OPEN

BYPASS BIG TECH CENSORSHIP - SIGN UP FOR mICHAEL mATT'S REGULAR E-BLAST

Invalid Input

Invalid Input

Invalid Input

OPEN
Search the Remnant Newspaper

Robert Morrison | Remnant Columnist

“Enter ye in at the narrow gate; for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it!” (Matthew 7:13-14)

Through this lesson and many others like it, Jesus taught His disciples and us that we must strive to do His will if we wish to save our souls. We must deny ourselves and take up the crosses that God has given us:

“Then Jesus said to His disciples: If any man will come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. For he that will save his life, shall lose it; and he that shall lose his life for My sake shall find it.” (Matthew 16:24-25)

In his September 1965 intervention read during the Second Vatican Council, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre began his criticism of the Declaration on Religious Liberty, Dignitatis Humanae, with a brief summary of the document’s principles:

“Founded on the dignity of the human person, religious liberty demands equal rights in civil society for all forms of worship. Society must then be neutral and guarantee the protection of every religion, within the limits of public order.”

In the years following Vatican II, it became evident to a relatively small number of Catholics that the architects and implementers of the Council were attempting to destroy the Church. Even Pope Paul VI identified the destruction, though he failed to identify the real cause:

The Church finds herself in an hour of anxiety, a disturbed period of self-criticism, or what would even better be called self-demolition. It is an interior upheaval, acute and complicated, which nobody expected after the Council. It is almost as if the Church were attacking itself.

“For what shall it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his soul?” (Mark 8:36).

Consideration of these words from Jesus should be enough to convince any rational person to do everything possible to save his or her soul. And, of course, such a rational person will want to know what is required to save one’s soul. As the Catholic Church teaches, we must die in a state of sanctifying grace to save our souls.

Dr. Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma lists several de fide truths relating to sanctifying grace, including among others: in the state of original sin man is deprived of sanctifying grace and all that this implies; sanctifying grace sanctifies the soul; sanctifying grace makes the just man a friend of God; sanctifying grace makes the just man a child of God and gives him a claim to the inheritance of Heaven; the three Divine or theological virtues of faith, hope and charity are infused with sanctifying grace; and the grace by which we are justified may be lost, and is lost by every grievous sin.

For better or worse, Pope Francis has dispensed with all subtlety and we can now clearly see the war on sanctifying grace.

We can thus see how truly vital sanctifying grace is. Yet, as the Council of Trent declared, we cannot know with the certainty of faith that we are in the state of sanctifying grace:

“For, just as no pious person should doubt the mercy of God, the merit of Christ, and the virtue and efficacy of the sacraments, so every one, when he considers himself and his own weakness and indisposition, may entertain fear and apprehension as to his own grace, since no one can know with the certainty of faith, which cannot be subject to error, that he has obtained the grace of God.” (Denzinger 802)

These words should not lead us to despair, but they have led Christians in all ages to heed the words of St. Paul: “with fear and trembling work out your salvation” (Philippians 2:12).

In The Glories of Divine Grace, Fr. Matthias Scheeben provides several examples of the lengths to which saints have gone to persevere and grow in the state of sanctifying grace:

“In order to escape or lessen the danger of losing grace, they freely became their own tyrants and considered themselves fortunate to be able to buy perseverance in grace by means of the greatest suffering, mortifications and sacrifices. St. John Bonus stuck sharp splinters under his fingernails, that he might be able to overcome a difficult temptation against holy purity. The Blessed Martinian made a slow fire of brushwood and then allowed his limbs to be burnt on it, asking himself meanwhile how insignificant was this pain when compared to the eternal fire of Hell, of which he would make himself deserving by losing grace. St. Francis rolled his bare body at one time on cold snow, at another on thorns, in order to make himself strong against the dangers of the flesh.”

Not all souls are called to take such extreme measures to avoid sin, but these examples ought to remind us that we must have tremendous care for the inestimable gift of grace that Jesus won for us on the Cross.

