The Catacombs - Q&A: Catholic Answers to a Catholic Crisis

Am I validly baptised and adult conversion questions?

Mon, 02 Jun 2025 00:58:40 +0000

Good evening,
I am learning so much from the recent edition of The Recusant. In some ways it seems as though it was written for me personally. I am a new convert to Catholicism and through my studies I have been rapidly coming to understand the damage done to the Catholic Church by the Second Vatican Council and the continuation, furthering, and deepening of that damage by the Popes since. I was originally baptized as a Protestant. I recently converted to Catholicism and received a conditional baptism in my local novus ordo church. When I understood the necessity of my converting to Catholicism, I did not do my do due diligence in research and was ignorant of the evils of the Second Vatican Council. Even when I came to have an understanding of the evils and dangers of the modernism of the conciliar church, I was mistaken in my belief that it was more beneficial to be Catholic in whatever manner that would allow me to attend mass and receive the sacraments than not. This recent issue of The Recusant is correcting my understandings. I am thankful for this. I have a couple of questions.
Question 1: Am I validly baptized? I believe in the truths of the Nicene Creed including confessing one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. I did not have a video of my baptism to show the local novus ordo priest, so he thought it prudent to conditionally baptize me. I now understand through my reading of The Recusant that the faith is more important than the sacraments, but I do want to be assured that I am a validly baptized Catholic.
Question 2: How did an adult convert to Catholicism prior to The Second Vatican Council? What was the process? How does the Marian Corps of The Society of Saint Pius X receive adults into the Catholic Church? Is there any defined process of conversion from the modern Catholicism to pre-Vatican II Catholicism? I have a traditional catechism book that I am studying on my own and I listen to as much as I can from the Oratory of The Sorrowful Heart of Mary. It is my belief that the Marian Corps of The Society of Saint Pius X is the last bastion of authentic Christianity remaining.

The Recusant: Faith > Sacraments

Tue, 13 May 2025 13:19:41 +0000

Not necessarily a bona fide 'Question & Answer' article but the following, taken from The Recusant Easter 2025 issue, once again clarifies and expands on how to traditionally view the issue of Faith above the Sacraments:

Pages 32-40:

Faith > Sacraments

This may seem obvious to you, but believe it or not there exist many Catholics out there, Traditional Catholics included, who struggle to understand the basic fact that the Catholic Faith comes first, before all else. The mistaken notion that validity, “valid sacraments,” attending Mass every Sunday come-what-may, access to a priest, a chapel, a school, or whatever else, are somehow the sine qua non of saving your soul. It is not true, and like all bad ideas, the potential consequences are hair-raising.

As I say, it might seem obvious to you and I, but since it is as well to spell out the obvious every once in a while, let us begin by quoting the old SSPX. Here, for instance, is Bishop Williamson, back in the days when he still spoke like a Traditional Catholic:

Quote:“...The gravest questions are always, always questions of doctrine! Just like for engineers, the gravest questions are not has he got a nice tie, has he got a sweet wife - you can have an S.O.B. of an engineer, but if he knows his business that’s the one you employ. […] The modern mind thinks ideas don’t matter, it’s only what’s practical that matters. And you’ve seen the same thing with Cardinal Castrillon. ‘Look, dear Society of St. Pius X, let’s not worry about doctrine, let’s just get together and be friends!’ *kiss* *kiss* *kiss* … ‘Eminence, We’ve got two religions which are fighting it out to the death.’ And of course that’s the truth of the matter. It’s doctrine. And we’ve to get down to the questions of doctrine. If I want to get to heaven, I’ve got to be filled with the truth, I need the truth, I’m not going to get to heaven without the truth. The rest doesn’t matter.” [Emphasis in the original]

(“The Original Tribute” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWoWispv08s)

That last sentence might have been a rhetorical flourish, perhaps he didn’t mean it in the literal sense. For the record, the sacraments do matter: yes, they are wonderful in themselves, they are an important aid, they can make a huge difference and those early Traditionalists in the 1970s (and many SSPX faithful prior to 2012) who drove long distances just for a Sunday Mass had the right idea, absolutely. The sacraments are very important, they matter a great deal. But the Catholic Faith matters more.

The Catholic Faith is the only way we are going to save our soul. It is absolutely certainly the sine qua non of getting to heaven. It is the first of the three theological virtues, but like the other two it does not exist in a vacuum; it has an object. And that object is Catholic doctrine. It is not enough merely to say that I believe: it matters what I believe. Even the Church herself is an object of the Catholic Faith, as is clear from the Nicaean Creed, as this excellent passage from Mitre and Crook reminds us:

Quote:“… One gets the impression that Faith as a supernatural gift merely empowers a person to believe what the Church teaches and the objects of Faith are provided by the Church. It is therefore the Church which justifies the Faith and not the Faith which justifies the Church. Hence the Church must be obeyed in all things, even if she is quite clearly hiding her light under a bushel. It automatically becomes right and proper that the light should be so shaded because legitimate authority in the Church has said so. I do not think that that is an unfair or distorted representation of the case, is it? But surely it is evident that such an argument is tautological or a vicious circle? I am to know what God has revealed by the authority of the Church. And how am I to know that the Church has such authority? Because the Church says that God has revealed it. It is patently nonsense. […] The Church is the guardian of God’s revelation but not its source. She herself is one of the objects of Faith: I believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.”

(Bryan Houghton, Mitre and Crook p.186 ff.)

So the Faith comes before even the Church. By the way, please do not take this one quote as an unqualified endorsement of the whole book. Its late author, Fr. Bryan Houghton, was one of those 1950s parish priest who refused the New Mass when it came out and continued offering the Traditional Mass. He does, it is true, end up looking a somewhat ambiguous Traditionalist by the end of the first chapter, although we must remember that it was written in the 1970s and despite its sometimes naïve tone, it does contain some real gems. And he does go out of his way to defend Archbishop Lefebvre, despite having not altogether agreed with him. Hmm, Archbishop Lefebvre. There’s a thought. What does he have to say on the question?

Quote:“In a moment of terror, in a moment of confusion, in a moment of destruction of the Church, what should we do but hold fast to what Jesus has taught us and what His Church has taught us as being Truth forever, defined forever? One cannot change what has been defined once and for all by the Sovereign Pontiffs with their infallibility. It is not changeable. We cannot change the truth written forever in our holy books. Because this immutability of Truth corresponds to the Immutability of God. It is a communication of the Immutability of God to the immutability of our truths. To change our truths would be tantamount to changing the Immutability of God. We say it every day in the Office of None: “Immotus in Se permanens - God remaining immutable in Himself” forever. So we must attach ourselves to this truth which has been taught in a permanent way, and not let ourselves be troubled by the disorder we witness today. Consequently we must know, at some point, not to obey, in order to obey. This is it. Indeed, this Virtue of Almighty God of which I was speaking not long ago, the Good Lord has willed that it be transmitted to us somehow by men who participate in His authority.

That is why St. Paul himself says: “If an angel from heaven or I myself” - remember it is the great St. Paul himself who is speaking – “If an angel from heaven or I myself were to teach you a truth contrary to what has been taught to you originally, do not listen to us!” That is it. Today we are faced with this reality. I tell you myself, very willingly, my dear friends, I repeat these words very willingly: If it were to happen that I teach you something contrary to what the whole Tradition of the Church has taught, do not listen to me!”

(Archbishop Lefebvre, sermon of Dec. 8th 1976)

Note the last bit - the Archbishop more than once invited his seminarians, priests and people to abandon him if he every changed his teaching or his adherence to Tradition in the least way. Hence it cannot have been “valid sacraments” which mattered most. But what about the consecrations in June 1988, surely if anything was all about valid sacraments, it was that?

Quote: “I am simply a bishop of the Catholic Church who is continuing to transmit Catholic doctrine. I think, and this will certainly not be too far off, that you will be able to engrave on my tombstone these words of St. Paul: “Tradidi quod et accepi - I have transmitted to you what I have received,” nothing else. I am just the postman bringing you a letter. I did not write the letter, the message, this Word of God. God Himself wrote it; Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself gave it to us. As for us, we just handed it down, through these dear priests here present and through all those who have chosen to resist this wave of apostasy in the Church, by keeping the Eternal Faith and giving it to the faithful. […] It seems to me, my dear brethren, that I am hearing the voices of all these Popes - since Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XI, Pius XII - telling us: ‘Please, we beseech you, what are you going to do with our teachings, with our predications, with the Catholic Faith? Are you going to abandon it? Are you going to let it disappear from this earth? Please, please, continue to keep this treasure which we have given you.’ ”

(Abp. Lefebvre, consecrations sermon, 30th June, 1988)

Notice, the Archbishop explains his actions on that day by saying that he is merely a bishop who is continuing to transmit - what? Valid sacraments? Likewise, what he says about his own priests: they are resisting the apostasy by giving what to the faithful? Valid sacraments? And what is it that he can hear the previous Popes beseeching him to transmit? What exactly is ‘this treasure which we have given you’ - is it their holy orders? One year later, we see Archbishop Lefebvre repeating the same idea. Pay attention to exactly what is at stake, in his words:

Quote:“Since there was no other way for us to go, I am very happy that we are now assured of having bishops who keep Catholic Tradition and who maintain the Faith. Because it is the Faith that is at stake. It’s not a little matter. It’s not a matter of a few trifles.”

(Abp. Lefebvre, One Year after the Consecrations, July 1989)

Very well, though perhaps someone will object that this is all the peculiar view or idiosyncratic emphasis of Archbishop Lefebvre and no one else. But wait, there was another bishop present on that famous day at Écône as co-consecrator! Who remembers the sermon in which Bishop de Castro Mayer said that he felt a duty to be present in order to ensure valid sacraments? Isn’t that what he said? Let’s take a look:

Quote:“My presence here at this ceremony is a matter of conscience: it is the duty of a profession of the Catholic Faith before the entire Church... St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that there is no obligation to make a public profession of Faith in every circumstance, but when the Faith is in danger it is urgent to profess it, even at the risk of one’s life. This is the situation in which we find ourselves.”

(Bp. de Castro Mayer, 30th June 1988)

Archbishop Lefebvre was not alone in his view then, it seems. And Archbishop Lefebvre was consistent on this point, it wasn’t only when he was speaking to the SSPX that he used to say these things. Here he is relating a conversation he once had with Cardinal Oddi and “four more -or-less Traditional Cardinals”:

Quote:“ ‘You must change, come back to Tradition. It is not a question of the Liturgy, it is a question of the Faith.’
... Meanwhile the problem remains grave, very, very grave. We absolutely must not minimize it ... It is striking to see how our fight now is exactly the same fight as was being fought then by the great Catholics of the 19th century... We stand exactly where Cardinal Pie, Bishop Freppel, Louis Vueillot stood.”

(Abp. Lefebvre, 6th Sept 1990)

Well, well. It is not a question of the liturgy, it is a question of the Faith. Imagine that. And what’s all this talk about waging the same fight as that of Cardinal Pie and Bishop Freppel? What was their view of things, I wonder? And what was their fight, was is a fight for valid sacraments, or was it rather a fight for sound, uncompromising doctrine?

