Read original issue (PDF). Machine-generated transcription for search; consult the PDF for accuracy.

Full text

THE ATHANASIAN A publication of Traditional Catholics of America t Editor: Fr. Francis E. Fenion, STL t Volume XIV, No. 2 + March 1, 1993

CAPSULE COMMENTS Fr. Francis E. Fenton

One of the many awesome powers which accompany the incarnate, albeit a female one? Whatever, she should Position of the presidency of the United States is that of prove to be in the weeks and months ahead an invaluabie commander in chief of the nation’s armed forces. How asset to the Conciliar Church in the furthering of its exceedingly ironic it is, then, that the man who now subversive activities. ° occupies the White House was himself a draft dodger ttrttttrtrtrtrt+t+r+ittrtrtrrtrtrtt during the Vietnam War. And, if Mr. Clinton has his way, homosexuals will be admitted into the military with no Time-Warner, Inc., (the publishers of Time, People, and questions asked. While he has numerous subversive plans Sports Illustrated magazines), is among the principal and projects to be implemented in the cays and weeks corporations cortributing to the spiritual and moral ahead, the open acceptance of sodomites in America’s deterioration of America. Aside from its being a major part armed forces would be one of the most damaging actions of the mass media of disinformation over the years, the being taken, ever more brazenly, by our nation’s enemies publication of the pornographic Madonna book, Sex, and to destroy it. (Although we continue to speak of America’s the promotion of the Ice-T song, “Cop- Killer,” are among military, it may now be more accurate to refer to it as the its “accomplishments” in recent months. United Nation’s military force stationed in America, or some such similar description.) tTHrtrttttr+r+rt+rt+rtttrrrtrtt

ttttttrtrtrritrttrtrrrtrr+tt Since the dawn of Christianity, the forces aligned on the Have you ever heard of a female character by the name of side of Christ and the satanic forces of evil have been in Vassula Ryden? { didn’t until I read about her some weeks continual conflict. From all appearances, however, we ago in The Wanderer (a moderately conservative may safely conciude that that perennial conflict is publication affiliated with the Conciliar Church). approaching a climax in this our day. It becomes Described as a “female Jesus,” on January 18 she increasingly imperative, then, that we traditional Roman addressed a very enthusiastic audience of some 1,800 Catholics not only intensify cur persona! lives spiritually people at the Blessed Sacrament Cathedral in Sacramento, and morally but that we be ready to defend and to California. Apparently a fluent speaker in several profess our Faith publicly as well whenever an occasion languages, she asserted, among other things, that Christ arises which calls for our doing so. The very name of communicates to her in His own handwriting; that she is a Roman Catholic we bear identifies us 2s foilowers of “pride of Christ” not only spiritually but alsc physically; Christ the King and, because we are, our being but and that Christ wants Christians to be united by way of the nominally such does not suffice (nor did it ever suffice), World Council of Chuzches [pro-Communist — E¢.]. The time has come when we must profess and proclaim Among her followers are members of the Conciliar Church our Faith “from the housetops” in word and in deed in clergy, including Bishops. every morally permissible manner. The battle lines are Vassula may well be one of the diabolicaliy keenest and now clearly drawn and there is no middle ground. If most persuasive individuals yet to appear on the scene in Christ is, in fact, our King, the time is at hand to prove the ever more decadent Conciliar Church. Indeed, sc it. In the words of Cardinal Mindszenty, may each one powerful an impression does she make that there are of us be abie to say in all truth: “My enemies can take allegedly a number of “Catholics” who consider her to be from me no more than my life and that has already been their “new Catholic leader.” Is she actually a devil given te God.” Still No Pope In Rome: Answering Our Critics John Kenneth Weiskittel