Bishop Robert Barron appears to be leading the heretical propaganda that all souls may be saved, but Pope Francis has added to it indirectly both through his refusal to correct the bishop and his own extensive efforts to promote false ecumenism.

Gradually over the past several decades, though, the majority of nominal Catholics have seemingly lost this sense of anxious regard for the state of their souls. Although their pastors may have continued to refer to sin and grace, the changes flowing from the Spirit of Vatican II all have a subtle way of diminishing the importance of sanctifying grace. During the same period, the dangers to salvation have increased dramatically, leading many Catholics to a perpetual cycle of sin that blinds the sinner to the need for grace.

For better or worse, Pope Francis has dispensed with all subtlety and we can now clearly see the war on sanctifying grace. He has intensified some attacks and launched a few of his own devising. When we consider the following (partial) list of attacks against sanctifying grace, we can readily discern that they result not from mere happenstance but from a concerted effort:

Amoris Laetitia. With Amoris Laetitia, we had an early indication that Pope Francis would attempt to reshape the related doctrines of mortal sin and sanctifying grace:

“For an adequate understanding of the possibility and need of special discernment in certain ‘irregular’ situations, one thing must always be taken into account, lest anyone think that the demands of the Gospel are in any way being compromised. The Church possesses a solid body of reflection concerning mitigating factors and situations. Hence it is can no longer simply be said that all those in any ‘irregular’ situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace.”

Though this was always an egregiously bad piece of guidance, one could think that he really was trying to leave the doctrines of sanctifying grace and mortal sin intact while making a strained argument that the conditions necessary for mortal sin may be absent in the case of certain “irregular situations.” In hindsight, it seems more likely that he retains the concept of mortal sin for behaviors that he dislikes personally — particularly the behaviors of conservatives and capitalists — while taking the liberty to extend God’s forgiveness to those behaviors that he accepts. Thus, we find that he has emphasized that it is a mortal sin to administer the death penalty, refuse to give vacation days to employees, neglect the elderly, and torture people (clearly, some of these are mortal sins). Meanwhile, he has excused politicians who support abortion, those who commit the manifold sexual abuses under his watch, and those (including himself) who worship false idols.

When we have good reason to suspect that many of the pope’s closest Catholic collaborators live in a state of perpetual mortal sin, we can conclude that the pope does not place much value on sanctifying grace and the glorious benefits of growing in grace.

Dare We Hope? Bishop Robert Barron appears to be leading the heretical propaganda that all souls may be saved, but Pope Francis has added to it indirectly both through his refusal to correct the bishop and his own extensive efforts to promote false ecumenism. Although it is possible for some souls to be saved in another religion (as opposed to being saved by another religion), we know that the Church has always taught that there is no salvation outside the Church. False ecumenism obviously hurts those outside the Church because it tells them there is no reason to convert. It also harms those inside the Church because it effectively denies the necessity of the Catholic sacraments and teachings in helping souls to live and die in the state of sanctifying grace.

One of the clearest indications of Pope Francis’s false ecumenism is the 2019 Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together signed by Pope Francis and the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, Ahmed el-Tayeb, which states its own purpose as follows:

“It is a document that invites all persons who have faith in God and faith in human fraternity to unite and work together so that it may serve as a guide for future generations to advance a culture of mutual respect in the awareness of the great divine grace that makes all human beings brothers and sisters.”

If Pope Francis appreciated the importance of sanctifying grace, he would know how hateful it is to encourage his non-Catholic “brothers and sisters” to remain in religions that cannot provide such grace. As we read in Dr. Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, “the justification of an adult is not possible without Faith. (De fide.)”

