joaquin Saenz y Arriaga's 'Sede Vacante�, Editores Asociados: Mexico, 1973. The quotation of St. Antonine is available in Actes et histoire du Councile Oecumenique de rome, 1er du Vatican (1960), Vol I., Histoire des Councles, Premier partie: Traite theologique. Ch. III. Published by Victor Frond and a work given the approval of Pope Pius IX. Charles Journet also gives a similar opinion from the writings of Savanarola along with an excellent discussion in his The Church of the Word Incarnate, Vil. !, Sheed and Ward: N.Y.

(11) We do not say 'to teach error ex cathedra' for, with regard to the faith, such a supposition would be absurd; we say 'in the form ex cathedra' by which we mean, 'with the appearances of and the solemnity of an ex cathedra pronouncement'.

(12) Quoted by Arnaldo Xavier de Silveira, L'Ordo Missae de Paul VI: Qu'en Penser?, Diffusion de la Pansee Francaise: Paris, 1980.

(13) According to Wernz-Vidal, and almost all theologians agree with him, the peaceful acceptance of a pope by the entire Church is 'the sign and the infallible effect of a valid election'. As St. Alphonsus Liguori says: 'It matters little if in previous centuries a given Pontiff was elected in an illegitimate fashion, or took possession of the pontificate by means of fraud: it suffices that he was subsequently accepted as pope by the entire Church, because from this alone, he becomes a true pontiff. But if during a certain time he was not accepted truly and universally the Church, the Apostolic see was vacant, just as it would be vacant at the death of a pope.' The legitimacy of the post-Conciliar pontiffs has been disputed by significant numbers of Catholics - and orthodox Catholics - in every nation of the world.

(14) To judge a person's Catholicity is not to judge his soul. The Church has always taught that a person's external intention can be judged by his acts and statements, but that it is not possible to judge a person's internal intention.

(15) Lettres de Sainte Catherine de Sienne, Editions P. Tequi, Letter I.

(16) The Tractatus de Successivis, attributed to William Ockham, Franciscan Institute Publications, St. Bonaventure College: N.Y., 1944.

CHAPTER VIII

THE PROBLEM OF OBEDIENCE

'The Church is destroying herself by the path of obedience... The masterstroke of Satan is thus to spread the principles of revolution from within the Church, and under the authority of the Church itself... he has succeeded in getting those whose duty it is to defend and propagate the Church, to condemn those who are defending the Catholic Faith...'
Archbishop Lefebvre

OBEDIENCE

Those who deny that the post-conciliar 'popes' and 'the bishops in union with them' are Catholic, have no problem with rejecting their authority. However, for those who believe these men are true popes, true Vicars of Christ, the problem becomes more difficult. Be this as it may, there is no question but that the majority of those born to the faith are being asked to follow the directions laid down by the post-Conciliar 'pontiffs,' and to accept the changes in doctrine, worship and governance that have been initiated since Vatican II, in the name of 'obedience.' It is therefore of the utmost importance that Catholics understand the nature of their obligations with regard to this virtue.

According to Tanquerey, 'obedience is a supernatural, moral virtue which inclines us to submit our will to that of our lawful superiors, insofar as they are the representatives of God... It is evident that it is neither obligatory nor permissible to obey a superior who would give a command manifestly opposed to divine or ecclesiastical laws. In this case, we should have to repeat the words of St. Peter: 'We ought to obey God rather than man''(Acts 5:29) (Dogmatic Theology).

Let us consider the triple denial of Peter. This occurred just before our Lord's Crucifixion, but long after Christ had established him as head of the Church. No one has ever suggested that we follow the Apostle's example in this matter. And even after the Resurrection, after the Decent of the Holy Spirit, Scripture gives us yet another example where one is not forced to absolutely agree with Peter's opinion. In Galatians Chapter 2 we read how Paul rebuked Peter on the issue of circumcising the Gentiles. With regard to this episode St. Cyprian says: 'Nor did Peter whom the Lord made the first, and on whom He built His church, act insolently and arrogantly when Paul afterwards disputed with him about circumcision; he did not say that he held the primacy, and was to be obeyed...' (Epist. lxxi, n.3). St. Augustine, quoting this passage of St. Cyprian adds: 'The Apostle Peter, in whom the primacy of the Apostles is pre-eminent by so singular a grace, when acting about the circumcision differently from what truth required, was corrected by the Apostle Paul.' And so we see from Scripture that we are not to follow those who have Peter's authority either blindly or absolutely.

Since Vatican II the faithful have found themselves in the difficult position of choosing between the centuries-old teaching and discipline of the Church and the commands of the post-Conciliar hierarchy. When such a conflict occurs, the faithful have the constant teaching of the Church to warrant their adherence to the former. To demonstrate that such is the case, let us consider the words of St. Vincent of Lerins (+ 434). According to the summary found in the Catholic Encyclopedia (1908), he taught that: '...Should some new doctrine arise in one part of the Church, then firm adherence must be given to the belief of the Universal Church, and supposing the new doctrine to be of such a nature as to contaminate almost the entirety of the latter, as did Arianism, then it is to antiquity one must cling; if even here some error is encountered, one must stand by the general councils and, in default of these, by the consent of those who at diverse times and different places remained steadfast in the unanimity of the Catholic faith...'