Quote:“The greatest misery, for a century or for a country, is to abandon or to diminish the truth. We can get over everything else; we never get over the sacrifice of principles. Characters may give in at given times and public morality receive some breach from vice or bad examples, but nothing is lost as long as the true doctrines remain standing in their integrity. With them everything is remade sooner or later, men and institutions, because we are always able to come back to the good when we have not left truth. To give up the principles, outside which nothing can be built that is strong and lasting would take away even the very hope of salvation. So the greatest service a man can render to his kinsmen, in the times when everything is failing and growing dim, is to assert the truth without fear even though no one listens to him; because it is a furrow of light which he opens through the intellects, and if his voice cannot manage to dominate the noises of the time, at least it will be received as the messenger of salvation in the future.”

(Mgr. Charles-Emile Freppel, Bishop of Angers)

Hold on a moment, so the greatest calamity isn’t the unavailability of Tridentine Masses, or valid sacraments or whatever? It is to abandon or even diminish the truth. Also, notice that whatever else happens, all is not lost as long as what remain standing in their integrity? That sounds a lot like “The gravest questions are always the questions of doctrine!” doesn’t it?

Quote:“The imperative duty and the noble custom of holy Church is to pay homage especially to the truth when it is ignored, to profess it when it is threatened. There is a mediocre merit to claim to be its apostle and its supporter when all acknowledge and adhere to it. To make so much of the human state of the truth and to love it so little for itself that we deny it as soon as it is no longer popular, as soon as it does not have number, authority, preponderance, success: would that not be a new way of doing our duty, and of understanding honour? Let it be known: the good remains good, and must continue to be called as such, even when “nobody does it” (Ps. XIII, 3). Furthermore, a small number of persons putting forth claims is sufficient to save the integrity of the doctrines. And the integrity of doctrine is the only chance for the restoration of order in the world.”

(Cardinal Pie, Bishop of Poitiers)

Sorry Cardinal Pie, pardon me, would you mind repeating that last sentence again, please - what is it that’s the only chance for the restoration of order in the world..? And how interesting that he should say that our imperative duty is professing the Faith publicly, and especially when and where it is undermined or threatened. That sounds very similar to Bishop de Castro Mayer going to Écône for the 1988 consecrations because of his duty to profess the Faith in front of the whole Church. Are we beginning to see a recurring theme? Here is Cardinal Pie again:

Quote:“The battle is mainly a battle of doctrines. Your resistance, dear brothers, consists therefore in being firm in your minds against the seduction of false and misleading principles. […] When I ask the wise men of this era to identify the worst hardship of modern society, they reply unanimously that mankind is becoming weak and soft. This reply has even become cliché. However, we must go further, and ask the ultimate question. […] Where does this weakness come from? Isn’t it the natural and inevitable consequence of doctrinal weakness, weakness in belief, and, to be more exact, weakness in the Faith? After all, courage has no reason to exist if it isn’t at the service of a conviction.” (Ibid.)

And here he is again:

Quote:“Battles are won or lost at the level of principles. To wait until we see the consequences of false principles before we react, is to be too late. For at that point, the battle is already lost.”

We could go on like this all day. Very well, but what about canon law, I hear someone ask. Surely some clever person out there will be able to find a quote from canon law regarding sacraments, validity, the right to go to Mass wherever and whenever one pleases, and so forth? Here is Archbishop Lefebvre again:

Quote:“Why does the Church have this legislation? It is to help us in the practice of the First Commandment, which is that we have to profess the Catholic Faith.”

(Abp. Lefebvre, Easter 1986 sermon, Écône.)

It’s just common sense really, isn’t it? The law is at the service of the Faith, and not vice-versa, obviously. As usual, Archbishop Lefebvre brings a clarity and simplicity which leaves you thinking that you knew all along but couldn’t have put it as simply as that. Any argument from canon law doesn’t work, because any law presupposes something which comes first, it presupposes a set of circumstances which today very often no longer exist, such as the important fact that your valid Mass isn’t one which is founded on compromise, or allowed by kind permission of the enemy, one which displeases God in other words. Like any human law, canon law is a secondary thing at the service of the Faith. That is why the supreme law is the salvation of souls: if any other ecclesiastical law, due to the circumstances, risks interfering with or hampering that goal, even slightly, then it is not serving its purpose and does not apply.

There are plenty of other things we could quote too - but how many quotes are necessary? You can either see it or you can’t, you either understand it or you don’t. The reason you should be convinced that the Faith comes first, before all else, even sacraments, should be because your reason tells you so based on all the information which your mind has been able to grasp, and not because this or that person says so, even if we are talking about Archbishop Lefebvre and Cardinal Pie. The reliance on experts, on this-famous-person-said, on the argument from authority in other words, is a human weakness but it is especially a plague on our times. These quotes can perhaps help people to see, but they shouldn’t really be why you are convinced of it: that honour belongs to your reason. The fact of the matter is that doctrine, which is to say the objectively knowable content of the Catholic Faith, has to come first, before all else. Bishop Williamson was right all those years ago. The gravest questions really are questions of doctrine. That is the first point to grasp.

Questions of doctrine come first, before all else, including one’s own desire to attend Mass every week, including which Mass is valid and which doubtful, including (yes, this happens too) who else will be there at this or that Mass, who I want to ‘hang out with’ or to be seen hanging out with. Those who say otherwise are mistaken. As to those who are forced to admit the truth of this, in order to maintain their “Sacraments First” position, logically they are left with two options. They must either hold that there are no doctrinal differences between various priests and Masses (Indult, SSPX, Fake Resistance, Sedevacantist and so forth); or they must
say that those doctrinal differences do not really matter. Either way, what has become of sound doctrine, what has become of the Faith? It is because of the danger to sound doctrine and the duty to confess Christ before men that we are not free simply to attend any “valid Mass”.

Again, let us quote Bishop Williamson from the days when he still sounded like Archbishop Lefebvre. Remember that there was a time when he still had a sound grasp of Catholic thought:

Quote:“If the New Mass is valid but illicit, may I attend? No! The fact that it’s valid does not mean it’s ok to attend.”

(Transcribed from the audio available here.)

The old SSPX used to say the same:

Quote:“However, even if we could be certain of the validity of the Novus Ordo Masses celebrated in today’s Conciliar churches, it does not follow that they are pleasing to God. … Furthermore, it is never permitted to knowingly and willingly participate in an evil or sinful thing, even if it is only venially sinful. For the end does not justify the means. Consequently, although it is a good thing to want to assist at Mass and satisfy one’s Sunday obligation, it is never permitted to use a sinful means to do this.”

(‘Questions and Answers with Fr Peter Scott’ - ‘Is the Novus Ordo Mass invalid, or sacrilegious, and should I assist at it when I have no alternative?’ archived here)

Those words were written in concerning the New Mass, but we can honestly ask ourselves: are Indult / Ecclesia Dei Masses pleasing to God? Is the Mass of a priest who should be, and originally was, suspended for crimes against the Sixth Commandment with minors pleasing to God? What about the Mass of the bishop responsible for obstinately promoting his public ministry? We could go on: you get the point, or you don’t. What is pleasing to God should concern me first and foremost, not where can I go that is convenient for me as long it’s valid.

Let us follow the logic of Fr. Scott’s explanation above. What matters more - that I find and receive as many sacraments as possible, wherever they are from, provided only that they are valid? Or rather, that I am careful to do only what I think will be pleasing to Our Lord and to put the Faith first? Interestingly enough, Fr Scott said the same about going to confession to a Novus Ordo priest: even if you are somehow certain that it is valid, you still shouldn’t go. The reasons given sound slightly different because we are talking about a different sacrament, but the reasoning is the same:

Quote: “I do not hesitate to strongly recommend against going to confession to such a priest, even when there is an assurance of a valid absolution. A penitent does not go to confession simply to receive the absolution of his sins. He has the desire to receive all the effects of the sacrament, including the direction, and if need be reprimand of the confessor, growth in the love of God and in sanctifying grace, a firmer purpose of amendment and the satisfaction of the temporal punishment due to his sins. All this is only possible if he sees in the confessor a judge, a teacher, and a physician. It is to guarantee these full effects of the sacrament of Penance that the Church supplies jurisdiction so that the faithful can ask any priest to hear their confessions, for any just reason (canon 2261, §2, 1917 Code and canon 1335 of the 1983 Code).

Manifestly it is not possible to have confidence in the guidance of a priest who compromises with modernism by celebrating the New Mass, even if he otherwise appears orthodox. Neither his judgment as to the reality of our contrition, nor his instruction as to the gravity of our sins, nor his remedies for the ills of our sins can be depended upon. [...] Our souls are much too precious to place in the hands of those who lack conviction. Consequently, outside case of danger of death, it is preferable to make an act of perfect contrition, and to wait until one can open one’s soul to a traditional priest that can be trusted.”

(Ibid.)

As above, the question was about a Novus Ordo priest, but we could ask the same of other priests too. Can one have confidence in the judgement of a priest who, for instance, accepts all of Vatican II’s teaching along with all the dubious moral teaching of the conciliar church, who accepts the legitimacy and orthodoxy of the New Mass but says the Traditional Mass (or as he probably calls it, “the Extraordinary Form”) with the permission of the modernist hierarchy? Is that really someone to whom we ought to look as a judge, teacher and physician? Or are our souls too precious to take such a risk? What about a bishop who obstinately promotes the
aforementioned hypothetical priest suspended for unnatural crimes, are his judgement, his instruction or his remedies to be depended on? What about one who has spent the last several years trying to convince Traditional Catholics that the New Mass isn’t as bad as they thought and that, sometimes, it can even be good? No. To quote Fr Scott again: “Manifestly it is not possible to have confidence in the guidance of a priest who compromises with modernism.”

Whether it be a question of what is pleasing to God (as with the Mass, which is the official, public worship of God) or a question of what is wise, what is prudent (as with confession, a sacrament which takes place in private, but where we have to be docile and place our soul, as it were, into the hands of the priest, treating his every word as though it were Our Lord himself talking), the answer is the same and for the same reason. No! And why? Because sacraments do not matter enough to risk endangering the your soul. Clearly then, there is more to saving your soul that merely the reception of sacraments regardless of the how, the when, or the where. It is the Faith which will save our soul, not sacraments-at-any-price. Mass and Confession are a great help in getting to heaven, provided they can be obtained without offending Our Lord. But they are hardly sine qua non, as those Saints who attained heaven without them attest. If there is one sacrament which could be said to be essential, non-negotiable, a sine qua non for getting to heaven it is surely baptism. Almost all of us have seen or been present at a Traditional baptism. Here is how the ceremony begins:

Quote:“Priest: What are you asking of God’s Church?

Sponsors: Faith.

Priest: What does the Faith hold out to you?

Sponsors: Everlasting life.

[Quid petis ab Ecclesia Dei?
- Fidem.

Fides, quid tibi praestat?
- Vitam aeternam.] ”

(Rituale Romanum: Baptism)]

Notice that the answer to ‘What are you asking from the Church?’ is not: ‘Valid sacraments.’ It is not even ‘Baptism,’ as one might expect. It is the Faith. Why might that be, other than for the same reasons discussed above? It is the Faith which will communicate life everlasting to us, not the sacraments as such.