Endless Scandals. Pope Francis inherited several horrifying scandals from his “saintly” predecessors but has seemingly dedicated himself to making them worse. The sickening spectacle drives souls from the Church but also works to deaden the consciences of those who remain. When we have good reason to suspect that many of the pope’s closest Catholic collaborators live in a state of perpetual mortal sin, we can conclude that the pope does not place much value on sanctifying grace and the glorious benefits of growing in grace. Men of sin are deadened to the inspirations of the Holy Ghost, guided by passions that grow progressively worse, and generally hostile to Catholicism. Corruptio optimi pessima — the corruption of the best is the worst — and those who should be princes of the Church have become the most dedicated warriors in the fight against sanctifying grace.

francis meme

Abuse of the Sacraments. Pope Francis has not had to do much to attack the Church’s sacraments themselves (owing to the destruction already accomplished by Paul VI and John Paul II) and he has even granted the priests of the Society of St. Pius X faculties to hear confessions. His efforts have instead focused on expanding the availability of the sacraments to those who are not properly disposed to receive them, while taking steps to deprive traditional Catholics of the sacraments they wish to receive worthily. The recent threats to Summorum Pontificum underscore the tendency to use sacraments not as a way to restore and increase sanctifying grace but as a reward system to incentivize Catholics to step into line with the liberal policies he promotes.

Pope Francis has placed such tremendous importance on advancing the cult of Covid that one can no longer pretend that he places much value on the Church’s timeless teaching about the salvation of souls.

Church of Covid. At a time of tremendous need for sacramental grace and the consolations that only the Faith can provide, Pope Francis and his bishops told us to stay away from the Church. Pope Francis has placed such tremendous importance on advancing the cult of Covid that one can no longer pretend that he places much value on the Church’s timeless teaching about the salvation of souls. Indeed, since the beginning of the pandemic of hysteria and fear, Pope Francis has been effectively telling his flock: “For what shall it profit a man, if he save his soul, and die of Covid?” Countless Catholics learned during the lockdowns that keeping Catholics in the state of grace is not an “essential service.”

German Schism. The impending German schism related to blessing of civil unions is a logical consequence of Amoris Laetitia. Throughout his papacy, the pope and his trusted bishops have attempted to normalize an “accompaniment” of sinners that effectively encourages Catholics to live and die in a state of mortal sin. In his 2020 Patris Corde, Pope Francis even misrepresented the life of St. Joseph to promote this mistaken belief that Catholics should “accompany” rather than “admonish” the sinner: “Joseph’s attitude encourages us to accept and welcome others as they are, without exception . . .” All of this undermines the Church’s teaching on sanctifying grace by sending the message that pertinacious adherence to sin is not nearly as bad as the Church once taught.

__________

  EDITOR'S NOTE: Dear Friends, social media is cracking down on Conservative content. Many of you have complained that you stopped seeing our content in your news feeds. We hear you, and we have a way of staying connected in the fight — subscribe to my FREE weekly eblast. Click here.  - MJM 
___________

Neglect. From the beginning of his papacy, Pope Francis employed the image of the world as a field hospital, with people in desperate need of emotional and material support. From a Catholic perspective, the most prevalent and grave maladies facing the world today are those of mortal sin. Imagine a doctor doing his rounds in the hospital and routinely failing to take the simple and customary steps necessary to treat the life-threatening medical problems of his patients. Such a doctor would be guilty of malpractice and subject to criminal penalties — we would think he was a monster. The pretend spiritual physicians of the Catholic field hospital are infinitely worse, for their neglect destroys souls rather than bodies. Fiendishly, these fraudulent spiritual physicians frequently infect Catholics with the liberal and modernist cancers that attack sanctifying grace and lead to spiritual death.

Cooperation with the Great Reset. It is no mere coincidence that the architects of the Great Reset have every interest in eradicating the true appreciation of sanctifying grace, which stands in the way of their hideous designs. Clearly our enemies have gone to such great lengths to wage war on sanctifying grace precisely because it is something they despise and fear more than almost anything else. The most able of men might be powerless on their own against the prince of darkness and his minions, but even the pagans and apostates feel the threat of St. Paul’s words of reliance on Christ: “I can do all things in Him who strengthened me” (Philippians 4:13). God wins in the end, and Christians strengthened with sanctifying grace will be instruments of that victory. Why is the pope fighting on the wrong side of this war?