He continues: 'he is a true and genuine Catholic who loves the truth of God, and the Church and the Body of Christ; who prefers not anything before the religion of God, nothing before the Catholic faith, not any man's authority, not love, not wit, not eloquence, not philosophy, but despising all these, and in faith abiding fixed and stable, whatsoever he knoweth that the Catholic Church held universally of old, that alone he decideth is to be held and believed by him; but whosoever he shall perceive to be introduced later, new and not before heard of, by some one man, besides, all, or contrary to all the saints, let him know that it pertains, not to religion, but to temptation' (xiv. Haeres.)

Nor should one assume this attitude is an isolated one Pope St. Gregory the Great taught in his Moralium (lib. V, c. 10): 'Know that evil ought never to be done by way of obedience, though sometimes something good, which is being done, ought to be discontinued out of obedience.'

Scholastic philosophy taught that 'true obedience is a virtuous decision of the spirit, the execution of a right command with discretion.' Alan Lille, a well known Scholastic theologian of the 12th century expounded on this passage: 'You must beware lest you err in obeying. Mark the companions obedience should have: that is, righteousness, that what is commanded may be right. For this reason it is said: 'the execution of a right command with discretion.' Secondly, what is decided should be honest: as it is said, 'a virtuous decision.' Thirdly, it should proceed from discretion; for this reason is added: 'with discretion.' That obedience which is without discretion is therefore hollow. That which is without honesty, is retrograde, for he who obeys honesty but out of an excess of obedience, shows spiritual pride. If indeed obedience is without righteousness, it is without law or principle... We know that evil should never could about through obedience...'

The same principles were taught by St. Bernard in his treatise On Precept and Dispensation. Discussing the role of the superior, he notes that: 'the Abbot is not above the Rule, for he himself once freely placed himself beneath it. Thee is only one power above the Rule... which we must admit, and that is God's rule... He who has been chosen abbot is placed as judge, not over the traditions of the Fathers, but over the transgressions of his brethren, that he may uphold the rules and punish offences Indeed, I consider that those holy observances are rather entrusted to the prudence and faithfulness of the superiors than subjected to their will.'

Since all authority in the last analysis comes from God, all obedience in the last analysis is given to God. As St. Thomas Aquinas teaches, 'it sometimes happens that the commands issued by prelates are against God. Therefore not in all things are prelates to be obeyed. For those under them are bound to do so only in those matters in which they are subject to their superiors, and, in which those same superiors do not oppose the command of a Power higher than themselves'(Summa II-II, Q. 104, Art. 5). Elsewhere he teaches that obedience to superiors only obliges when 'they proclaim to us those things which the Apostles left behind' (De Veritate, Q. 14, Art. 10). He explains: 'Anyone would be subject to a lower power only in so far as it preserves the order established by a power higher than itself; but if it (the lower power) departs from the order of the higher power, then it is not right for anyone to be subjected to that lower power - for example - if a proconsul ordered something to be done when the emperor above commanded the contrary' (Summa, II-II, Q. 69, Art.3).

Even more specific is the statement to be found in the famous Dialogue between a Cluniac and a Cistercian: 'We must heed our superiors with complete obedience, even though they lead improper lives, so long as they rule over us and instruct us in accordance with the authority of divine law. If, however, they are so completely perverted towards moral ruin that they do not follow the authority of divine law in ruling over their subjects but follow instead their own willful impulses and fancies, then let us, as scandalized and displeased subjects heedful of the dictates of divine law, flee from them as we would from blind leaders, lest together with them we fall into the pit of eternal damnation... irrational service is not acceptable to God, as the Apostle tells us in commanding 'reasonable service'' (Rom. 12:1).

Now it would be irrational to expect the teaching of the Church to be other than this, for in obedience, as the Angelic Doctor states, 'not only is promptitude requires, but also discernment' (Commentary on the Epistle to Titus, 3:1). Blind obedience is as foreign to the Magisterium as is blind faith.

Pope Benedict XIV in his treatise on Heroic Virtue clearly states: 'A superior is not to be obeyed when he commands anything contrary to the divine law. Nor is an abbot to be obeyed when he commands anything contrary to the rule, according to the well-known letter of S. Bernard to the monk Adam. A blind obedience excludes the prudence of the flesh, not the prudence of the spirit as is shown at length by Suarez.'

These principles are well summarized by a modern author, Father Vincent McNabb. Writing in the early part of the present century he stated: 'Some higher person or law must authorize and control all created authority whether individual or collective... from this follows the momentous principle, which we may enunciate thus: NO AUTHORITY HAS THE RIGHT TO COMMAND UNLESS IN COMMANDING IT IS ITSELF OBEYING. In other words, authority can command obedience only when its act or command is an act of obedience.'

