Chris Jackson | Remnant Columnist
On September 17th Cardinal Timothy Dolan, the Archbishop of New York, wrote an explanation of his decision to serve as Grand Marshall of next year’s St. Patrick’s Day parade. Although persons with same-sex attraction had never been excluded from marching in the parade, parade organizers nevertheless took the unprecedented step of allowing a group to march in the parade carrying a banner reading “Gay people of Irish ancestry.” Not one mention was made by Cardinal Dolan in his explanation as to whether these individuals are in agreement with Church teaching on the immorality of homosexual acts or whether they are attempting to live chaste lives. Regardless, the Cardinal defended his decision as follows:
To the point: the committee’s decision allows a group to publicize its identity, not promote actions contrary to the values of the Church that are such an essential part of Irish culture. I have been assured that the new group marching is not promoting an agenda contrary to Church teaching, but simply identifying themselves as “Gay people of Irish ancestry.”
We have all heard the arguments from liberals and Neo-Catholics alike as to why saying Mass in Latin is a preposterous and antiquated idea. They tell us that nobody understands Latin anymore, that it is a dead language, and that there is absolutely no merit in keeping it in the liturgy. In the following text from 1919 the Rev. John Francis answers these arguments, except in his day the arguments were coming from those outside the Church. Yes, it is true that Fr. Sullivan wrote the following explanations to equip Catholics with ready answers to give their non-Catholic friends. How times have changed! I give you Fr. John Francis….Chris Jackson
(Chapter XIX of the book The Externals of the Catholic Church (1919) written by the Rev. John Francis Sullivan.)
THE official language of our Church is Latin. It is used in her services in the greater part of the world. It is employed in nearly all the business correspondence of the Holy See. Encyclicals and briefs of Popes, decrees of General Councils, decisions of the Roman Congregations, acts of national and provincials councils, synodal regulations of dioceses – all these are expressed in the ancient tongue of Rome.
Neo-Catholicism Refuted in 1881!
Unfortunately for the Neo-Catholics, evidence once again shows that the positions of the so-called “radical traditionalists” are nothing more than the perennial teachings of the Catholic Church. In an 1881 article published in The Month and Catholic Review, the Rev. Michael Gavin responded to a lengthy attack on papal infallibility launched by a Protestant named Dr. Littledale. As it turns out, Dr. Littledale was as well informed on papal infallibility as most modern Neo-Catholic apologists. Fr. Gavin goes about setting the poor Dr. Littledale straight on several points, some of which could also serve as a lesson to our Neo-Catholic friends. I’ll now list a few Neo-Catholic whoppers, with quoted rebuttals from Fr. Gavin.
It seems that in order to survive as a Catholic in the post-Conciliar era of devastation, a sense of humor is a necessity. If this is the case then it has never been more necessary than right now. A Vatican statement now tells us that Pope Francis is set to beatify Pope Paul VI at end of synod on the family on October 19th. This is, no doubt, the first step in Paul VI’s fast tracked sainthood.
Therefore Pope Francis must be of the opinion that Paul VI is deserving of being held up as a great papal example worthy of emulation. So what exactly did Paul VI do to deserve such an honor? Well, after inheriting a thriving Church from his predecessors, I will let Paul VI himself describe his performance:
The Church finds herself in an hour of anxiety, a disturbed period of self-criticism, or what would even better be called self-demolition [auto-destruction]. It is an interior upheaval, acute and complicated, which nobody expected after the Council. It is almost as if the Church were attacking itself. We looked forward to a flowering, a serene expansion of conceptions, which matured in the great sessions of the council. But ... one must notice above all the sorrowful aspect. It is as if the Church were destroying herself.[i]
(Read Part I here)
The Absurdity of Modernism
“We are asked to cast aside the whole Christian teaching and to overturn the whole Christian fabric simply, it appears, because there are men who want to be in the forefront of a shouting, braying, shallow age. Thus for the first time in the Church's history do we find men calling themselves Catholics who have undertaken to blot out the name of Jesus Christ as the Son of God in the true meaning of the term, who mingle blasphemy, heresy and piety in equal proportions, and who would take away the sign of man's salvation and redemption; for if Christ be not God, as they would persuade us, what meaning can be attached to His life or to His Cross?” Rev. Simon FitzSimons
While here in the United States we are startled by the virulence of the errors and amazed at the sweeping infidelity and even pantheism of the doctrines as exposed by the Holy See, it appears that the matter is not wholly new in Europe. Neither does it seem to be a passing aberration of misguided enthusiasts. The error seems to be deeply seated and deeply rooted. It comes as an unpleasant surprise to us in this Western Continent, to find that there should be any class, or school, or number of men within the bosom of the Church, whether associated together by definite ties or not, who entertain views of Christianity utterly subversive of all Christian belief and order.