The Catholics of the early Church surely understood this far better than we do today. Even the sacrament of baptism is not something which one can risk betraying Our Lord in order to obtain. A catechumen due to be baptised might very easily be swept up with others in a mass arrest and told to offer incense to an idol. If he does so, he lives; if he refuses, he dies. Put yourself in his shoes. You are due to be baptised next week. If you offer incense, you get to live long enough to receive the sacrament; if you refuse, you will die without it. And yet to offer the incense is not only the wrong thing to do, one such action is so serious an act of betrayal that it can lead to you totally losing the Faith once and for all (Martin Scorsese’s film Silence got that right at least). The right thing to do is to refuse and die a martyr. You will be baptised by blood in any case, we know that and today we can formulate it in those terms, thanks to the work of far greater men in previous centuries. A Roman martyr would perhaps have expressed his conviction that he was doing the right thing in a less formulaic way. But even so, what mattered most to these early martyrs was not the ability to receive sacraments, even the sacrament of baptism, but rather the profession of the Faith “before men”.

He who confesses Me before men...

That is the final point which we must grasp concerning the Faith vs. “valid sacraments” debate. It is not enough merely to believe: you must also say that you believe, you must admit that you believe before others, even when you know it will be received in a hostile way, even at the risk of your own life. This act of admitting what we believe, of saying it loud and clear before others, including those who are hostile, is called profession or confession. That is why there are Saints who were not martyrs but whom we call confessors: they were witnesses for the Catholic Faith before others, albeit not with their blood. If I believe Catholic teaching but keep it to myself and hide the light under a bushel, I won’t save my soul and in all likelihood I won’t persevere. “Keep the Faith!” is a misleading statement - yes, you have to keep the Faith, obviously, but you have also to try to spread it, you have to profess it.

Everyone has a right to hear the truth, even those who don’t want to hear it and will react violently against it. Archbishop Lefebvre famously said that the devil’s masterstroke was to get people to leave Tradition through “obedience.” In reality this means taking something good in itself (obedience) and placing it above an even higher good. Well, in our day this is the equivalent.

In 2025, the devil’s latest master-stroke, it seems, is to get Catholics (“Traditional” Catholics!) to compromise on a level of doctrine, to compromise their profession of the Faith, in order to obtain “valid sacraments”; to place the good of sacraments above the higher good of the Faith and its profession, in other words. Even ten or fifteen years ago this was still not all that common. Today, with modernist Rome’s slippery snare of the Indult Mass and encouraged by Bishop Williamson, it is now springing up everywhere.

“Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven. But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven.”
- Matt. 10: 32-33
“Certainly the question of the liturgy and the sacraments is very important, but it is not the most important. The most important is that of the Faith.”
- Archbishop Lefebvre, Fideliter interview, Jan/Feb 1991
“Today more than ever – and let it be understood rightly – society needs strong and consistent doctrines. Even though ideas are falling apart everywhere, asserting the truth can still be done in society, provided that this assertion of truth be firm, substantial, and without compromise. […] There is a grace attached to the full and entire confession of the Faith. This grace, according to Saint Paul, is the salvation of those who accomplish this confession; and experience shows that such a confession is also the salvation of those who witness it. Be Catholic and nothing other than Catholic.”
- Dom Prosper Gueranger, The Christian Meaning of History
“Matters have come to this pass: the people have left their houses of prayer and assembled in the deserts, a pitiable sight; women and children, old men, and men otherwise infirm, wretchedly faring in the open air, amid most profuse rains and snowstorms and winds and frosts of winter; and again in summer under a scorching sun. To this they submit because they will have no part of the wicked Arian leaven [i.e. the valid Mass said by Arian priests and bishops].”
- St. Basil the Great; Epistulae 242, 376 AD
“Certainly the question of the liturgy and the sacraments is very important, but it is not the most important. The most
important is that of the Faith.”
- Fideliter interview, Jan/Feb 1991
“We understand quite well what troubles you may experience in the circumstances in which you are living, without a good Mass … In fact, in such a case Monseigneur Lefebvre recommends rather to stay at home and pray the rosary in the family and to read the old Mass in the missal…”
- Reply to a personal letter to Archbishop Lefebvre, 27th April 1980 (see Recusant 40 p.10)
“We are convinced of this, it is they who are wrong, who have changed course, who have broken with the Tradition of the Church, who have rushed into novelties, we are convinced of this. That is why we do not rejoin them and why we cannot work with them; we cannot collaborate with the people who depart from the spirit of the Church, from the Tradition of the Church.”
- Archbishop Lefebvre, interview with Minute, 29th July 1976
“I am not what you think I am. Many speak of me but few know me. I am not Freemasonry, nor rioting, nor the changing of the monarchy into a republic, not the substitution of one dynasty for another, not temporary disturbance of public order. I am not the shouts of Jacobins, nor the fury of the Montagne, nor the fighting on the barricades, nor pillage, nor arson, nor the agricultural law, nor the guillotine, nor the drownings. I am neither Marat nor Robespierre, nor Babeuf nor Mazzini nor Kossuth. These men are my sons but they are not me. These things are my works but they are not me. These men and these things are passing objects but I am a permanent state... I am the hatred of all order not established by man and in which he himself is not both king and god.”
- Bishop Gaume, quoted by Abp. Lefebvre in An Open Letter to Confused Catholics, Ch.13

Learning the Traditional Catholic Faith

Sat, 18 Sep 2021 00:52:26 +0000

Hello,

What is the best way to learn the traditional Catholic Faith without modernism or errors? Any websites or recommendations would be greatly appreciated. I would like to also learn how to defend the traditional Catholic Faith Thank you.

I usually read the Baltimore Catechism and read Butlers live's of the Saints and the Council of Trent. I also am constantly seeing Fr. Hewko's and the Resistance Priests on YouTube.

Fr. Peter Scott [2003]: Why is there so little unity among traditional groups?

Sat, 06 Mar 2021 14:06:13 +0000

From the SSPX Archives - Catholic FAQs [2003]

Why is there so little unity among traditional groups?

Answered by Fr. Peter Scott

I can understand why you are scandalized by the division in the traditional movement. Many others have also been scandalized, until they realize that unity is impossible without a strong hierarchy to enforce it and insist upon it. There will only be true unity when we have once more a strong pope, backed up by docile bishops.

It is a part of the diversity of the Church that there be different groups, organizations, religious orders and activities to defend different aspects of Catholic Tradition. They complement one another, and should retain their specific differences in order to do their best for Holy Mother Church. This is in no way opposed to the unity of the Faith, which binds us all together. Thus in Tradition there are diverse orders of teaching sisters; there are active orders such as the Society of St. Pius X; and there are contemplatives, such as the Benedictines, Dominicans, Capuchins and Redemptorists. They all have a different role to play in the Church. There is also a place for lay organizations, and specific apostolates such as Fr. Gruner’s to promote devotion to Our Lady of Fatima. Despite their different methods and emphasis, all these organizations share a profound unity. However, there are some groups that cannot be considered a part of this unity. These are the sedevacantists and the communities (e.g., St. Peter’s, St. John’s, Institute of Christ the King, etc.) which accept the orthodoxy of the New Mass and Vatican II and which celebrate the Indult. Such are outside the moral unity of the traditional movement.

[NB: Bishop Fellay, as Superior General of the SSPX, formally accepted the "orthodoxy of the New Mass and Vatican II..." by his signing of the 2012 Doctrinal Declaration.]

Clearly it is imperative that all these truly Catholic orders, organizations and apostolates work together. It seems clear that this profound unity can be found in all of those which are officially affiliated with the work of the Society of St. Pius X. It is when a group or activity refuses such an affiliation that it becomes forced either into a compromise with liberalism or into the excesses of rigorism.

[Emphasis mine.]

Fr. Peter Scott Answers: Is it true to say that now there is a "conciliar" Church?

Sat, 06 Mar 2021 13:46:36 +0000

From the SSPX Archives - Catholic FAQs [2003]

Is it true to say that now there is a "conciliar" Church?
Answered by Fr. Peter Scott

The term "conciliar" is an adjective that has long been used to describe those things that relate to the Second Vatican Council, such as the documents, commissions, or novel teachings such as Religious Liberty and Ecumenism. The question raises the objection as to whether this adjective can be used to describe the Catholic Church after the Second Vatican Council.

In order to respond to the question a clear distinction has to be made. If by the term "church" is understood the visible, hierarchical structure, founded upon the rock of St. Peter, then clearly there can only be one Church, the Catholic Church. If we were to call the Catholic Church after Vatican II "conciliar" in this sense, then we would claim that it is no longer Catholic at all, but instead a separate visible, hierarchical structure. However, this is manifestly false, both because the adepts of Vatican II have hijacked the visible hierarchical structure of the Catholic Church, and because they profess publicly to be Catholics.

However, there is another sense in which the term "conciliar" can rightly be applied to the majority of persons who profess to be Catholic, as well as to their ideas and opinions, profoundly influenced as they are by the Second Vatican Council.In this sense "conciliar" refers to the persons who have embraced and who promote the novelties of Vatican II, as well as to the novelties themselves. There are varying degrees of influence of the modern errors, from liberal Catholicism through rash opposition to Tradition to outright apostasy. The term conciliar or post-conciliar can consequently be applied to the modernist church, not as it is a canonical institution, but inasmuch and to the degree that it promotes the revolutionary errors of Vatican II.

Archbishop Lefebvre understood this reality very clearly, and the grave danger brought about by the infiltration of all these modernist principles within the very bosom of the Catholic Church. He had this to say of Rome in 1974, in his famous declaration of November 21:

Quote:We hold fast, with all our heart and with all our soul, to Catholic Rome, Guardian of the Catholic Faith and of the traditions necessary to preserve this Faith, to Eternal Rome, Mistress of wisdom and truth.

We refuse, on the other hand, and have always refused to follow the Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies which were clearly evident in the Second Vatican Council and, after the Council, in all the reforms which issued from it.

In his book Spiritual Journey, Archbishop Lefebvre explained how the end result of this Conciliar Church is to separate its members little by little from the true Catholic Church established by Our Lord. By this he means that its revolutionary principles of freedom at all cost separate the clergy and faithful little by little from Tradition and produce indifferentism for all religions, eventually destroying the Catholic faith in the one true Church, and bringing about a generalized apostasy, even of those persons who outwardly appear to still be members of the Catholic Church.

Quote:Certainly, the Church itself guards its sanctity and its sources of sanctification, but the control of its institutions by unfaithful popes and apostate bishops ruins the faith of the faithful and the clergy, sterilizes the instruments of grace, and favors the assault of all the powers of Hell which seem to triumph. This apostasy makes its members adulterers, schismatics opposed to all Tradition, separated from the past of the Church, and thus separated from the Church of today, in the measure that it remains faithful to the Church of Our Lord. [p.54]

[Emphasis mine.]

Fr. Peter Scott: Is the Novus Ordo Mass invalid, or sacrilegious, and should I assist at it?

Sat, 06 Mar 2021 13:24:24 +0000

From the SSPX Archives - Catholic FAQs [2003]:

Is the Novus Ordo Mass invalid, or sacrilegious, and should I assist at it when I have no alternative?

Answered by Fr. Peter Scott

The validity of the reformed rite of Mass, as issued in Latin by Paul VI in 1969, must be judged according to the same criteria as the validity of the other sacraments; namely matter, form and intention. The defective theology and meaning of the rites, eliminating as they do every reference to the principal propitiatory end of sacrifice, do not necessarily invalidate the Mass. The intention of doing what the Church does, even if the priest understands it imperfectly, is sufficient for validity. With respect to the matter, pure wheaten bread and true wine from grapes are what is required for validity. The changes in the words of the form in the Latin original, although certainly illicit and unprecedented in the history of the Church, do not alter the substance of its meaning, and consequently do not invalidate the Mass.