no t he ar d. Wh at ev er th e ca se , a good FF nearly a decade The Athanasian has gone on record argument he has tr ut his lost. It in g so me on e ar ou nd to th e to oppose and expose te occupants of the Holy See opportunity to br wi th th is ir. mi nd th at th e fo llowing collection of (Paul VI, John Paul I and Joha Paul If) since the end of the is on ly he ar é ob je ct io ns an d their answers has been Second Vatican Council as false claimans to the Chair of comm mb le d. Wh ii e in no wa y do we pr et end to exhausé such Peter. (Some argue that Pone Joha XXIli aiso should be asse at our readers will included in this list, but the evidence, while surely protests in a few short pages, we hope th ic ie nt me an s to ho ld th ei r cw n or ev en prevail incriminating, has not yet been show7 sufficient te make a be given su ff ch di sp ut es . An d th os e re ad er s wh o fi nd th e fo llowing conclusive case against him — Paul VI’s official approval of in su sw er s fa mi li ar ar e en co ur ag ed (a s ar e al l re aders) to pass the Council’s errors, however, signifies a distinct break with an pi es of th em or to ot he rs fo r a qu ic k summary of our Catholic Tradition, as do his successors’ officiai co rence. reaffirmations.} Far from a fleeting issue, the question of views. They have been numbere¢ for handy refe the panacy has been a central subject of this newsletter for 1. These accusations against John Paul II amount to all these years. And, far from a casual assumption, this disobedience to the Holy Father. Correction: They stance has been a conviction that has grown ever stronger constitute resistance against @ false pope; cisobedience to with the passage of time. John Paul II is obedience to Catholic tradition Indeed, we have steadfastly maintained that it is impossible 2. Sedevacantism is a schismatic position. The critics for traditional Catholics to fully comprehend what has who make this charge are, of course, those who accept the transpired during this period without first grasping that the legitimacy of the Conciliar “Popes.” From their standpoint post-Conciliar apostasy not only includes these false it is an cbvicus one to raise but, even so, it is based ona Pontiffs, but emanates from them, The basis for our weak premise, for it supposes that sedevacaniists con- argument may be summed up as follows: If, as most sciously refuse to obey a Pope. Anyone at all familiar with traditionalists agree, the Conciliar “Catholic” Church what we believe knows that, far from seeking to break from constitutes a false church (Catholic in name oaly), it lawful Cathclic autior’ty, we believe that those occupying logicaliy follows that the leader of that church cannot be a episcopal sees (including the supreme Roman See) have true Pope, since Christ’s commission to Saint Peter and his willfully defected from the Catholic Faith they were sworn to successors is the governance over only the Roman Catholic uphold and, therefore, have forfeited any c:aim to authority Church, not over a counterfeit sect. This, in our view, is the they mey at one time have possessed. Ironically, but wholly only position consistent with the facts. John Pau: Il either is in keeping with the confusion of the times, the real head of the Catholic Church as its Pope or he is ruler of an schismatic acts of today involve foliowing the dictates of this apostate body, and, hence, a non-Pope. This is a matter Ceneiliar hierarchy. (The degree of culpability in suck that simply refuses to allow any middle ground — it must be instances naturally involves the corresponding degree of considered either/or, not both/and. awarenes on the part of the individual as to the illegal This position is popularly known as sedevacantism, a term Modernist occupation of Church structures.) coined after the Latin ecclesiastical expression sede vacante (“vacant chair” or “vacant see”). Although a logically 3. It is ridiculous for you sedevacantists to call consistent view, sedevacantism has met with a great deal of yourselves Catholics when you attack the very center of Catholic unity: the papacy. This, of all derunciations, criticism, which is understandable since its explanation of is most to the very heart of the issue. And it is thus one that, events amounts to a “hard saying” for many. Itis, in fact, the Properly refuted, has particularly great potential for ultimate hard-line stand — the litmus test that separates the clarifying matters. For the very essence of sedevacantism is strong from the weak in traditional circles. hardiy an attack on the papacy, buta most ardent defense of Because ours is a position that generates great controversy, it. The attack against the Holy See has been (and continues we sedevacantists are consiantly being challenged to to Pe) mounted by the champions at all levels of this new defend it. Often it turns out that the critic will make a point Conciliar religion, up to and includin; ni vi that the sedevacantist is at a !oss to answer. Perhaps he has themselves defiled the Chair of Peter. Coho orion not done his homework, or is confronted with a theological will tale 2 major step forward when more of those who are