HOLY 'DISOBEDIENCE'
HISTORICAL EXAMPLES OF 'DISOBEDIENCE' FROM THE LIVES OF THE SAINTS

Throughout history situations have arisen where the saints were obliged to disobey their superiors. One of the earliest of these is to be found in the old Roman Breviary and concerns Pope St. Marcellinus whose Feast-day is celebrated on January 19th. According to Pope Nicholas I, 'in the reign of the sovereigns Diocletian and Maximian, Marcellinus, the Bishop of Rome, who afterwards became an illustrious martyr, was so persecuted by the pagans that he entered one of their temples and there offered incense. Because of this act an inquiry was held by a number of bishops in Council, and the Pontiff confessed his fall' (Letter to Emperor Michael, 865).

Another writer named Platine gives us more details: 'When Pope Marcellinus was threatened by the executioners, he yielded to fear, offered incense to the idols and adored them. But when, soon afterward, a Council of 180 Bishops met in Sinuessa, Marcellinus appeared in the assembly clothed in sackcloth and begged the synodals to impose upon him a penance because of his infidelity. But no member of the Council would condemn him; all declaring that St. Peter had sinned similarly, and had merited pardon by his tears.'

The fact that scholars dispute the accuracy of the story is beside the point. It is to be found in the older Breviaries of the Church which aimed at teaching principles by example rather than in satisfying the demands of modernist historians. The story is however accepted as true by St. Robert Bellarmin and the great Catholic historian Baronius. And hence it was a common mediaeval saying that 'because Pope Marcellus offered incense to Jove does not mean that all the bishops should do likewise.'

Yet another example is provided by the case of Pope Paschall II who reigned between 1099 and 1118. It was a period when the battles between the Church and State were fiercely raging - the issue in question was that of 'investiture' - in essence, who should appoint the members of the hierarchy (bishops): the Church or the Emperor? It was a particularly touchy matter as the bishops of the Church in that era controlled large tracts of land which were obliged to provide the state with soldiers and support in the event of war. The issue had been settled in an Ecumenical council during the reign of his predecessor Gregory VII, and this after great struggles. The Church was to retain control of their appointment, but the traditional feudal obligations of land owners towards the temporal authority was to be preserved.

Despite this the issue was of such great importance that Henry V, Emperor of Germany, actually invaded Italy and made the pope a prisoner. For two months Paschal II was subjected to the most fearful threats and cruel treatment. Finally, under pressure from his own fellow-captive bishops, he signed a treaty with the king allowing him to invest by 'ring and crozier' - spiritual symbols - (both lay and cleric) and further signed away to the emperor the right of deciding between rival claimants in contested elections and the privilege of rejecting papal appointments. He also surrendered to the king monastic lands and possessions. This treaty in essence gave the king complete control of the Church's hierarchy in over half the territory of Europe. Further, the Pope swore not to avenge himself on the Emperor for his actions and never to revoke the treaty if he was released.

When he was released the Pope felt bound by his oath and hesitated to repudiate this treaty. Godfrey, the zealous Abbot of Nendome, contrasted his actions with the heroic resolution of the martyrs of old, and particularly with the examples of SS. Peter and Paul. He wrote to the Pope that 'if the successor of the Apostles has disregarded their example, he should hasten, if he would not forfeit their glorious crown, to undo and repair what he had done, and like a second Peter, expiate his fault with tears of repentance.' Lay investiture, he added, whereby power was granted to laymen to convey possessions, and therewith jurisdiction in spiritual matters, was equivalent to the denial of the faith, destructive of the liberty of the Church, and out-and-out heresy. The Abbot of Monte Cassino, when ordered to surrender the monastic lands, refused. 'I love you,' he wrote to the Pope, 'as my lord and as my father, and I have no desire for another as pope. But the Lord has said, 'whosoever loves father and mother more than me is not worthy of me...' As for this outrageous treaty, wrung from you by violence and treachery, how can I praise it? Or indeed, how can you...? Your own laws have condemned and excommunicated the cleric who submits to lay investiture...' Another prelate, the Archbishop of Lyons, urged the pope in still stronger terms: 'Detestable pilot that your are, in times of peace a bully, and before the storm a coward.' The Archbishop of Vienne, Paschal's own legate in France, called a Council and declared lay investiture to be heretical, and proceeded to excommunicate Henry V. At this Council, three subsequently canonized saints - Ss. Bruno, St. Hugh of Grenoble and St. Godfrey of Amiens, as well as a future Pope, Calixtus II - all stated that unless he revoked his agreement with the Emperor, 'we should be obliged to withdraw our allegiance from you.' The Pope admitted he was wrong and rectified his error. At still another Council he said 'I confess that I failed and ask you to pray to God to pardon me.'