However, we all know that such a New Mass celebrated in Latin is an oddity, doomed to extinction by the very fact of the reform. The validity of the New Masses that are actually celebrated in today’s parishes more than 30 years later is a quite different question. Additives to the host sometimes invalidate the matter. The change in the translation from the words of Our Lord, "for many" to the ecumenically acceptable "for all" throws at least some doubt on the validity of the form. Most importantly, however, is the fact that the intention of the Church of offering up a true sacrifice in propitiation for the sins of the living and the dead has been obliterated for 30 years. In fact, most liturgies present the contrary intention of a celebration by the community of the praise of God. In such circumstances it is very easy for a priest to no longer have the intention of doing what the Church does, and for the New Mass to become invalid for this reason. The problem is that this is hidden and nobody knows. Whereas the traditional Mass expresses the true intention of the Church in a clear and unambiguous manner, so that everyone can be certain of the priest’s intention, the New Mass does no such thing. Consequently, the doubt of invalidity for lack of intention, especially in the case of manifestly modernist priests, cannot be easily lifted or removed.

Clearly, an invalid Mass is not a Mass at all, and does not satisfy the Sunday obligation. Furthermore, when it comes to the sacraments, Catholics are obliged to follow the "pars tutior," the safer path. It is not permissible to knowingly receive doubtful sacraments. Consequently nobody has the obligation to satisfy his Sunday obligation by attending the New Mass, even if there is no other alternative.

However, even if we could be certain of the validity of the Novus Ordo Masses celebrated in today’s Conciliar churches, it does not follow that they are pleasing to God. Much to the contrary, they are objectively sacrilegious, even if those who assist at them are not aware of it. By such a statement, I do not mean that all those who celebrate or assist at the New Mass are necessarily in mortal sin, having done something directly insulting to Almighty God and to our Divine Savior.

Sacrilege is a sin against the virtue of religion, and is defined as "the unbecoming treatment of a sacred person, place or thing as far as these are consecrated to God" (Jone, Moral Theology, p.108). The moral theologians explain that sacrilege is in itself and generally a mortal sin (ex genere suo), but that it is not always a mortal sin, because it can concern a relatively small or unimportant thing. Here we are speaking of a real sacrilege, the dishonoring of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, by the elimination of the prayers and ceremonies that protect its holiness, by the absence of respect, piety and adoration, and by the failure to express the Catholic doctrine of the Mass as a true propitiatory sacrifice for our sins. Here there are varying degrees. Just as it is a grave sacrilege and objective mortal sin for a lay person to touch the sacred host without reason, so it is, for example, a venial sin to do the same thing to the chalice or the blessed linens, such as the purificator or pall.

Likewise with the New Mass. It can be an objectively mortal sin of sacrilege if Holy Communion is distributed in the hand or by lay ministers, if there is no respect, if there is talking or dancing in church, or if it includes some kind of ecumenical celebration, etc. It can also be an objectively venial sin of sacrilege if it is celebrated with unusual respect and devotion, so that it appears becoming and reverential to Almighty God. This in virtue of the omissions in the rites and ceremonies, which constitute a true disrespect to Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament and to the Blessed Trinity, and of the failure to express the true nature of what the Mass really is. In each case, the subjective culpability is an altogether other question that God only can judge.

However, regardless of the gravity of the sacrilege, the New Mass still remains a sacrilege, and it is still in itself sinful. Furthermore, it is never permitted to knowingly and willingly participate in an evil or sinful thing, even if it is only venially sinful. For the end does not justify the means. Consequently, although it is a good thing to want to assist at Mass and satisfy one’s Sunday obligation, it is never permitted to use a sinful means to do this. To assist at the New Mass, for a person who is aware of the objective sacrilege involved, is consequently at least a venial sin. It is opportunism. Consequently, it is not permissible for a traditional Catholic, who understands that the New Mass is insulting to Our Divine Savior, to assist at the New Mass, and this even if there is no danger of scandal to others or of the perversion of one’s own Faith (as in an older person, for example), and even if it is the only Mass available.

[Emphasis mine.]

Fr. Peter Scott: On Protestant Baptisms

Tue, 05 Jan 2021 16:03:22 +0000

The Angelus - January 2010

Questions and Answers
by Fr. Peter R. Scott

How can we deny that non-Catholic Christian religions are means of salvation, given that they have (frequently) valid baptism?

The denomination of false religions as “means of salvation” is a novelty unheard of before Vatican II. The text that promotes this idea is the Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, which states that “the separated churches and communities as such . . . have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation…” (§3). It is likewise stated in the Vatican II document on the Church, Lumen Gentium, that “many elements of sanctification and truth are found outside its visible confines”–that is, outside of the Catholic Church (§8).

There is, in both of these statements, a deliberate ambiguity, depending on how we understand that “means of salvation” or “elements of sanctification and truth” could exist in a religious group. It is certainly true that, in a purely material sense, such means of salvation that require no specific disposition on the part of the subject can exist in the various Protestant denominations.

The valid administration of the sacrament of baptism to children is such a case. If administered with the correct matter and form and the intention of doing what the Church does, it is valid and confers grace, since the child who has not yet attained the age of reason cannot place an obstacle in the path of grace. However, it is in only a material sense that this sacrament is administered by the Protestant group. It does not belong to it, nor does it follow at all that the false religious community itself is a means of salvation. In effect, every valid and fruitful baptism is a sacrament of the Catholic Church and makes the baptized child a member of the Catholic Church, as Pope Benedict XIV taught quite explicitly in 1749:

Quote: “He (i.e., a child) who receives baptism validly from a heretic, in virtue of this very fact is made a member of the Catholic Church” (DS 2567).

The pope goes on to state that the child receives the infused virtue of Faith (that is, the Catholic Faith), although the minister was a heretic. Consequently, truly and formally speaking the baptism is administered by the Catholic Church although the child is not aware of it and the minister denies it. It is only after having attained the age of reason, and after having formally adhered to the heretical or schismatic group, that the baptized child leaves the Church. Although this is canonically presumed from the age of 14 years whenever a person continues to participate in the religious ceremonies of the sect, it is entirely possible that a particular individual could be in invincible ignorance even well after that age, and hence not formally heretical or schismatic.

The question then arises as to those elements of salvation that require the correct disposition of the subject, such as the baptism of adults, or any other of the sacraments that might be valid in these sects, or concerning which the teachings of these sects might contain certain elements of the truth. Again, in a purely material sense, it can be said that these sacraments or teachings can be given in a heretical or schismatic church. However, they can only be efficacious when there is invincible ignorance on the part of the person who receives these sacraments in this false religious environment. In such a case, he does not voluntarily refuse to belong to the true Church, but has an implicit desire of belonging to it. It is consequently formally and properly to the Catholic Church that these sacraments belong and through the Catholic Church that they are salutary, even if perchance they are sometimes received materially speaking outside of her. An adult validly and fruitfully baptized with such invincible ignorance is in reality a member of the Catholic Church, despite appearances to the contrary.

Not only does the Council of Florence teach that heretics and schismatics cannot be saved

Quote:“unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock,” but also that “the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation” (Decree for the Jacobites, Dz. 714).

The consequence is that anyone who is truly and with pertinacity a member of a false religion, explicitly refusing to be a member of the Catholic Church, cannot possibly receive any means of salvation nor any elements of sanctification from his Protestant or schismatic sect. He might appear to do so, and to go through the motions of receiving means of salvation and elements of sanctification, but this is only in a purely material, exterior sense, and none of them will be of any profit to his soul, as St. Paul says of the Holy Eucharist: “For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself” (I Cor. 11:28).

In such cases the sacraments are valid, but not efficacious for salvation, on account of an impediment placed by the subject who deliberately refuses to submit to the true Church, her teaching, and her authority. This teaching is very clear in the Fathers of the Church, such as St. Augustine, who has this to say:

Quote:The comparison of the Church with Paradise shows us that men may indeed receive baptism outside her pale, but that no one outside can either receive or retain the salvation of eternal happiness. For, as the words of the Scripture testify, the streams from the fountain of Paradise flowed copiously even beyond its bounds. Record is indeed made of their names; and through what countries they flow, and that they are situated beyond the limits of Paradise, is known to all; and yet in Mesopotamia, and in Egypt, to which countries those rivers extended, there is not found that blessedness of life which is recorded in Paradise. Accordingly, although the waters of Paradise are found beyond its boundaries, yet its happiness is in Paradise alone. So, therefore, the baptism of the Church may exist outside, but the gift of the life of happiness is found alone within the Church, which has been founded on a rock, which has received the keys of binding and loosing….This indeed is true, that “baptism is not unto salvation except within the Catholic Church.” For in itself it can indeed exist outside the Catholic Church as well; but there it is not unto salvation, because there it does not work salvation; just as that sweet savour of Christ is not unto salvation in them that perish, though from a fault not in itself but in them. (On Baptism against the Donatists)

Pope St. Leo the Great also taught that baptism received outside of the Church is fruitless.

Quote:For they who have received baptism from heretics are to be confirmed by the imposition of hands with only the invocation of the Holy Ghost, because they have received the bare form of baptism without the power of sanctification. (Letter CLIX)

The consequence of the fact that it is only perchance, by invincible ignorance and lack of pertinacity, that sacraments can be valid in such communities is that no sacrament or means of salvation can be said, properly speaking, to belong to the false religious community. This what is St. Augustine had to say against the heretics of his time, called Donatists:

Quote:It [baptism] does not belong to you. That which is yours are your bad sentiments and sacrilegious practices, and that you have the impiety to separate yourselves from us. (Quoted in From Ecumenism to Silent Apostasy, §28)

It is not only ambiguous, but misleading and false to affirm that these communities have elements of sanctification and means of salvation. Moreover, such a statement leads inexorably to the denial of the doctrine “Outside the Church, no salvation,” nor can this statement be denied, sent by the four bishops of the Society to all the cardinals in 2004:

Quote:“In the degree in which this assertion of the Council contradicts the affirmation that the Catholic Church is the unique possessor of the means of salvation, it approaches heresy” (ibid.).

What are we to think of the Fraternity of St. Peter?

Thu, 31 Dec 2020 22:36:04 +0000

From the SSPX Archives:

Question 13

What are we to think of the Fraternity of St. Peter?

Since the introduction of the new sacramental rites, Rome had allowed no religious society or congregation exclusive use of the older rites. Then on June 30, 1988, Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated four bishops to ensure the survival of the traditional priesthood and sacraments, and especially of the traditional Latin Mass.

Suddenly, within two days, Pope John Paul II recognized (Ecclesia Dei Afflicta, July 2, 1988) the “rightful aspirations” (for these things) of those who wouldn’t support Archbishop Lefebvre’s stance, and offered to give to them what he had always refused the Archbishop. A dozen or so priests of the SSPX accepted this “good will” and broke away to found the Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP).

The Fraternity of St. Peter is founded upon more than questionable principles, for the following reasons:

1. It accepts that the Conciliar Church has the power:

to take away the Mass of all time (for the Novus Ordo Missae is not another form of this, question 5),

to grant it to those only who accept the same Conciliar Church’s novel orientations (in life, belief, structures),

to declare non-Catholic those who deny this by word or deed (An interpretation of "Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism [of Archbishop Lefebvre] is a grave offense against God and carries the penalty of excommunication." Ecclesia Dei Afflicata), and,

to professes itself in a certain way in communion with anyone calling himself “Christian,” and yet to declare itself out of communion with Catholics whose sole crime is wanting to remain Catholic (Vatican II, e.g., Lumen Gentium, §15; Unitatis Redintegratio §3).