THE ATHANASIAN MARCH 1, 1993

——— Marginally traditional wake up to see that those they count 5. The examples cited here all involve either as friends (such as “Pope” John Paul II, “Cardinals” persecution from without or ecclesial politicking from Ratzinger and O’Connor, “Bishop” Vaughn, etc.) are, in within, whereas the sedevacantist position speaks ofan reality, enemies of the Church every bit as much as those impossiblity — a Pope who has lost the Faith! The who more readily come to mind (like Hans Kung or purpose of the previous answer was simply to demonstrate Matthew Fox), and even, in a serse more so, as they are that historically the Church has had to labor on occasion better able to feign orthodoxy than the more overtly radical for a time without a Pope. In each case, no doubt, a unique clerics. So the bottom line remains: To oppose John Paul IT set of circumstances surrounded the delay. We believe the (and other Conciliar “Popes”) is to uphold the Chair of same holds true today. As for the “impossibility” Peter, notattack it. mentioned, that will be covered below. 4, The Church must have a Pope at all times, but 6. But to say the Holy See has failed makes a liar of sedevacantists say she has no Pope. This argument is Our Lord, since He promised Saint Peter that “the based — however erroneously — ona fundamental truth of gates of hell” would not prevail against the Church. the Faith, namely: Christ established His Church to have a The premise of this charge is that the very nature of the visible head in the person of Saint Peter (and his pontifical office is such that at no time in the life of the successors), and that that office would be universal through Church could a Pope ever defect from the Faith and thus all the world and for all times. The problem with this lose his office, because such would mean that the forces of argument (which, it should be noted, is one of the central evil had overcome the Church. Again, our critics are con- fallacies of anti-sedevacantists, and one that they carry over fusing sedes and sedens, for we do not believe that the Holy into more crucial questions as well) is that it fails to make See has failed, but rather that it has been betrayed by men any distinction whatsoever between sedes (the seat) and who had been sworn to uphold it. The difference between sedens (he who sits upon it), for the Holy See has regularly the two is quite significant and needs to be emphasized: been vacant between the death of one Pope and the The institution of the papacy cannot fail in the miss‘on for election of another. The Church, therefore, has not, strictly which it is fitted by Christ, but it is no contradiction to say speaking, had a Pope af all times, but she has had the that it is at least conceivable {and in no way contrary to papacy for all times. Although the rule has always been fora Catholic teaching) that @ holder of that supreme seat could more or less immediate selection of a successor, such has fail — and, by so doing, Jose the seat, thus preserving its not invariably been the case. Looking at Church history sanctity from his defection). The position that Our Lord reveals some unusually long gaps between the demise of instituted is much greater than any man who occupies it. one Pontiff and the choosing of the next one. In 308 Saint Although the great majority of men raised to the papacy Marcellus I became Pope, an election that, due to Emperor have been devout, and many even saintly, a very few Popes Diocletian’s persecution of the Church, did not occur until in history have been scandalously immoral. some four years after the death of Marcellus’ predecessor The problem with John Paul II, however, is entirely (Pope Saint Marcellinus) in 304. Although Pope Saint different and much worse — he officially teaches error. But Gregory VII died on May 25, 1085, it was not until almost this in no way affects Christ’s promise, since John Paul II, two years later — May 9, 1087 — that his successor, Pope by his defection cannot be Pope. How do we know this? Victor III, was elected. On June 25, 1243, Pope Innocent IV Simply by the fact that it is impossible for a Pontiff to teach became the 179th successor to Saint Peter; his immediate error from the chair of Peter; John Paul ! (‘ike his predecessor, Poe Celestine IV, however, had died over a Conciliar predecessors) has taught error; therefore, he year and a half before — November 10, 1241. Later in the cannotbe Pope. same century, Catholics would be forced to wait nearly three years as the Church, upon the death of Pope Clement 7. This response of yours suggests that a Pope who IV on November 29, 1268, delayed naming a new Pope until “departs from sound Church doctrine in his official Saint Gregory X was picked on September 1, 1271. Other teaching from the Chair of Peter” cannot remain Pope, examples of a year or more space between Popes can be yet the point about “official teaching” is irrelevant, cited, the point here being that, while the swift transfer of because nothing that has been defined or promulgated papal power has been the norm, exceptions are to be found. by John Paul II and his two predecessors involves the Today’s crisis, then, certainly is nof the first instance in little used power of infallibility. Therefore, it is quite which the Church has suffered for a significant period of possible to find error in their writings without time without a Pope. It is the longest and most severe such categorizing them as non- Popes. This is in keeping with interval, to be sure, but it certainly has its precedents (and the argument that, although Vatican II plainly taught error several, at that!). interming’ed with truth, it nevertheless remained Catholic,