One final example, that of Robert Grosseteste. He was a doctor of Theology at Oxford when it was a center of Catholic learning. Now he was one of the staunchest defenders of the papacy, comparing the Pontiff to the Sun which illuminates the visible world. After he reluctantly accepted the bishopric of Lincoln, he was asked by the Pope to appoint an absentee priest (the Pope's new nephew) to one of the prebends of the diocese, a situation in which the priest received the income from a parish while he lived in Rome. Here is his response:
'It is not possible that the most holy Apostolic See to which has been handed down by the Holy of Holies, the Lord Jesus Christ, all manner of power, according to the Apostle, for edification and not for destruction, or command or in any way attempt anything verging upon this kind of sin, which is so hateful to Jesus Christ, detestable, abominable and pernicious to the human race. For this would be evidently a falling off and corruption and abuse of its most holy and plenary power... No faithful subject of the Holy See, no man who is not cut away by schism from the Body of Christ and the same Holy See, can submit to mandates, precepts, or any other demonstrations of this kind, no, not even if the author were the most high body of angels. He must needs repudiate them and rebel against them with all his strength. BECAUSE OF THE OBEDIENCE BY WHICH I AM BOUND TO THE HOLY SEE, AS TO MY PARENTS, AND OT OF MY LOVE OF MY UNION WITH THE HOLY SEE IN THE BODY OF CHRIST AS AN OBEDIENT SON, I DISOBEY, I CONTRADICT, I REBEL. You cannot take action against me, for my every word and act is not rebellion, but the filial honor due to God's command to father and mother. As I have said, the Apostolic See in its holiness cannot destroy, it can only build. This is what the plenitude of power means; it can do all things to edification. But these so-called provisions do not build up, they destroy...'

When the Pope received this letter, we are told that he was beside himself with rage and threatened to have Bishop Grosseteste imprisoned by his vassal, the King of England. However, he was restrained by Cardinal Gil de Torres who said: 'You must do nothing. It is true. We cannot condemn him. He is a Catholic and a holy man, a better man than we are. He has not his equal among the prelates. All the French and English clergy know this and our contradiction would be of no avail.' Bishop Grosseteste prevailed and according to the traditions, when he died all the church bells in England rang spontaneously. He was considered by his contemporaries as a saint. (5).

UNHOLY 'OBEDIENCE'
AN EXAMPLE TAKEN FROM THE FREEMASONS.

In concluding this chapter, it is great interest to consider some of the statements of the Freemasons on obedience. According to the Permanent Instruction drawn up by the Grand Masters of Freemasonry (Alta Vendita) in 1819-20, which fell in to the hands of the Church and were published by Pope Pius IX, 'we must turn our attention to an ideal that has always been of great concern to man aspiring to the regeneration of all mankind. This ideal is the liberation of Italy, whence is to come the liberation of the entire world and the establishment of a republic of brotherhood and world peace.' The document continues: 'Among the many remedies that have been suggested by the more energetic members of our organization, there is one which we must never forget.'

'The Papacy has always exerted a decisive influence on Italian destinies. Everywhere with the arms, voice, pen and heart of its countless bishops, monks, nuns and the faithful, the Papacy as always found people enthusiastically ready for sacrifice and martyrdom... At the present time we do not intend to rebuild, even for our advantage, this power which has been temporarily weakened (due to the overthrow of the papal states). Our ultimate purpose is identical with that of Voltaire and the French Revolution: that is, the total annihilation of Catholicism and even of Christianity.'

'For seventeen hundred years the Papacy has been an essential part of Italian history... We cannot endure such a state of affairs; we must find a remedy for this situation. And here it is! Whoever he may be, the pope will never join the secret societies: therefore, the secret societies must take the first step toward the Church and the pope, for the purpose of vanquishing them both.'

'The task we undertake will not be completed in a day, a month, or a year. It may require many years, perhaps even a century... We do not intend to win the pope over to our cause by converting him to our principles or making him their propagator... WHAT WE MUST DO IS WAIT FOR, like the Jews awaiting the Messiah, A POPE SUITABLE FOR OUR PURPOSES. Such a pope alone, will be of greater help to us in our assault on the Church than the little pamphlets of our French brothers or even the gold of England. And why? Because with such a pope we could effectively crush the rock upon which God built His Church... The little finger of Peter's successor would be caught in the plot, and this little finger would be more effective in this crusade than all the Urbans II and all the St. Bernards of Christianity.'

'We have no doubt that we shall achieve this ultimate goal of our efforts... Before we can produce a pope according to our desires, we must produce an entire generation worthy of the kingdom we hope for. We must ignore old men and those of middle age. We must seek the young, and if possible, even the very young... Once your good reputation has been established in boarding schools, high schools, universities and seminaries, once you have won the trust of teachers and pupils alike, foster especially in those who are embracing the ecclesiastical state, a desire to associate with you... This reputation of yours will make the younger secular clergy and even the religious receptive to our doctrines.