2. In practice, the priests of the Fraternity, having recourse to a Novus Ordo bishop willing to permit the traditional rites and willing to ordain their candidates, they are forced to abandon the fight against the new religion which is being installed:

they reject the Novus Ordo Missae only because it is not their “spirituality” and claim the traditional Latin Mass only in virtue of their “charism” acknowledged them by the pope,

they seek to ingratiate themselves with the local bishops, praising them for the least sign of Catholic spirit and keeping quiet on their modernist deviations (unless perhaps it is a question of a diocese where they have no hopes of starting up), even though by doing so they end up encouraging them along their wrong path, and

note, for example, the Fraternity’s whole-hearted acceptance of the (New) Catechism of the Catholic Church (question 14), acceptance of Novus Ordo professors in their seminaries, and blanket acceptance of Vatican II’s orthodoxy (question 6).

They are therefore Conciliar Catholics and not traditional Catholics.

This being so, attending their Mass is:

accepting the compromise on which they are based,

accepting the direction taken by the Conciliar Church and the consequent destruction of the Catholic Faith and practices, and

accepting, in particular, the lawfulness and doctrinal soundness of the Novus Ordo Missae and Vatican II.

That is why a Catholic ought not to attend their Masses.

[Emphasis in the original]

How Can We in Good Conscience Recognize the 'Validity of the Novus Ordo Indult?'

Thu, 31 Dec 2020 22:34:41 +0000

The Angelus - July 1985

Ask Me...
answers given by Father Carl Pulvermacher

Q. To have the Tridentine Mass said in the Archdiocese of Portland one requirement is: "The recognition of the validity of the New Order of the Mass as promulgated by Pope Paul VI by those who request that the Mass be celebrated . . ." In view of the decree by Pope St. Pius V that the Tridentine Mass can never be legally revoked or amended . . . how can we in good conscience recognize the "validity of the New Order"?

A. In truth we cannot. Even if we might agree that the New Order Mass is substantially valid we cannot agree that it is a valid substitute for the immemorial Mass, the Tridentine Mass.It is Protestant in its form, teaching by its words, actions, and omissions a strikingly Protestant theology. Compared to Cranmer's and Luther's liturgies, it is surprisingly similar. Whoever made up the Indult of October 3, 1984, knew how to grant a favor without granting it! For you to benefit by the Indult you have to be of the mind that you really don't object to the New Mass. What an unbelievable state of mind this is! If one does not "impugn the lawfulness and doctrinal soundness of the Roman Missal promulgated in 1970 by Pope Paul VI," why would he ask for the Latin Tridentine Mass in the first place? To request the use of the Indult one must necessarily tell an untruth. That is the way it looks to me.

[Emphasis - The Catacombs]

What is the difference between 'Grace-giving' and 'Valdiity/"

Thu, 31 Dec 2020 22:31:33 +0000

The Angelus - April 1984

Ask Me...
answers given by Father Carl Pulvermacher

Q. Several people objected to my saying, in last month's column, that the New Mass was not grace-giving. "It is heresy to hold a valid Mass is not grace giving."

A. First of all, there is a difference between validity and grace-giving. I believe the one may be present without the other. Surely, I do not claim that in every case the New Mass is invalid. I hate to make comparisons but I know you would agree that a valid Satanic mass (Black Mass) would not be grace giving. I certainly do not hold the New Mass is the same as a Black Mass. I merely look at the fruits.

So far I have not seen a Catholic who has advanced in holiness because of the graces of the New Mass. No Novus Ordo priest or lay person that I know of has even come close to being lifted to the honors of the Altar—sainthood. Of course, you might say that 15 or 20 years is not enough time to tell. However, we can look at the miserable condition of the papacy, the episcopacy, the priesthood, the brotherhood and sisterhood, and the laity—single and married—and we find it easier to say "no grace giving," than "grace giving."

We have material eyes and cannot see the state of grace, so we cannot prove it one way or the other. All we can do is to look at the results of the New Mass. Has anyone ever dreamed that in most of our churches such sacrilegious things could take place as clown liturgies, dancing girls, homosexual masses, Jewish and Protestant liturgies?

Our Lord said, "Let no one lead you astray." "By their fruits you shall know them." "Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves." I have yet to see a single Catholic who has truly benefitted from the New Mass. Never have I seen a novus ordo convent or a monastery where religious life was not in a state of decline. When we had the true Mass, normal progress was seen. When we adopted the Novus Ordo, we have seen normal decline. I dare any person—cleric or lay—to prove the grace-givingness of the New Ordo liturgy!

+ + +

Quote:
The following were Fr. Pulvermacher's original comments alluded to in the opening question:

The Angelus - March 1984

Q. We started going to our parish church (Novus Ordo, of course) on the Sundays there was no traditional Mass here. My question is this. Is it wrong to go to our parish church when the traditional Mass is only available so infrequently? Is it wrong to receive Communion or any other Sacrament in the Novus Ordo church? Is the bread and wine really transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Christ at the Novus Ordo Mass? S. P., Kasson, Minn.

A. Here we get down to the bare facts. In all questions like this I always advise people to avoid attending the New Mass, as well as the altered Sacraments. I do not say they are always invalid. However, this alone doesn't make them good. The New Mass is not grace-giving. It is not our Catholic Mass. The only reason it was created was to destroy our true Mass. This excuse of people not being able to understand the Latin language is silly. We were always instructed to follow with our English (or other) missals. Latin is still the official language of the Church. Anybody telling me the New Mass in Latin is easier to understand than the Tridentine Mass is surely joking. The real thing is better than the substitute.

[Emphasis -The Catacombs]

Why do Catholics call their priests 'Father?'

Thu, 31 Dec 2020 22:24:51 +0000

The Angelus - April 1984

Ask Me...
answers given by Father Carl Pulvermacher

Q. Catholics call their priests "Father" in spite of the fact that Our Lord says, "Call no man on earth father" (Matt. 23:9). Isn't this breaking Christ's command? V. C., Spokane, Wash.

A. This is a question that causes some Catholics to stutter and blush. However, there should be no need of this. Our Lord commanded us to honor our father and mother (Matt. 15:3-7). Blessed Mary called St. Joseph "Father" to her Son: "Thy Father and I have sought Thee sorrowing" (Luke 2:48). The husband of our mothers we normally call "father," not "pal" or "Joe" or whatever, but "Father." St. Paul 4:16 calls Abraham the "Father" of us all.

No man can stand in any way whatsoever as a father unless God holds him up. So Our Lord tells us never to forget that the power of fatherhood is God's above, and no man in anyway can add or detract from that absolute fact. Surely we know as faithful Catholics that an earthly father shares in the wonderful work of the Heavenly Father's work of creation in bringing a new life into the world.

A priest is surely called "Father" because he too brings spiritual life to souls—in Baptism, Confession and the other Sacraments. In some way God upholds this fatherhood of the priest by the grace of spiritual life which He distributes through the hands of his priests. If the priest does not beget spiritual life, he is not a father, just as an earthly man is no father unless he begets or supports earthly life. Calling anyone a father or master who really does not share the life-giving faculty of God the Father is what Our Lord meant when He forbad the calling of anyone on earth your father. No one reading the Bible carefully should ever wonder about this oft-repeated, stupid question. All fatherhood in earth or in heaven is named after Him, the Heavenly Father (Ephesians 3:14).

What is the Role of the Laity in the Church?

Thu, 31 Dec 2020 22:22:40 +0000

1917 Catholic Encyclopedia

Laity

Laity means the body of the faithful, outside of the ranks of the clergy. This article treats the subject under three heads: (1) General Idea; (2) Duties and Rights of the Laity; (3) Privileges and Restrictions of the Laity.

(1) General idea

Whereas the word faithful is opposed to infidel, unbaptized, one outside the pale of Christian society, the word laity is opposed to clergy. The laity and clergy, or clerics, belong to the same society, but do not occupy the same rank. The laity are the members of this society who remain where they were placed by baptism, while the clergy, even if only tonsured, have been raised by ordination to a higher class, and placed in the sacred hierarchy. The Church is a perfect society, though all therein are not equal; it is composed of two kinds of members (see can. "Duo sunt", vii, Caus. 12, Q. i, of uncertain origin): in the first place, those who are the depositaries of sacred or spiritual authority under its triple aspect, government, teaching, and worship, i.e. the clergy, the sacred hierarchy established by Divine law (Conc. Trid., Sess. XXIII, can. vi); in the second place, those over whom this power is exercised, who are governed, taught, and sanctified, the Christian people, the laity; though for that matter clerics also, considered as individuals, are governed, taught, and sanctified. But the laity are not the depositaries of spiritual power; they are the flock confided to the care of the shepherds, the disciples who are instructed in the Word of God, the subjects who are guided by the successors of the Apostles towards the last end, which is eternal life. Such is the constitution which Our Saviour has given to His Church.

This is not the place for a detailed demonstration of this assertion, the proof of which may be reduced to the following points more fully developed under CHURCH: on the one hand, a distinction between the governed and those governing is necessary in every organized society; now Jesus Christ established His Church as a real society, endowed with all the authority requisite for the attaining of its object. On the other hand, in the Church, government has always been in the hands of those who were entrusted exclusively with the teaching of doctrine and the care of Divine worship. If one studies without prejudice the New Testament and the beginnings of Christianity, some doubt may arise on certain matters of detail; but the conclusion will certainly be that every Christian community had its superiors, these superiors had a stable spiritual authority, and this authority had as its end the exclusive care of religious functions (including teaching) as well as the government of the community. There have been differences of opinion concerning the origin of the monarchial episcopacy, which soon became the sole form of ecclesiastical organization; but no one holds that the monarchial episcopacy succeeded a period of anarchy or of government by a community where all had equal authority. The organization of all Christian Churches under the authority of the bishops and clergy, as early as the third century, is so evident as to place beyond all doubt the existence at that time of two distinct classes, the clergy and the laity. Moreover, in all societies among which Christianity had spread, religious service had already its special ministers, and the Christian organization would have retrograded if its worship and its sacrifice had not been entrusted exclusively to a special class.

Christ selected the Apostles from among His disciples, and among the Apostles He selected Peter to be their head. He entrusted them with the furtherance of His work; to them he confided the power of the keys, i.e. spiritual authority, for they are the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 16:19); He gave them the mission to teach and baptize all nations (Matthew 28:18); to them also He addressed those words at the Last Supper: Do this in commemoration of me" (Luke 22:19). As soon as the Church begins to live, the Apostles appear as its leaders; they are distinct from the "multitude of believers"; it is into their ranks that they bring Matthias (Acts 1:15), and later, by the command of the Holy Ghost, Saul and Barnabas, whom they receive with the imposition of hands (Acts 13:2). Wherever St. Paul founds Churches he gives them leaders "placed by the Holy Spirit to govern the Church of God" (Acts 20:28); the Pastoral Epistles reveal to us a directing body composed of the bishops, or priests, and deacons (Epistle of Clement 43.4); and they it is, especially the bishops, who perform exclusively the liturgical services (Ignatius, Smyrnæans 8). If at times the Christian people participate in the Divine service or the government, they never appear acting independently nor even on an equal footing with the heads of the community (cf. Batiffol, "L'Église naissante et le catholicisme", Paris, 1909). This distinction between the two classes in the Christian society refers to social rank, not to individual moral perfection. It is true that the clergy, being dedicated to the service of the altar, are thereby bound to strive after perfection; yet neither their virtues not their failing influence in any way their powers. On the other hand, the laity, besides their right to aspire freely to admission into the ranks of the clergy, on complying with the requisite conditions, are exhorted to practise every virtue, even in the highest degree. They can also bind themselves to observe the evangelical counsels, under the guidance of the Church, either in the world, as did the ancient ascetics, or by withdrawing from the world into one of the many religious houses. But ascetics, nuns, and unordained members of religious associations of men were not originally in the ranks of the clergy, and, strictly speaking, are not so even today, though, on account of their closer and more special dependence on ecclesiastical authority, they have long been included under the title clergy in its wider sense (see RELIGIOUS). The juridical condition of the laity in the Christian society is therefore determined by two considerations: their separation from the clergy, which excludes them from the performance of acts reserved to the latter; and second, their subjection to the spiritual authority of the clergy, which imposes certain obligations on them, while at the same time it confers on them certain rights.