It is now time to play the game “Pope or Luther!” I will give you two quotes below. Without looking at the end notes (which give the answer) you must guess which statement was made by Pope Francis and which was made by 16th century heresiarch Martin Luther. Let us know how you did in the comments.
Good luck!
Quote #1
…Simon, in the name of the Twelve, professes his faith in Jesus as “the Christ, the Son of the living God”; and Jesus calls Simon “blessed” for his faith, recognizing in it a special gift of the Father. He says to [Simon], “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church.”
Let us pause for a moment on this point, on the fact that Jesus bestows on Simon this new name, “Peter,” that in Jesus’ language [Aramaic] was “Kepha,” a word meaning “rock.” In the Bible, this name, this term, “rock,” referred to God. Jesus attributes this name to Simon not for his own personal qualities or his human merits, but on account of his genuine and firm faith, which comes from on high.
Jesus feels a great joy in His heart, because He recognizes in Simon the hand of the Father, the action of the Holy Spirit. He recognizes that God the Father has given Simon a “dependable” faith, upon which He, Jesus, can build His Church, that is, His community, that is, all of us. All of us.
Jesus intend to give live [sic] to “His” Church, a people founded not on offspring, but on faith, that is to say, on a relationship with Himself, a relationship of love and trust. Our relationship with Jesus builds the Church. And so to begin His Church Jesus needs to find in His disciples a solid faith, “dependable” faith. This is what He must confirm at this point in the journey, and this is why He asks the question.
The Lord has in mind the image of building, the image of the community as an edifice. And so, when He hears Simon’s frank profession of faith, He calls him “rock,” and makes clear His intention of building His Church on this faith.
Brothers and sisters, what happened in a unique way in Saint Peter, also takes place in every Christian who develops a sincere faith in Jesus the Christ, the Son of the living God.[i]
Quote #2
The Lord then says, “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock will I build my church.” In St. John 1 [:42], he calls him Cephas, “You shall be called Cephas,” Keph in Hebrew, Kepha in Chaldean, and Petros or Petra in Greek…all of which mean rock… Now the Lord wants to say, “You are Peter, that is, a man of rock. For you have recognized and named the right Man, who is the true rock, as Scripture names him, Christ. On this rock, that is, on me, Christ, I will build all of my Christendom, just as you and the other disciples are built on it through my Father in heaven, who revealed it to you.”
In plain…one would say, “You say (on behalf of all) that I am the Messiah or Christ, the Son of the living God; very well then, I say to you, you are a Christian, and I shall build my church on a Christian.” For…the word “Christ” means both the Lord himself, as one sings, “Christ the Lord is risen, Christ ascended to heaven,” and he who believes in the Lord Christ, as one says, “You are a Christ.” Thus Luke in Acts… says that the disciples in Antioch were first called Christians, which is why names have survived such as, “Christians, Christendom, Christian faith,” etc. So here our Lord gives Simon, son of Jona, the name “man of rock” or “Christian” because he, from the Father, recognized the rock, or Christ, and praised him with his mouth on behalf of all the apostles.
From this it is clear enough that by the building of his church on the rock or on himself, Christ meant nothing else but (as was said above, from the apostles Peter and Paul) the common Christian faith, that whoever believes in Christ is built on this rock and will attain salvation, even against all the gates of hell…This is the simple, single, certain understanding of these words….[ii]
[i] Pope Francis, Angelus Address of 24 August 2014
[ii] Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, Volume 41, pp. 314-315
The Remnant recently came across a very telling October 7, 2013 homily by Msgr. Henry A. Kriegel of Saint Patrick Church in Erie, PA.