Within a few years, this same younger clergy will, of necessity occupy responsible positions. They will govern, administrate, judge and form the council of the Sovereign Pontiff; some will be called upon to elect a future pope. This pope, like most of his contemporaries, will be to a greater or lesser degree influenced by those Italian and humanitarian principles which we are now circulating. It is a small grain of mustard seed which we entrust to the soil...'

'Along this path which we now outline for our brethren there are major obstacles to surmount and difficulties of all kinds to overcome. With experience and wisdom, we shall triumph over them. The objective is so glorious that, to reach it, all sails must be unfurled. Do you want to revolutionize Italy? Seek a pope fitting our description. Do you want to establish the kingdom of the elect (i.e., the Masons) on the throne of the Babylonian whore? Then INDUCE THE CLERGY TO MARCH UNDER YOUR BANNER, IN THE BELIEF THAT THEY ARE MARCHING UNDER THE PAPAL BANNER. Do you want to make the last trace of tyranny and oppression disappear? Lower your nets like Simon bar Jona; lower them into the sacristies, the seminaries and the monasteries, instead of into the sea. If you do not precipitate events, we promise you a catch of fish even greater than St. Peter's. The fisher of fish became a fisher of men; you will fish for friends at the very feet of St. Peter's Chair. BY SO DOING YOU WILL NET A REVOLUTION CLOTHED IN TIARA AND MANTLE, PRECEDED BY THE CROSS AND PAPAL ENSIGN; A REVOLUTION THAT WILL REQUIRE BUT LITTLE HELP TO SET FIRE TO THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE WORLD.'

'IN A HUNDRED YEARS TIME... THE BISHOPS AND PRIESTS WILL THINK THEY ARE MARCHING BEHIND THE BANNER OF THE KEYS OF PETER WHEN IN FACT THEY WILL BE FOLLOWING OUR FLAG... THE REFORMS WILL HAVE TO BE BROUGHT ABOUT IN THE NAME OF OBEDIENCE.'

All this may seem far fetched to the average reader. But what is one to say when a leading Freemason, Yves Marsoudon (State Master, Supreme Council of France, Scottish Rite) tells us: 'The sense of universalism that is rampant in Rome these days is very close to our purpose of existence... With all our hearts we support the 'Revolution of John XXIII'...' Not satisfied with this, Yves Marsoudon dedicated his book 'Ecumenism as seen by a Traditionalist Freemason': to the Pope in the following words: 'To the Memory of Angelo Roncalli, Priest, Archbishop of Messembria, Apostolic Nuncio in Paris, Cardinal of the Roman Church, Patriarch of Venice, POPE under the name of John XXIII, WHO HAS DEIGNED TO GIVE US HIS BENEDICTION, HIS UNDERSTANDING AND HIS PROTECTION.'

He has further dedicated it to: 'The Pope of Peace, to the Father of all Christians, To the Friend of All Men, to His August Continuer, HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI'.

A NOTE ON THE PRESENT SITUATION IN THE CHURCH

Present day Catholics are faced with a terrible dilemma. If they obey the post-Conciliar 'popes,' they must apostatize from the Catholic faith as it has existed since the time of Christ and the Apostles.

It is clear from what has already been stated in previous chapters that Catholics must give their intellectual assent to everything in the Ordinary Magisterium. Vatican II has been repeatedly declared to be the 'supreme form of the Ordinary Magisterium.' Encyclicals and other statements dealing with faith and morals (which includes liturgical changes and changes in the form of the Sacraments) that are promulgated under the aegis of papal authority (the 'popes' speaking within their function as popes) also require our intellectual assent. To speak of intellectual assent is to speak of obedience, for virtue requires that our wills act in conformity with our intelligence.

Now these documents (Vatican II, Encyclicals, etc.,) clearly teach doctrines contrary to what has always been magisterially taught prior to the demise of Pope Pius XII. This being so, the Catholic must accept the fact that either the Holy Ghost taught error in the past, is teaching error at the present time, or is free to change His mind about the truth - matters dealing with faith and morals. If the post-Conciliar 'popes' are responsible for teaching even one error with presumed Apostolic authority, then we must either hold that Christ Himself is teaching error (quod absit), or that the post-Conciliar 'popes' are usurpers that lack authority.

Catholics who take their faith seriously have long recognized this dilemma. They have come up with a variety of solutions aimed at maintaining 'obedience to papal authority' (our salvation depends upon it) and not apostatizing from the faith. Some have declared that they can pick and choose what they like from the documents of Vatican II and other papal statements - accepting those 'in conformity with tradition' and rejecting innovations (The Society of Pius X). But such violates the Catholic requirement of giving intellectual assent and obedience to those they recognize as being 'one hierarchical person with Christ.' Others attempt to deny the magisterial status of the documents of Vatican II (and Encyclicals, etc.,) or teach falsely that the ordinary magisterium can contain error (Michael Davies). Still others claim that their organizations are exempt from obedience because of historical reasons (Order of St. John). Some have gone to Rome and obtained permission to say the traditional Mass and choose to ignore the fact that such permission is always dependent upon their accepting the teachings of Vatican II and the equal validity of the Novus Ordo Missae (The Society of St. Peter and various individual priests). Innumerable minor variations on these themes abound.