(2) Duties and rights of the laity

Having come through Baptism to the supernatural life, being members of the Christian society and adopted children of God, the laity belong to the "chosen race", the "royal priesthood" (1 Peter 2:9) formed of all those who are born again in Christ. They have therefore a right to share in the common spiritual goods of the Christian society, which implies a corresponding obligation on the part of the clergy to bestow on them these goods, in as far as this bestowal requires the intervention of the ministers of religion and of the spiritual authority. But if the laity are to share in these common goods they must employ more or less frequently the means of sanctification instituted by Jesus Christ in His Church, and of which the clergy have been put in charge. Further, the laity, being subject to ecclesiastical authority, must obey and respect it; but in return they have the right to obtain from it direction, protection, and service. Thus, for the laity rights and duties are, as always, correlative. The first duty of a Christian is to believe; the first obligation imparted to the laity is, therefore, to learn the truths of faith and of religion, at first by means of the catechism and religious instruction, and later by being present at sermons, missions, or retreats. If they are thus obliged to learn, they have the right to be instructed and consequently to require their priests to give them and their children Christian teaching in the ordinary way. Second, a Christian's moral conduct should be in keeping with his faith; he must, therefore, preserve his spiritual life by the means which Jesus has established in His Church; The Divine service, especially the Mass, the Sacraments, and other sacred rites.

This necessity of having recourse to the pastoral ministry gives rise to a right in the laity as regards the clergy, the right of obtaining from them the administration of the sacraments, especially Penance and the Holy Eucharist, and others according to circumstances; also all the other acts of Christian worship, especially the Mass, the sacramentals and other rites, and lastly Christian burial. These are the spiritual goods destined for the sanctification of souls; if the clergy are appointed to administer them, they are not free dispensers, and they are bound to give their services to the faithful, as long, at least, as the latter have not by their own fault placed themselves in a condition that deprives them of the right to demand these services. Considered from the standpoint of the laity, this recourse to the ministry of the clergy is sometimes obligatory and sometimes optional, according to circumstances. It may be an obligation imposed by a command of the Church, or necessitated by personal reasons; in other cases, it may be a matter of counsel and left to the devotion of each one. This is a subject which exhibits most clearly the difference between a precept and a counsel with regard to our outward Christian life. Assistance at Mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation, annual confession, Easter communion, the reception of the viaticum and the last services of religion, the celebration of marriage in the prescribed form, the baptism and religious instruction of children, and, finally, the rites of Christian burial---all these suppose a recourse to the ministry of the clergy which is of obligation for the laity, abstracting from individual cases when there may be a legitimate excuse. On the other hand, more or less frequent confessions and communions, hearing of daily Mass, frequenting the Divine Office, asking for special ceremonies (for instance, churching) celebration of Masses, obtaining services and prayers for the dead or for other intentions, are things that are perfectly legitimate and are counselled, but are optional. We may also mention the obligatory or free acts intended for the personal sanctification of the laity, but which do not require the help of the clergy: private prayer, fasting and abstinence, avoidance of servile work on Sundays and holy days of obligation, and, lastly, in general all that relates to the moral life and the observance of the commandments of God.

From these obligatory and optional relations existing between the laity and the clergy there arise certain duties of the former towards the latter. In the first place, respect and deference should be shown to the clergy, especially in the exercise of their function, on account of their sacred character and the Divine authority with which they are invested (Conc. Trid., Sess. XXV, c. xx). This respect should be shown in daily intercourse, and laymen inspired with a truly Christian spirit do homage to God in the person of His ministers, even when the conduct of the latter is not in keeping with the sanctity of their state. In the second place the laity are obliged, in proportion to their means and circumstances of the case, to contribute towards the expenses of Divine service and the fitting support of the clergy; this is an obligation incumbent on them in return for the right which they have to the services of their priests with regard to the Mass and other spiritual exercises. These contributions fall under two distinct classes: certain gifts and offerings of the faithful are intended in general for the Divine services and the support of the clergy; others, on the contrary, are connected with various acts of the sacred ministry which are freely asked for, such as the stipends for Masses, the dues for funeral services, marriages, etc. There is no fixed sum for the former class, the matter being left to the generosity of the faithful; in many countries they have taken the place of the fixed incomes that the various churches and the clergy were possessed of, arising especially from landed property; they have likewise replaced the tithes, no longer recognized by the secular governments. The latter class, however, are fixed by ecclesiastical authority or custom and may be demanded in justice; not that this is paying for sacred things, which would be simony, but they are offerings for the Divine service and the clergy on the occasion of certain definite acts (see OFFERINGS; TITHES).

There remains to speak of the duties and rights of the laity towards the ecclesiastical authority as such, in matters foreign to the sacred ministry. The duties, which affect both laity and clergy, consist in submission and obedience to legitimate hierarchical authority: the pope, the bishops, and, in a proportionate degree, the parish priests and other acting ecclesiastics. The decisions, judgments, orders, and directions of our lawful pastors, in matters of doctrine, morals, discipline, and even administration, must be accepted and obeyed by all members of the Christian society, at least in as far as they are subject to that authority. That is a condition requisite to the well-being of any society whatsoever. However, in the case of the Christian society, authoritative decisions and directions, in as far as they are concerned with faith and morals, bind not merely to exterior acts and formal obedience; they are, moreover, a matter of conscience and demand loyal interior acceptance. On the other hand, seeing that in the Church the superiors have been established for the welfare of the subjects, so that the pope himself glories in the title "servant of the servants of God", the faithful have the right to expect the care, vigilance, and protection of their pastors; in particular they have the right to refer their disputes to the ecclesiastical authorities for decision, to consult them in case of doubt or difficulty, and to ask for suitable guidance for their religious or moral conduct.

(3) Privileges and restrictions of the laity

Since the laity is distinct from the clergy, and since Divine worship, doctrinal teaching, and ecclesiastical government are reserved, at least in essentials, to the latter, it follows that the former may not interfere in purely clerical offices; they can participate only in a secondary and accessory manner, and that in virtue of a more or less explicit authorization. Any other interference would be an unlawful and guilty usurpation, punishable at times with censures and penalties. We will apply this principle now to matters of worship, teaching, and government or administration.

As to the liturgy

As to Divine service, the liturgy and especially the essential act of the Christian worship, the Holy Sacrifice, the active ministers are the clergy alone. But the laity really join in it. Not only do they assist at the Sacrifice and receive its spiritual effects, but they offer it through the ministry of the priest. Formerly they could, and even were obliged to, bring and offer at the altar the mater of the sacrifice, i.e. the bread and wine; that is what they really do today by their offerings and their stipends for Masses. At several parts of the Mass, the prayers mention them as offering the sacrifice together with the clergy, especially in the passage immediately after the consecration: "Unde et memores, nos servi tui (the clergy) sed et plebs tua sancta (the laity) . . . offerimus praeclare Majestati tuae, de tuis donis ac datis", etc. The laity reply to the salutations and invitations of the celebrant, thus joining in the solemn prayer; especially do they share in the Holy Victim by Holy Communion (confined for them in the Latin Liturgy to the species of bread), which they can receive also outside of the time of Mass and at home in case of illness. Such is the participation of the laity in the Liturgy, and strictly they are limited to that; all the active portion is performed by the clergy.

Regularly, no layman may sit within the presbyterium, or sanctuary, nor may he read any part of the Liturgy, much less pray publicly, or serve the priest at the altar, or, above all, offer the Sacrifice. However, owing to the almost complete disappearance of the inferior clergy, there has gradually arisen the custom of appointing lay persons to perform certain minor clerical duties. In most of our churches, the choirboys, schoolboys, sacristans, and chanters, serve low Masses and Missae cantatae, occupy places in the sanctuary, and act as acolytes, thurifers, masters of ceremonies, and even as lectors. On such occasions they are given, at least in solemn services, a clerical costume, the cassock and surplice, as if to admit them temporarily to the ranks of the clergy and thus recognize and safeguard the principle of excluding the laity. These remarks apply not only to the celebration of Mass, but to all liturgical services: the laity are separated from the clergy. In processions especially, confraternities and other bodies of the laity precede the clergy; the women being first, then the men, next regular clergy, and lastly the secular clergy.

In the administration of the sacraments, the sacramentals, and other like liturgical offices, the same principle applies, and ordinarily everything is reserved to the clergy. But it should be mentioned that the laity may administer baptism in cases of necessity, and though not of practical importance with regard to adults, this frequently occurs when children are in danger of death. In the early ages, the faithful carried away the Blessed Eucharist to their homes and gave themselves the Holy Communion (cf. Tertullian, "Ad uxorem", ii, 5). That was a purely material administration of the sacrament, and hardly differed from the communion ceremony in the church, where the consecrated host was placed in the hand of each communicant. We should mention also that the use of the blessed oil by those who were sick, if that be considered an administration of extreme unction (cf. the Decretal of Innocent I to Decentius of Eugubium, n. 8; serm. cclxv and cclxxix; append. of the works of St. Augustine, really the work of St. Caesarius of Arles). But those practices have long since disappeared. As to matrimony, if the sacrament itself, which is none other than the contract, has as its authors the lay persons contracting, the liturgical administration is reserved today, as formerly, to the clergy. With these exceptions, there is nothing to prevent the laity from using the liturgical prayers in their private devotions, from reciting the Divine Office, or the various Little Offices drawn up particularly for them, or from joining in associations or confraternities to practise together and according to rule certain pious exercises, the confraternities having been formed lawfully in virtue of episcopal approbation.

As to doctrine

The body of the faithful is strictly speaking the Ecclesia docta (the Church taught), in contrast with the Ecclesia docens (the teaching Church), which consists of the pope and the bishops. When there is question, therefore, of the official teaching of religious doctrine, the laity is neither competent nor authorized to speak in the name of God and the Church (cap. xii et sq., lib. V, tit. vii, "de haereticis"). Consequently they are not allowed to preach in church, or to undertake to defend the Catholic doctrine in public discussions with heretics. But in their private capacity, they may most lawfully defend and teach their religion by word and writing, while submitting themselves to the control and guidance of ecclesiastical authority. Moreover, they may be appointed to give doctrinal instruction more or less officially, or may even become the defenders of Catholic truth. Thus they give excellent help to the clergy in teaching catechism, the lay masters in our schools give religious instruction, and some laymen have received a missio canonica, or due ecclesiastical authorization, to teach the religious sciences in universities and seminaries; the important point in this, as in other matters, is for them to be submissive to the legitimate teaching authority.