When Pachamama is more welcome in St. Peter’s than the Tridentine Mass, and priests are more likely to care for our state of vaccination than our state of grace, we have every reason to suspect that Satan is leading many within Pope Francis’s hierarchy.

Diabolical Disorientation. From these observations one could argue that the pope merely adopts a “live and let live” policy that errs (badly) on the side of excusing sinful behavior. Unfortunately, the pope does not extend this same open-mindedness to those who adhere to what the Church has always taught (that is, Catholicism). Not only is there a profound inversion of the spiritual and material needs of man, but within the spiritual realm there is a preference for the paths leading to sin rather than those leading to sanctifying grace. When Pachamama is more welcome in St. Peter’s than the Tridentine Mass, and priests are more likely to care for our state of vaccination than our state of grace, we have every reason to suspect that Satan is leading many within Pope Francis’s hierarchy.

Obviously Pope Francis deserves considerable blame for this terrible state of affairs. Even so, it all represents the mature fruits of the Spirit of Vatican II, unleashed by the Council years before Bergoglio’s ordination to the priesthood. On some level he has been terribly misled by those who seek not only our souls but his as well. He too is the victim of the intellectual, theological and spiritual poisoning by men who had been condemned by Pope Pius X decades before his birth.

In our righteous anger we should do all we can to repel these attacks on sanctifying grace, by refuting error and promoting virtue. It seems as well that we ought to pray fervently for Pope Francis, honoring our duty as Catholics as well as the specific request of Our Lady of Fatima. If such a man could realize that he has been deceived, and then convert to Catholicism, he might be fueled with enough righteous anger to spend his remaining days doing what the popes should have been doing for the past fifty-plus years: defending the Faith against the enemies within the Church. Unless and until he converts, though, we must oppose him in the wretched war he wages against sanctifying grace. Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio!

The popular astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson recently Tweeted a cartoon intending to summarize the great crisis we now face in America. In it we see four firemen in Covid-masks attempting to put out a fire. But an obese white male in an “anti-vax” t-shirt is sitting on the fire hose, arms crossed, such that only a trickle of fluid flows from the vaccine needle at the end of the hose.

One of the Vatican’s most recent grave scandals — the conference exploring the “Mind, Body & Soul” — has provided further evidence that Pope Francis and his entourage no longer feel obligated to keep up the appearances of trying to honor God or save souls. If they occasionally ramble off something that resembles Catholic thinking, they invariably follow with ideas that mock the Church’s traditional beliefs and practices. Even if everything else in the world was ideal, the current state of the Vatican hierarchy would be enough to convince us that we will soon see the wrath of God.

Those of us who actually still have the Catholic Faith know how this ends (God wins), but we understandably have some anxiety about the details that will unfold between now and that day of victory. How bad will it get? How long will we have to endure? Will we completely lose access to the sacraments? Are we in the last times?

Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium dedicated several paragraphs to the topic of the “Universal Call to Holiness in the Church,” concluding with the following:

“Therefore, all the faithful of Christ are invited to strive for the holiness and perfection of their own proper state. Indeed they have an obligation to so strive. Let all then have care that they guide aright their own deepest sentiments of soul. Let neither the use of the things of this world nor attachment to riches, which is against the spirit of evangelical poverty, hinder them in their quest for perfect love. Let them heed the admonition of the Apostle to those who use this world; let them not come to terms with this world; for this world, as we see it, is passing away.”

In a 1976 interview published under the title of Vatican Encounter, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre made several striking statements about the role of the Holy Ghost during Vatican II:

“I should have battled more vigorously, perhaps, for an improvement of the texts, or refused to sign them, as I subsequently did with others. In reality, I was hoping against hope that the Holy Spirit would prevent certain projects from coming to pass or that the Pope would intervene at the last moment.”