Recognizing that no one can teach error with the authority of Christ, many Catholics have openly declared that the post-Conciliar 'popes' have no authority. Some hold that the Apostolic See is vacant - usually referred to as sede vacantism. Such a position is not anti-papal, but rather strongly pro-papal. It is because of its great respect for papal authority that it immediately rejects anyone who uses the papal chair to teach error with obstinacy. Others, recognizing that the post-Conciliar 'popes' are actually sitting in the chair of Peter, adhere to the materialiter/formaliter theory which declares that they are material popes but not formally popes; that despite their sitting in the chair of Peter, they have no authority, but that should they suddenly become Catholic and teach true doctrine, they would have authority. Those who deny the authority of the post-Conciliar 'popes,' are of course bound to obey the magisterial teaching of the Church up to the time of their usurpation.

Let us conclude with a doctrinal note. Obedience is a moral virtue. Faith, Hope and Charity are theological virtues. As such they are of a higher value than obedience. This is of course logical, for obedience is not an end in itself, but a means to an end. The purpose of obedience is to 'encourage' us to obey the Faith and not the other way around. To give our obedience to error or a false faith is apostasy. (Faith, as pointed out earlier, has two aspects; one is the dogmas and teaching of the Church, and the other is our assent to them.)

FOOTNOTES:

(1) Alan Lille, The Art of Preaching, Spencer, Mass.: Cistercian Publications, 1978.

(2) St. Bernard, 'Treatise On Precept and Dispensation', Treatises, I, Spencer, Mass.: Cistercisn Publ., 1970.

(3) Idung of Prufening, Cistercians and Cluniacs, Kalamazoo, Mich.: Cistercian Publ., 1977.

(4) The Game, Vol II, Advent, 1918.(London)

(5) Some have used Grosseteste's disobedience as grounds for their disobeying the post-Conciliar 'popes.' It should be clear that there was no issue of faith and morals involved here. The pope was not demanding assent to error or obedience to liturgical change.

(6) A more complete text is to be found in Chapter I, Vol II, The Biographical Memoirs of St. John Bosco, under the title of Freemasonry in the Piedmont. New Rochelle, N.Y.: Silesiana Publishers, 1967.

(7) Quoted in World Trends, (Ed. Yves Dupont), Hawthorn, vic. Australia. This same Yves Marsoudon considered Pope Saint Pius X as 'pharisaical, hypercritical, and hate filled' and characterized Pius XII as attached to 'outdated disciplines and sclerotic dogmas.' He also quotes J Mitterand, anther prominent Mason, to the effect that 'Those informed Catholics i.e., the Progressives)... are of the insufficiencies and omissions of the Council, but they avail themselves of the CLIMATE WHICH IT HELPED TO CREATE in order to demand the authentic renovation of the Church. The liberating character of their contestation cannot but draw the sympathy of Freemasons...'

CHAPTER IX, Part 1
THE POST CONCILIAR 'POPES'

I vow:
'To change nothing of the received tradition and nothing thereof that I have found before me guarded by my God-pleasing predecessors, not to encroach, to alter, to permit any innovation therein.'
'To the contrary: with glowing affection as her truly faithful student and successor, to reverently safeguard the passed on good, with my whole strength and utmost effort.'
'To guard the holy canons and decrees of our Popes likewise as Divine Ordinances from Heaven, because I am conscious of Thee, Whose place I take through the grace of god, Whose Vicarship I possess with Thy support, being subject to the severest accounting before Thy divine tribunal over all that I possess.'
'If I should undertake to act in anything of contrary sense, or should permit that it will be executed, Thou wilst not be merciful to me on the dreadful day of Divine Justice.'
'Accordingly, without exclusion, we subject to severest excommunication anyone - be it ourselves or be it another - who would dare to undertake anything new in contradiction to this constituted Evangelic tradition and the purity of the Orthodox Faith and the Christian religion, or would seek to change anything by his opposing efforts, or would concur with those who undertake such a blasphemous venture...' (1)

The Coronation Oath of the Popes

The story is told that the following events took place in 1884, just after Leo XIII (Pope between 1873 and 1903) finished saying Mass at St. Peter's. As he turned away from the high altar he heard voices speaking to one another. One voice was deep and guttural, the other gentle and mild. The first to speak was the guttural voice which said: 'I can destroy your Church.' the gentle voice replied: 'You can? Then go ahead and do so.' Satan then said: 'I need more time and more power.' The gentle voice asked: 'How much time? How much power?'