As to jurisdiction and administration

The principle is that the laity as such have no share in the spiritual jurisdiction and government of the Church; but they may be commissioned or delegated by ecclesiastical authority to exercise certain rights, especially when there is no question of strictly spiritual jurisdiction, for instance, in the administration of property. The laity are incapable, if not by Divine law at least by canon law, of real jurisdiction in the Church, according to chap. x, "De constit." (lib. I. tit. ii): "Attendentes quod laicis etiam religiosis super ecclesiis et personis ecclesiasticis nulla sit atributa facultas, quos obsequendi manet necessitas non auctoritas imperandi", i.e., the laity have no authority over things or persons ecclesiastical; it is their duty to obey not to command. Therefore no official acts requiring real ecclesiastical jurisdiction can be properly performed by the laity; if performed by them, they are null and void. A layman therefore cannot be at the head of a Church or any Christian community, nor can he legislate in spiritual matters, no act as judge in essentially ecclesiastical cases. In particular, the laity (and by this word we here include the secular authority) cannot bestow ecclesiastical jurisdiction on clerics under the form of an election properly so called, conferring the right to an episcopal or other benefice. An election by the laity alone, or one in which the laity took part, would be absolutely null and void (c. lvi, "De elect.") (see ELECTION). But this refers to canonical election strictly so called, conferring jurisdiction on the right to receive it; if it is merely a question, on the other hand, of selecting an individual, either by way or presentation or a similar process, the laity are not excluded, for the canonical institution, the source of spiritual jurisdiction, is exclusively reserved to the ecclesiastical authority. That is why no objection can be raised against the principle we have laid down from the fact that the people took part in the episcopal elections in the first ages of the Church; to speak more accurately, the people manifested their wish rather than took part in the election; the real electors were the clerics; and lastly, the bishops who were present were the judges of the election, so that in reality the final decision rested in the hands of the ecclesiastical authority. It cannot be denied that in the course of time the secular power encroached on the ground of spiritual jurisdiction, especially in the case of episcopal elections; but the Church always asserted her claim to independence where spiritual jurisdiction was involved, as may be clearly seen in the history of the famous dispute about investitures (q.v.).

When jurisdiction properly so called is duly protected, and there is question of administering temporal goods, the laity may and do enjoy as a fact real rights recognized by the Church. The most important is that of presentation or election in the wide sense of the term, now known as nomination, by which certain laymen select for the ecclesiastical authorities the person whom they wish to see invested with certain benefices or offices. The best known example is that of nomination to sees and other benefices by temporal princes, who have obtained that privilege by concordats. Another case recognized and carefully provided for in canon law is the right of patronage. This right is granted to those who from their own resources have established a benefice or who have at least amply endowed it (contributing more than one-third of the revenue). The patrons can, from the moment of foundation, reserve to themselves and their descendants, the right of active and passive patronage, not to mention other privileges rather honorary in their nature; in exchange for these rights, they undertake to protect and maintain their foundation. The right of active patronage consists principally in the presentation of the cleric to be invested with the benefice by the ecclesiastical authorities, provided he fulfils the requisite conditions. The right of passive patronage consists in the fact that the candidates for the benefice are to be selected from the descendants or the family of the founder. The patrons enjoy by right a certain precedence, among other things the right to a more prominent seat in the churches founded or supported by them; sometimes, also, they enjoy other honours; they can reserve to themselves a part in the administration of the property of the benefice; finally, if they fall upon evil days, the Church is obliged to help them from the property that was acquired through the generosity of their ancestors. All these rights, it is clear, and particularly that of presentation, are concessions made by the Church, and not privileges which the laity have of their own right.

It is but equitable that those who furnish the resources required by the Church should not be excluded from their administration. For that reason the participation of the laity in the administration of church property, especially parish property, is justified. Under the different names such as, "building councils", "parish councils", "trustees", etc., and with rules carefully drawn up or approved by the ecclesiastical authorities, and often even recognized by the civil law, there exist almost everywhere administrative organizations charged with the care of the temporal goods of churches and other ecclesiastical establishments; most of the members are laymen; they are selected in various ways, generally co-option, subject to the approval of the bishop. But this honourable office does not belong to the laity in their own right; it is a privilege granted to them by the Church, which alone has the right to administer her own property (Conc. Plen. Baltim. III, n. 284 sq.); they must conform to the regulations and act under the control of the ordinary, with whom ultimately the final decision rests; lastly and above all, they must confine their energies to temporal administration and never encroach on the reserved domain of spiritual things (Conc. Plen. Baltim. II, n. 201; see ECCLESIASTICAL BUILDINGS). Lastly, there are many educational and charitable institutions, founded and directed by laymen, and which are not strictly church property, though they are regularly subject to the control of the ordinary (Conc. Trid., Seess. VII, c. xv; Sess. XXII, c. viii); the material side of these works is not the most important, and to attain their end, the laity who govern there will above all be guided and directed by the advice of their pastors, whose loyal and respectful auxiliaries they will prove themselves to be.

______________________________________

Sources

FERRARIS, Prompta Bibliotheca s.v. Laicus; SAGMULLER, Kirchenrecht (Freiburg, 1909), 48; LAURENTIUS, Instit. Juris eccles., n. 50 sq. (Freiburg, 1908); Kirchenlexicon, s.v. Clerus.
About this page

APA citation. Boudinhon, A. (1910). Laity. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved June 2, 2018 from New Advent: www.newadvent.org/cathen/08748a.htm

MLA citation. Boudinhon, Auguste. "Laity." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 8. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 2 Jun. 2018 .

Transcription. This article was transcribed for New Advent by Thomas M. Barrett. Dedicated to the St. Peter (Portland, Oregon) Parish Council.

Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.

Is the post-Conciliar Church a new Religion?

Sat, 21 Nov 2020 00:36:21 +0000

The Angelus - April 2003

Is it possible to say that the post-conciliar Church is a new religion, and if so, how can it be considered as Catholic?

Questions & Answers By Rev. Fr. Peter R. Scott

Paul VI Audience Hall sculpture - completed 1971

A. The answer to this question is found in the final declaration of the International Symposium of Theology organized by the Society of Saint Pius X and attended by 62 traditional Catholic theologians in Paris in October 2002. The purpose of the statement was to put together a synthesis of the teaching of Vatican II, and to clarify the main principles upon which it differs from the teaching of the Magisterium These broad lines can be helpful for us in interpreting the documents of the post-conciliar Church and refuting its errors. They demonstrate beyond all doubt that Archbishop Lefebvre was right when he affirmed that the spirit of Vatican II is not just an abuse of some liberal theologians and bishops, but that it is contained in the very texts of the Council itself. If the liberals continually refer to the texts of Vatican II, it is because from these texts themselves emanates, under the sweet appearance of kindness and dialogue, the stench of naturalism, of the corruption of the Faith.

The theologians affirmed that there are eight main, fundamental attitudes that underlie all the post-conciliar changes, which eight philosophical principles masquerading as religion make of Vatican II the introduction of a new religion, all within the exterior structure, hierarchy, language and ceremonies of the Catholic Church. Allow me to list them for you.

1) Novelty

There is no attempt to hide the desire for newness, that is of a new and different religion, despite the assertion that the Faith has not changed. A transformation is required "too on the religious level," following the "real social and cultural transformation" of our "new age of history" (Gaudium et Spes, §4). Hence the need for an aggiornamento, bringing religion up to date with our times. One of the great means for bringing about this novelty, whilst appearing to profess the same doctrines, is the teaching "that in Catholic doctrine there exists an order or 'hierarchy' of truths" (Unitatis Redintegratio, §11). It is consequently possible, they say, to hold on to only the most fundamental truths, discarding or putting the others aside. This is the basis of the novelty of ecumenism and dialogue, which is truly a new religion, for it requires Catholics to accept the beliefs of other believers.

2) The Overturning of Ends

The heart of our holy religion is man's vocation to "praise, reverence and serve God," as the catechism teaches us. Not so for Vatican II. Man is no longer ordered to God, but to man. It is the service of man rather than the service of God which is its final end; "it is man, therefore, who is the key to this discussion" (GS, §3), for "man is the only creature on earth that God has wanted for its own sake" (ibid., §24), and so consequently the purpose of religion is for man to "fully discover his true self" (ibid.). How could it be any differently, since the very same document on the Church and the Modern World declares that: "Believers and unbelievers agree almost unanimously that all things on earth should be ordained to man as to their center and summit" (§12). The dignity of the human person has been so far inflated as to deny the obvious fact that man is entirely ordered to the greater honor and glory of Almighty God. This is the basis of the new religion of man proclaimed by Paul VI on December 7, 1965, during his discourse for the closing of Vatican II: "We more than anyone else practice the worship of man."

3) "Conscience" Is the Source of Religion

No longer must the Catholic make an act of Faith, based upon the authority of God who reveals, who can neither deceive nor be deceived. The deliberate elimination of this concept from the Vatican II document on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbuni) is not accidental. Tradition is no longer a separate source of Revelation, handing down an unchanging, objective content, but is now a "life-giving presence," "the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they (i.e., believers) experience" (ibid. §8), and thus it "makes progress in the Church" and consequently "the Church is always advancing towards the plenitude of divine truth." Such an evolving and changing concept of Tradition would not be possible unless religious truth, like right and wrong itself, were to find it source in the personal conscience of each man. This is the clear presupposition of the document on religious liberty, Dignitatis Humanae, as Archbishop Lefebvre himself pointed out (Cf. They Have Uncrowned Him, p. 172). Examples of statements to this effect are that "truth can impose itself on the mind of man only in virtue of its own truth" (Dignitatis Humanae, §2), which forbids any authoritative teaching by the Church or its representatives, or any exclusive promotion of objective truth by a Catholic state. Conscience must discover its own truth internally. Likewise the statement that "it is through his conscience that man sees and recognizes the demands of the divine law" (ibid., §3). Truly it is a new religion that substitutes personal conscience for the teaching of the Magisterium.

4) The Liturgy is a Celebration

A memorial is celebrated, whereas a sacrifice is offered. The celebration of the community, otherwise called the memorial of the Last Supper, has taken the place of the sacrifice of the Cross in post-conciliar theology. Consequently it is the congregation of the people that is the principal agent for the celebration in the new rite, no longer simply participating or cooperating in the priest's sacrifice. If the ministerial priesthood is indeed distinguished from the priesthood of the faithful, in practice its functions are absorbed into those of the general priesthood of the faithful, whom they simply represent in a celebration. Hence such statements as this, concerning those who have been "incorporated into the Church by baptism": "The sacred nature and organic structure of the priestly community is brought into operation through the sacraments and the exercise of virtues" (Lumen Gentium, §11). Consequently, if the New Mass is the expression of a new religion, it is because it obliterates the true, sacrificial function of the hierarchical priesthood, submerging it as a part of a community celebration.