“Only God knows what really went on during Vatican II, and what were the true motivations of those who brought their weight to bear on the Council. . . . the Holy Spirit, finally, was absent from a Council the damaging effects of which are daily in evidence”

“Even before the closing of the Council, I proclaimed to all the Fathers assembled there that, according to my view, it was not the Holy Spirit who inspired the Council but possibly Satan.”

And commenting on the infamous moment when Cardinal Alfrink had Cardinal Ottaviani’s microphone cut off, sparking a “tremendous fit of laughter” as Cardinal Ottaviani continued to speak: “I was ashamed for the bishops who behaved in such a deplorable manner toward one of the best among them. Such things are like a curse . . . How could one believe in the presence of the Holy Spirit under such conditions?”

These bold statements obviously run counter to the beliefs of the vast majority of Catholics. Was the archbishop correct or incorrect? As he says, “only God knows what really happened at Vatican II,” but this question is of utmost importance. Has God left us without a way to discern?

If, and when, we have a holy father that returns to spiritual Rome, he will find that tradition has not died.

One way to evaluate this is to consider what it must mean for the Holy Ghost to have guided the Council. If that were truly the case, the following appear to logically follow:

Deceit is praiseworthy. Although Christ’s disciples are to be wise as serpents (Matthew 10:16), there is no sense in which we can condone the effort of bishops deceiving bishops to advance causes that the Church has long opposed. Yet, deceit was a defining characteristic of the work of the liberal bishops and theologians, beginning with the call of the Council to be merely “pastoral.” As Pope Paul VI said on January 12, 1966, “given the Council’s pastoral character, it avoided pronouncing, in an extraordinary manner, dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility.”

As a result, the Vatican II documents were subject to less exacting standards than would have been required for dogmatic writings. This allowed for the documents to include a hodgepodge of orthodox and heterodox propositions. Archbishop Lefebvre saw the danger and declared:

“Each Council commission should prepare two documents: one, more dogmatic, for the use of theologians, the other, pastoral, for the use of the faithful Catholics, or even non-Catholics, and even more, the unbelievers. In doing so, the dogmatic documents, worked out with so much care and useful in presenting the truth to our dear priests and especially to professors and theologians, will always remain the golden rule of faith.”

The liberals rejected Archbishop Lefebvre’s proposal on the basis that the Council was pastoral rather than dogmatic. In other words, a clear presentation of the truth would undermine their efforts.

We now know that the authors of the ambiguities knew how they would exploit the language after the Council. In his Catechism of the Crisis in the Church, Fr. Matthias Gaudron cites Karl Rahner and Herbert Vorgrimler in confirmation of this unfortunate reality:

“A certain number of important theological questions about which no agreement could be reached were left open by choosing formulations that could be interpreted differently by particular groups and theological tendencies at the Council.”

Likewise, Fr. Schillebeeckx stated, “we have used ambiguous terms during the Council and we know how we shall interpret them afterwards.”

Is this how the Holy Ghost operates?

There is a blasphemous spirit underlying the belief that one can say that the Holy Ghost has approved such a Council [Vatican II] despite the very deliberate failings of its principal architects.

Fruits are irrelevant. We have heard for decades that the fruits of Vatican II are not nearly as bad as they look because we still need to fully implement Vatican II. And yet each “further implementation” of Vatican II brings bad fruits, which prompts the Council’s advocates to implement additional changes, leading to worse fruits. As a result, one of the strangest fruits of Vatican II has been the effective prohibition on judging a tree by its fruits. Do we really believe that the Holy Ghost guided the Church in producing such bad fruits? If so, do we think the Holy Ghost simply lacked the ability or foresight to properly guide the Church?

Truth contradicts truth. It is sadly ironic to hear so many defenders of Vatican II insist that it was in perfect conformity with traditional Church teaching, while those innovators who actually contributed to the Council’s documents insist that it was a monumental departure from traditional beliefs. Fr. Yves Congar, for instance, said the following after the Council:

“The Council liquidated what I would call the ‘unconditionality’ of the system. I mean by the system the very coherent ensemble of ideas communicated by the teaching of the Roman universities, codified by Canon Law, and protected by a close, fairly effective surveillance under Pius XII.”