The answer was: '75 to 100 years, and a greater power over those who will give themselves over to my service.' The gentle voice replied, 'You have the time, you will have the power, do with them what you will.' It was after this event that the Pope established the so-called 'Leonine Prayers' said at the foot of the altar after Mass - prayers which included the one to St. Michael ('St. Michael, defend us in the day of battle, Cast into hell Satan and all his evil angels who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls...'). (2)

Leo XIII was followed by Pius X (1903-14) of hallowed memory and one of the only two popes to be canonized in the last 500 years. (The other was Pius V who 'codified' the Mass and is therefore the 'patron saint' of the Liturgy.) He is perhaps most famous for his Encyclical Pascandi on the doctrines of the Modernists to which was appended his Decree Lamentabili. (3)

The reigns of Benedict XV (1914-1922) and Pius XI (1922-39) while in no way contradicting that of their predecessors, were characterized by a more liberal stance towards these errors (4). This allowed the modernists the opportunity to spread their ideas with greater ease - though still with caution. For example, it was during this period that individuals like Teilhard de Chardin were passing around their mimeographed manuscripts while pretending to be loyal sons of the Church.

'Pope' John XXIII

Pope Pius XII who came to the papal throne in 1939 was certainly aware of the threat that Modernism posed to the Church; not only did he complain about it being taught covertly in seminaries, he more than once was known to have stated that, even though he was the last Pontiff to hold the line on innovation, he would hold it firmly. To quote him directly, 'apres moi, le deluge.' (5). How prophetic such a stance was is only now obvious. Yet, surrounded as he was by men committed to 'the revolution,' even he was often lacking in vigilance. He allowed men of dubious quality to rise to the top and gave his approval to liturgical changes of a most questionable nature - such as the new rites for Holy Week. (This occurred Nov. 1955 - when he was very ill, and one suspects, easily put upon. (6)) He was followed in 1958 by Angelo Giuseppi Roncalli who took the name of John XXIII. (7)

Something new now happened. For the first time we had a pope that was welcomed by the liberal press, a man characterized as a 'simple peasant,' and a 'man of the people.' He was neither. Far more accurate is the evaluation of Robert Kaiser, the correspondent for 'Time' magazine accredited to Vatican II and an intimate of John XXIII. Kaiser describes him as 'a political genius,' and a 'quiet and cunning revolutionary.' (8).

Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli was born in 1881 in the province and diocese of Bergamo. Though frequently described as the son of 'poor and landless peasants,' his parents are more accurately described as small farmers, 'bound to the soil, raising a large and healthy family, educating them to observe the Christian virtues, serenely content with their lot.' The family owned and lived on the same land for some 500 years (9). He was ordained in 1904, and embraced liberal and modernist views from the start. His first spiritual director was a Father Parrechi known for his 'exceptionally liberal views.' He taught history at the seminary in Bergamo and was strongly influenced by writers like Loisy and Duschene (11). He was also involved in the youth organization Opera Dei Congressi which was dissolved by Pius X for its modernist orientations. After a brief stay in Rome he joined Radini Tedeschi, a career Vatican diplomat who was sponsored by Cardinal Rompolla, (12) and who was exiled to Bergamo for his modernist views.

Bishop Tedeschi was to be a major influence on Roncali - the future John XXIII was his private secretary for 9 years and also his admiring biographer. Roncalli had a positive proclivity for making modernist friends - Peter Hebblewaithe who documents his early life during this period, can hardly name a close associate who was not one. Among these were Bishop Carlo Ferrara of Milan and Bishop Bonomello of Cremona, both notorious modernists, as well as Lamberdo Beauduin, the Benedictine advocate of liturgical 'renewal.' Several of his closest seminary friends including his roommate in the seminary and the person who assisted at his ordination were to be excommunicated for Modernism. Throughout this period he took great care - indeed was unquestionably duplicitous -- in hiding his views. (13). Then in 1924, after the death of his beloved bishop, he was called back to Rome and given a minor post in the Association for the Propagation of the Faith. At this time he also became a part time Professor of Patristics at the Lateran University, only to be relieved of this post within months 'on suspicion of modernism'and for 'teaching the theories of Rudolf Steiner!' (15). He was virtually exiled to Bulgaria and Turkey.

According to Giancarlo Zizola, 'there was a very precise meaning contained in the accusation of modernism made against Roncalli... it was intended to refer to his relations, real or presumed, with the modernistic milieu of the beginning of this century, as well as to his solidarity with a small reformistic group that had emerged from the phenomenon of Italian modernism.' Among the themes dominant in this group Zizola lists 'the primacy of conscience, the reconciliation of authority and freedom, the autonomy of science, liberation from superfluous ecclesiastical structure, the renewal of the faith, disengagement from politics, [and] a Catholicism less conditioned by traditional lines.' (16) At this time Roncalli also developed his theory that Christ continuously worked through the historical process, and that it was possible to recognize and cooperate with this Christological process by recognizing the 'signs of the times.'