5) The Church has Become a "Sacrament"

The revolutionary definition with which the document on the Church, Lumen Gentium, begins is the key to the undermining of the whole supernatural order. Instead of the traditional definition of Church as the "congregation of all baptized persons united in the same true faith, the same sacrifice, and the same sacraments, under the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff" is substituted a whole new definition that "the Church...is in the nature of a sacrament–a sign and instrument, that is, of communion with God and of unity among all men" (§1). The Church is consequently only a sign or a means of salvation, and is no longer the only Ark of Salvation. Hence it is no longer considered as being identical to the visible Roman Catholic Church, but extends as far as all humanity, without which it could not be a sign of unity among all men. This is the meaning of the statements that the Church of Christ "subsists in the Catholic Church" (ibid., §8) and that "many elements of sanctification and truth are found outside its visible confines" (ibid.). According to these principles, the Catholic Church can no longer maintain the unique privilege of her divine constitution and mission. It is a sign of a new religion that all that the post-conciliar Church can ask for is freedom, and not for the recognition of the truth, nor for the commandments of God, nor for her divine mission to teach, govern, and sanctify. This is explicitly stated in Vatican II's message to the world's governments of December 8, 1965: "She [the Church] only asks you for freedom."

6) "Humanity" Coincides with the Kingdom of God

This is a direct consequence of the distinction that is made between the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church. The Church of Christ is the sign of the unity of all mankind because of what it symbolizes: "It shows to the world that social and exterior union conies from a union of hearts and minds" (GS, §42). However, it is manifestly not a supernatural union of grace which is here symbolized. It would not make any sense, for such a union can only be brought about inside and through the Catholic Church. The social and exterior union that is aimed at has nothing to do with the supernatural union of grace, but is "the good to be found in the social dynamism of today, particularly progress towards unity, healthy socialization and civil and economic cooperation" (ibid.). Such is the new universality of a Church whose function has become the promotion of human values, all founded on the rights of man, and falsely based upon the Gospel: "In virtue of the Gospel entrusted to it the Church proclaims the rights of man: she acknowledges and holds in high esteem the dynamic approach of today which is fostering these rights all over the world" (ibid., §41). Amongst other things, this new concept of the Church's role with respect to humanity is a denial of the Social Kingship of Christ, and an official approval of the secularization of states. The new mission to promote the "union of the family of man" (ibid., §42), i.e., one world order, is another aspect of a new religion.

7) The Spiritual Unity of Mankind

A direct consequence of the identification of mankind and the kingdom of God, it is presented in the form of different degrees of Communion or belonging to the Church. Despite the "differences that exist in varying degrees," concerning doctrine, discipline, or the structure of the Church, the decree on Ecumenism declares of non-Catholics: "Men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church" (UG, §3). The immediate consequences are:

the Church's repentance "ceaselessly renewing and purifying herself" (GS, §21) for its own past faults (and not just for those of its members),

and that conversion is no longer to be imposed on non-Catholics, baptized or not,

because all Christians are already united to Christ through baptism, as is stated by the Decree on the Church: "these Christians are indeed in some real way joined to us in the Holy Spirit" (LG, §15),

and non-Christians are ordered towards the people of God, for "those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways" (ibid., §16) and they possess in their religion the "seeds of the word" (Ad Gentes, §ll).

This practical denial of the doctrine "Outside the Church no salvation" is also one of the key elements of a new religion, and changes the whole way that Catholics see themselves and their Faith.

8) Salvation

There is an explanation of the supposed unity of the human race. It is the teaching on salvation contained in the document on the Church and the modern world, Gaudium et Spes, in the infamous §22 that proclaims the new humanism. The thesis is that by His Incarnation God saved every human being, uniting every man to Himself by taking our human nature: "For, by his incarnation, he, the son of God, has in a certain way united himself with each man." No longer is there any need for faith, the keeping of the commandments, or for love of the Cross to be united with God. Vatican II claims that by taking our human nature Christ "fully reveals man to himself" so "that the mystery of man truly becomes clear." The role of the Incarnation is consequently purely natural. It supposedly saves man by showing himself what it is to be a man. Man's natural knowing of his human nature is substituted for eternal salvation. One is reminded of the words of Our Lord: "For what does it profit a man if he gain the whole world, but suffer the loss of his soul" (Mt. 16:26). Here the substitution of a new religion is absolutely radical. In such an optic, salvation has nothing to do with being saved from original or actual sin or being delivered from the everlasting punishments that we have merited. It is simply an awareness of what it is to be a man.

It consequently cannot be denied that Vatican II attempts to constitute a new religion in radical rupture with all of Catholic Tradition and teaching, a new religion whose principal purpose is to exalt the natural dignity of the human person and to bring about a "religious" unity of mankind. However, the subtle cleverness of this operation must also be noted. It is the traditional hierarchical structure of the Church, its Mass, its devotions and prayers, its catechisms and teachings, and now even its Rosary that have all been infiltrated with the principles of the new religion. This new religion has been swallowed down unwittingly by many Catholics precisely because it hides, as a caricature, behind the outward appearance of Catholicism. The end result is a strange mixture of Catholicism and the new religion.

This is the reason for which we have every right to condemn the post-conciliar revolution for the new religion that it is, while at the same time we must respect the offices and functions of those who hold positions in the Church. Likewise, we must admit that many Catholics in good faith still retain the true Faith in their hearts, believing on the authority of God, Who reveals divine truth through the Catholic Church, although it is often tainted to varying degrees by the principles of the new religion. Consequently, it does not at all follow from the fact that the Vatican II religion is truly a new religion, that we should maintain that we are the only Catholics left, that the bishops and the Pope have necessarily lost the Faith, and that we must not pray for them or respect their position in the Church. This false assertion of the sedevacantists is much too simple, and does not account for the complicated mixture of the new religion and the elements of Catholic Faith and life that is the reality that is actually happening in the Novus Ordo. Our duty is not to condemn and excommunicate, but to help Catholics of good faith in the modern Church to make the necessary discernment, in order to totally abandon the new religion, embrace Tradition, and remain Catholic. Such must be the goal of our conversations on the subject.

[Emphasis - The Catacombs]

What is meant by the expression 'sensus fidei'?

Sat, 21 Nov 2020 00:33:42 +0000

The Angelus - March 2008

Questions and Answers

What is meant by the expression "sensus fidei"?

This expression is not properly speaking theological, nor is it consequently precisely defined. However, it is used to mean a "way of thinking that is governed by the truths of the Faith." It is in this sense that it is used, for example, by Archbishop Lefebvre, when speaking of the Novus Ordo Missae and how it is rejected as by a kind of supernatural instinct by those who still think as the Church has always thought, governed by the principles of the Faith. Allow me to quote the following text, written by Archbishop Lefebvre for the Cor Unum newsletter on February 16, 1980 (§269):

Quote:We had always said that we consider the Novus Ordo Missae to be dangerous for the faith of both priests and faithful, and that, consequently, it was inconceivable to group and form young aspirants to the priesthood around this new altar. The facts prove us to be right. The sensus fidei of the faithful, there where it is not yet corrupt, gives us total approval.

Understood in this sense, the "spirit of the Faith" is directly analogous to St. Ignatius's Rules for Thinking with the Church. These 18 rules contained in the book of the exercises of St. Ignatius of Loyola are a treasure, a summary of the attitudes, convictions, way of thinking that characterize the profoundly supernatural man, who is penetrated by the principles of the Faith. They describe perfectly well the sense of the Faith, as being a spirit of submission to the Church's judgment and way of thinking, and include such things as the praising of frequent sacramental Confession and Holy Communion, the frequent assistance at Mass, the recitation of long prayers and the Divine Office, the religious life and its three vows, the relics of the saints and their veneration, the precepts of the Church and acts of exterior and interior penance, the veneration of sacred images and so on.

It follows from this that a person can have the Faith, without the "spirit of the Faith." For the Catholic Faith itself is destroyed only by formal heresy, the pertinacious denial of a revealed dogma. However, the spirit of the Faith is lost by any way of thinking that is contrary to the Church's way of thinking, that does not take into account divine revelation and supernatural Truth. This is particularly the case of the modernists and those who promote the New Mass. They are not, in general, heretics, and are careful not to deny a defined dogma of Faith. However, little by little the assistance at the New Mass undermines the convictions of Faith that ought to govern the lives and in particular the prayers of Catholics. They become humanistic, man-centered, directed towards personal experience, rather than towards the salvation of the soul and the greater honor and glory of God. It was for this reason that St. Pius X condemned the Sillon movement in 1910. He did not say that it was heretical, but rather that "judging the words and deeds, we feel compelled to say that in this action as well as in its doctrine, the Sillon does not give satisfaction to the Church" (§30). Archbishop Lefebvre comments on this observation that the spirit of the Sillon was not the spirit of the Church:

Quote:In the same way, when he (St. Pius X) says that Modernism is the synthesis of all the heresies, he does not add that all those favorable to Modernism are heretics. He only says that it is the synthesis of all the heresies in its doctrine. (Against the Heresies, p. 281)

However, that the various manifestations of modernism, whether it be the New Mass, whether it be Ecumenism, whether it be secularism, indifferentism or religious liberty, demonstrate clearly the loss of the spirit of the Faith. This is well described by Romano Amerio:

Quote:For the new theology, it is not stability that characterizes real faith, but rather the mobility of an endless searching. People even go so far as to say that an authentic faith must go into crisis....This dynamic view of faith is immediately derived from modernism, which holds that faith is procured by a feeling for the divine, and that conceptual truths that the intellect produces are merely changeable expressions of that feeling....The mistake in this position lies in regarding as humble an attitude that is really an intense form of pride....In short the Object is being valued less than the subject and an anthropocentric view is being adopted that is irreconcilable with religion.... (Iota Unum, p. 375)

In this way the spirit of the Faith, the objective submission of the intellect to divinely revealed Truth, is destroyed.

The importance of this spirit of the Faith in present day Catholics can, consequently, escape no one. Without it, we will fall to the novelties of the post-conciliar church. In another of his newsletters (June 26, 1982) Archbishop Lefebvre pointed out that the spirit of Faith is identical with the spirit of the Church:

Quote:"The spirit of the Society is the spirit of the Church, the spirit of faith in Our Lord Jesus Christ and His redemptive work."

He goes on to explain that this spirit of faith is the fruit of prayer, by which the Faith penetrates into our souls:

This spirit of faith is essentially a spirit contemplating the crucified and glorified Jesus. The faith is the seed of the beatific vision, which is an eternally blessed contemplation.

He further points out that the spirit of faith is to be found where the life of the Church is to be found:
If the teaching that is contained in the liturgical life is so admirable and draws us towards an ever greater sanctification of soul, then the practical directives of the Church throughout its history, as well as its approval of the many foundations destined to sanctify soul, not to mention the examples of the saints, are all equally precious guidelines for our souls. In following them, according to the grace God grants us, we can be sure of not deceiving ourselves. Contemplation, obedience and humility are all the elements of one sole reality: the imitation of Jesus Christ and participation in His infinite love.

This passage holds the key to understanding whether or not we have the spirit of Faith. The love of the Church's traditional spiritual teachings, and saints, and the longing for contemplation, obedience and humility are the sign that we are truly seeking the spirit of Faith. For it really is the fruit of the gift of the Holy Ghost that we call the gift of Understanding, through which we penetrate into the depth of supernatural truths and unveil their secrets. This is well explained by Archbishop Martinez:

Quote:It is the gift of understanding given to every Christian which makes him apprehend supernatural truths when this is necessary for the attainment of his salvation. And as it increases, this gift produces things even more wonderful in our soul; it makes us penetrate into the very mysteries of religion; by it we understand the beautiful harmonies in spiritual things. (The Sanctifier, p. 183)