Several other liberal contributors to Vatican II made similar statements. Moreover, one can simply compare the propositions condemned by Pope Pius IX in Quanta Cura to the propositions asserted in Dignitatis Humanae to see that Fr. Congar was correct when he said that “the affirmation of religious liberty by Vatican II says . . . almost the opposite of propositions 16, 17, and 19” of the Syllabus.

Nonetheless, the sincere defenders of the Council — as distinct from the many wolves who know what the Council really was —refuse to concede that the Council contradicts traditional Church teaching because they have heard from “authorities” that the Council is consistent with what the Church has always taught. If the Council said essentially the same thing, but with less clarity than traditional formulations, why would the innovators insist that we use it as a new starting point (a reset) for Catholicism?

The Holy Ghost should be tempted. In addition to all of this, the cavalier approach to the Council essentially guaranteed that it could only succeed through miraculously overcoming the unholy intentions of the liberal theologians. In his One Hundred Years of Modernism, Fr. Dominic Bourmaud highlighted the inherent problem with the way in which the Council proceeded:

“What was meant by a council with no precise goal apart from ‘opening to the world’? Was it not tempting the Holy Ghost to proclaim His intervention in a meeting which had no real reason for being? Did it not amount to giving the modernists carte blanche to fill the void?”

Those who defend the Council despite the deceit, horrible fruits, and contradictions of previous Church teachings effectively declare that the Holy Ghost should indeed be tempted!  Perhaps this is the way we truly find Pope Francis’s “God of surprises.”

The Holy Ghost is simply a talisman. The ultimate fallback for many defenders of Vatican II is to say, in effect, that the Council happened so it must have been guided by the Holy Ghost. Thus, even though the liberal factions within the Council specifically wanted to avoid following a process that would guarantee infallibility, we must treat it as infallible. Fr. Gaudron addresses this point in his Catechism of the Crisis in the Church:

“Vatican II, a ‘pastoral’ council, refused to invoke its authority to define anything; it did not impose religious liberty and ecumenism as truths of the faith, and that is why it escapes the extraordinary magisterium. By the same token, it also escapes the infallible ordinary magisterium, for there can be no infallibility if the bishops do not authoritatively certify that the teaching they dispense belongs to the deposit of faith (or is necessarily linked to it), and that it must be held as immutable and obligatory.”

There is a blasphemous spirit underlying the belief that one can say that the Holy Ghost has approved such a Council despite the very deliberate failings of its principal architects. It is as though they believe that whoever can commandeer a council can do with it as they please and then compel the Holy Ghost to approve it. Fittingly, such a mentality is the same that resulted in the dubious canonization of Pope Paul VI.

We know from our catechism that “the Holy Ghost will abide with the Church forever, and guide it in the way of holiness and truth.” However, it seems that we cannot defend Vatican II without blinding ourselves to the facts. In this light, it would seem that the Holy Ghost abandoned the Church during Vatican II.

And, yet, there is another conclusion we can draw. What was the broad goal of the Council? Pope John XXIII said that “the main goal of the Council is to present to the world the Church of God in its perpetual vigor of life and truth . . . .” Even though this is quite an amorphous goal, we can say that the Church could have arguably satisfied the goal if it had increased vigor (or fervor) and love for truth.

What do we see? On the part of those who accept the Council we see a general weakening of the Faith — a Church without vigor or truth. God will not be mocked and we might even sense that the Holy Ghost abandoned those who sought to transform the Church into something it can never be. 

We can see that the Holy Ghost did not abandon the Church during Vatican II, but rather allowed the Council to force faithful Catholics to fight for their Faith in the face of persecution.