Roncalli's many years in the middle east, the creation of nuclear weapons and his experience of two world wars, convinced him of the need to eliminate the factional conflicts of mankind in order to bring the various races, political and religious creeds into some kind of working unity. Only in this way could the world be assured of any permanent peace. After the second world war he was recalled and appointed as Apostolic Nuncio to France. While with Turkey he had cooperated with the De Gaulle government in exile and 'despite the low esteem' in which he was held by Pius XII, (19) he was virtually the only papal representative acceptable to France. While there, he mixed freely in diplomatic and social circles as a 'bonne homme' while associating himself with all the liberal and left-leaning movements prevalent in post-war France. His 'new points of cultural reference... were Dom Lamberto Beauduin, Mauriac, Claudel, Gilson, Daniel-Rops, Raissa and Jacques Maritain, and with Etudes, the innovative review of the French Jesuits as well as Le Cerf which published avant-guard books under Dominican auspices.'

He so indiscriminately mixed with representatives of various groups inimical to Rome (a local quip said his spiritual director was the socialist Edouard Herriot) that he once again came under suspicion. However, he had friends in high places (Such as Montini, the future Paul VI) who protected him. He did everything he could to support and delay the condemnation of the worker-priests (heavily influenced by Marxist ideology) and indeed, one suspects his refusal to do had something to do with his transfer to Venice. (His successor promptly condemned them.) With his transfer he was given the Cardinal's red hat.

Mention has already been made of Roncalli's interest in Rudolph Steiner. The Italian Novelist Pier Carpi claims to have clear evidence that he became a Freemason during his stay in the middle east. Maurice Bardet, a well-known Freemason informs us in Les Echos du surnaturel, a Freemasonic publication, that he was his advisor. While these statements may be debated, what is clear is that when he was Papal Nuncio in Paris, he would visit the Grand Lodge of that City in plainclothes every Thursday evening. This has been testified to by several members of the French surite, the police appointed to guard him during this period.

During his French stay, Roncalli was also responsible for the creation of 'barbed-wire seminaries,' a project which was to bear important fruit in the forthcoming years. At the time there was a significant shortage of priests in those parts of Europe under Nazi control as the Germans had inducted all seminarians into the armed forces. Priests during the war had either cooperated with the Germans or been placed in concentration camps. The former were discredited in the eyes of the faithful, and the latter - even when they survived - were to debilitated to function adequately. Montini's solution to this problem was ingenious. He obtained lists of all the seminarians who were now prisoners of war and managed to persuade the allied forces to release these men into special training centers. Montini and Roncalli provided them with teachers and books - needless to say, teachers with the 'correct' modernist orientation, and by the time the post-Conciliar Church came into power, many of the 'middle clergy' in Germany and other parts of Europe were well trained and indoctrinated with the 'nouvelle theology.' (One easily forgets that there was a 17 year hiatus between the end of the war and Vatican II.) This explains why there was so little resistance to the changes introduced by Vatican II. To make matters worse, the American hierarchy took to sending their seminarians to Europe for advance training where they fell under the influence of modernists well ensconced in the European seminaries.

As Cardinal, he became the Patriarch of Venice and then five years later was elected to the See of Peter. One of his first acts after coming to the throne of Peter was to throw open a window of the Vatican to let in 'some fresh air.' This much praised (and occasionally disputed) symbolic act recalls an interesting piece of history. When in 1908 Father Thomas Tyrrell (a famous modernist Jesuit excommunicated for Modernism) was the subject of a critical pastoral from Cardinal Mercier, he responded with the following arrogant letter: 'Your Eminence, will you ever take heart of grace and boldly throw open the doors and windows of the darkest corners of your great mediaeval cathedral, and let the light of a new day strike into the darkest corners and the fresh winds of heaven [sic] blow through its moldy cloisters?' It seems clear that John XXIII set a pattern to be followed by all his post-Conciliar successors. Shortly after he became Pope he went to the Holy Office and demanded his dossier. Written on the cover was 'suspected of Modernism' which comment he crossed out and replaced with the statement 'I was never a Modernist.' (23)

Roncalli also initiated the post-Conciliar policy of frequently breaking with Papal tradition - a process which has gone so far that when John-Paul II came along, there were almost no Papal traditions left to break. Immediately upon election he refused to allow the cardinals to kiss the papal slipper (symbolizing their submission to the authority of Christ). He put aside his Papal Tiara (symbolic of 'triumphalism') on state occasions, had Peter's throne lowered, and instructed those around him not to use his (really Peter's) honorific titles. All these actions will of course appeal to modern man's egalitarian prejudices, but the problem is that John XXIII is not an ordinary man; he is allegedly Christ's representative on earth. To put such actions into a clearer perspective, one might try to imagine the Queen of England divesting herself of her royal robes to disco-dance with her subjects on state occasions. Hardly a dignified scene. Paul Johnson tells us Roncalli's attitude towards the Church he was commissioned to preserve, and towards his predecessors to whose stance he was indefectibly tied: 'when necessary he simply contradicted previous popes. He rejected in toto Gregory XVI's Mirari Vos and Singulari Nos, and the Quanta Cura of Pius IX, to which was attached, as appendix, The