Since viewing this homily, I've had the misfortune of viewing other talks and homilies from Msgr. Kriegel, proudly posted all over YouTube by Saint Patrick's. During most of these lectures, Msgr. Kriegel presents various erroneous propositions as fact citing no other authority than a vague "consensus of scholars." Nevertheless, the danger here is that unwitting faithful, assisting at Msgr. Kriegel's masses, will accept the authority of their Pastor (who is in "full communion") trusting that he speaks for the Church. In reality nothing can be further from the truth.
Msgr. Kriegel is yet another sad example of a priest with a thoroughly modernist conception of the Church. He is allowed free reign over the poor souls in his parish with the apparent tacit consent of his bishop and the Roman authorities. To do my small part in alerting any parishoners of Msgr. Kriegel's that he is preaching his own doctrine and not that of Christ or the Catholic Church I will take a few statements from Msgr. Kriegel and analyze them below.
In a July 21st blog post, Neo-Catholic blogger Mark Shea claims to “love” the following quote from a Facebook poster:
Interesting perspective. However, in order to be true, Pope Francis will somehow have to save Scalfari’s soul without his converting to Catholicism. For as Scalfari himself wrote in his first interview of Pope Francis:
Scalfari: Your Holiness, you said that you have no intention of trying to convert me and I do not think you would succeed.
Pope Francis: "We cannot know that, but I don't have any such intention."
Earlier in the interview the Pope had elaborated on this point:
Scalfari: The Pope comes in and shakes my hand, and we sit down. The Pope smiles and says: "Some of my colleagues who know you told me that you will try to convert me." It's a joke, I tell him. My friends think it is you want to convert me.
Conservative and Traditional Catholic apologists have spilled a lot of ink over the years explaining how Catholics and Muslims either do or do not worship the same God. Conducting a web search on the topic results in a cavalcade of apologetic websites promising to explain, often in painstaking detail, one or the other side of the issue. Why? Because, of course, a few lines from two documents of Vatican II which refer to Muslims seem to indicate that Catholics and Muslims worship the same God. If you’ll indulge me, I’m going to attempt to cut through the morass created by the repeated attempt to “explain” these few lines by apologists on both sides and simplify this issue to its essentials.
First the “Dogmatic Constitution” (which teaches no new dogma) Lumen Gentium (LG) paragraph sixteen offers the following words regarding the Muslims:
Parts I, II, and III of this series should be read first.
Part II: http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/fetzen-fliegen/item/732-how-catholic-resistance-saved-the-church-and-how-it-can-do-it-again-part-ii
The Holy Ghost Intervenes
Fr. O’Daniel describes Pope John’s reaction:
In the light of the events that immediately followed, this joint letter, we think, clearly exerted a salutary influence on the Pontiff; for may we not refer to it John's subsequent steps as here related?On January 3, the very next day after it was forwarded to him, John held a consistory in which he showed himself more than ordinarily tolerant towards those who had opposed him, and declared anew that he had never intended dogmatically to settle the question, but had only sought, as he was still seeking, to have all possible light thrown on it, with a view to having it set at rest for all time.
Seven days later, January 10, he wrote Philip VI, declaring absolutely false the report that he had sent the Minorite, Gerard Eudes, and the Dominican, Arnold of Saint-Michael, to Paris for the purpose of winning favor or making proselytes to the doctrine he had preached; he positively asserted that such an idea had never entered his head. Again, on March 12, he wrote and admonished Peter Roger, Archbishop of Paris, of the order given at the late consistory, requiring cardinals, bishops and others to make a careful study of the question of the beatific vision and then to make known to the Pope the conclusion to which they should come relatively to the merits of the two debated theories on the subject. And finally, on March 20, he informed Philip VI by letter that Father Thomas Walleys had been transferred from the prison of the Inquisition to a room in his own Papal Palace, and gave assurance that there he would be well treated. Here the English Dominican remained a prisoner until after the election of Benedict XII, John's successor.