But what of those who, like Archbishop Lefebvre, fought against the liberal innovations in various ways? Among these we see tremendous fruits. Families have to truly work to find the Tridentine Mass, sometimes driving hours to attend in church basements, hotels, or homes. They make great financial sacrifices to finally have their own churches. The families raise their children in tradition, setting themselves apart from society by modest dress, decent entertainments, and great efforts to educate their children properly. They yearn for vocations to the priestly and religious life. Our priests show heroic virtue in bringing the sacraments and truth to those whom they wish to transform into saints. Anyone who has spent much time around traditional Catholic communities can readily add many more tremendous fruits to this list. We must also acknowledge that these fruits have been produced during a period in which the rest of the world has fallen further into sin and godlessness.

Paramount among all these fruits, traditional Catholics have a steadfast determination to hold to what the Church has always taught and practiced, even in the face of persecution from the Conciliar Catholics. This persecution is a great blessing and even a sign that they are on the right path. The Catechism of St. Pius X speaks of the persecutions that often accompany those who adhere to the truth:

Q. Can the Catholic Church be destroyed or perish? A. No; the Catholic Church may be persecuted, but she can never be destroyed or perish. She will last till the end of the world, because Jesus Christ, as He promised, will be with her till the end of time.

Q. Why is the Catholic Church so persecuted? A. The Catholic Church is so persecuted because even her Divine Founder, Jesus Christ, was thus persecuted, and because she reproves vice, combats the passions, and condemns all acts of injustice and all error.

In this light, we can see that the Holy Ghost did not abandon the Church during Vatican II, but rather allowed the Council to force faithful Catholics to fight for their Faith in the face of persecution. It seems unlikely that the Council Fathers could have realistically hoped to promote such a vigor and love for truth that animates so many within the growing traditional Catholic movement. Yes, this is precisely the type of renewal that would have marked Vatican II as a success.

Those of us who find ourselves literally or figuratively relegated to the Church basements are in good company. The letter of St. Athanasius to his flock is a glorious reminder of what the protection of the Holy Ghost looks like when Catholics are persecuted by those who claim to represent the Church:

“May God console you! ...What saddens you ...is the fact that others have occupied the churches by violence, while during this time you are on the outside. It is a fact that they have the premises─but you have the apostolic Faith. They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true Faith. You remain outside the places of worship, but the Faith dwells within you. Let us consider: what is more important, the place or the Faith? The true Faith, obviously. Who has lost and who has won in this struggle-the one who keeps the premises or the one who keeps the Faith? Thus, the more violently they try to occupy the places of worship, the more they separate themselves from the Church. They claim that they represent the Church; but in reality, they are the ones who are expelling themselves from it and going astray. Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.”

Alas, if, and when, we have a holy father that returns to spiritual Rome, he will find that tradition has not died. Whatever he does with Vatican II, he will do with full dependance upon, and faithfulness to, the inspirations of the Holy Ghost. In the meantime, may God grant us the grace to remain always faithful to the true Church of Jesus Christ, especially when we are persecuted by those who mistakenly believe the Holy Ghost guides their attempts to demolish the Church.

Our Lady, Mediatrix of all Graces, pray for us!

Suppose you are asked to complete a political survey involving ten popular issues: immigration, social security, abortion, national security, drug legalization, environmental regulation, taxation, LGBTQ rights, the death penalty, and public education. For each issue, you have three possible answers to choose from, broadly representing the most prevalent positions.

WHAT WOULD SOCIETY think of an anti-Semite who deceitfully rose to the highest level of the Anti-Defamation League and then proceeded to promote various anti-Semitic measures? Suppose for instance, that the new leader clandestinely directs ADL funds to anti-Jewish groups, sponsors defamation of Jewish heroes, appoints anti-Semitic officers throughout the organization, and gradually changes the ADL’s values to ones that are pro-Nazi.

Page 1 of 2
© 2021 The Remnant Newspaper, A Traditional Catholic Publication since 1967. All Rights Reserved. P5WebSolutions