THE ATHANASIAN MARCH 1, 1993 his study ‘ather Patrick J. Toner, S.T.D., in because it was a “pastoral” — not “doctrinal” — Council, ety” while noting thneatd, thpeertdi rect object of and thus (supposedly), no infallibility is involved. Like this ains to revealed distortion, the defense of Conciliar “papal” teaching is infallibility, as already mentio : founded upon a false conception of infallibility that only doctrines of Faith and morals, adds on is to be ad eq ua tely and ff considers the familiar exampies of the primary function of But if this pr im ar y fu nc ti infallibility (such as the solemn papal declarations on the di sc ha rg ed , it is cl ea r th at th er e must be effectively ich inf allibility Assumption and Immaculate Conception of Our Lacy), indirect and secondary objects to wh while acting as though there is no such thing as a secondary nd s, viz . [n am el y — JK W] , do ct ri ne s and facts exte id to be role. Unlike our critics, however, the Church has which, although they cennot strictly be sa ly connected acknowledged such an indirect function. And what are revealed, are nevertheless sc intimate e examples of this secondary capacity of infatlibility? Turning with revealed truths that, were one free to deny th , and thus to an article entitled “The Church,” by Father George H. former, he would logicaliy deny the latter ibility was Joyce, S.J., in the 1913 edition of The Catholic Encyclo- defeat the primary puxpose for which infall 799) pedia [the same edition will be cited throughout this promised by Christ to His Church… (Vol. VE, p. article], we read that beyond these commonly considered (and irreformable) declarations on Faith and morals: He goes on to write that these incirect objects of infallibility include: 1) theological conclusions — these drawn from [T] heologians are agreed that the gift of infallibility in two principles, one revealed and another based on reason; regard to the Deposit (of Faith) must, by necessary 2) dogmatic facts — those in which certainty is necessary consequence, carry with it infallibility as to certain for such determinations as the orthodoxy of a given book cx matters intimately reiated to the Faith. There are the legitimacy cf a given Pope or Council; 3) questions bearing so nearly on the preservaticn of the canonizations — certitude is needed regarding those Faith that, could the Church err in these, her individuals venerated, petitioned and honored by the infallibility would not suffice to guard the flock from Church in her liturgy, especiaily in her universal caiendar. false doctrine. Such, for instance, is the decision Canonizations performed by Vatican II Popes are, whether a given book does or does not contain therefore, invalid. (Father Toner unfortunately makes an teaching condemned as heretical. (Vol. III, p. 754) unwarranted distinction, suggesting infallibiliy only in those cenorizations from the ninth century on. This, how- This, then, relates to the ordinary (as well as the solemn) ever, throws inio question all of those prior to that time — magisterium of the Church. And implicit in what Father an artificia! division that, in theory, could even adversely Joyce writes is the understanding that this secondary affect those of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Saint Joseph, the infallibility, since it applies when the Pope (with er without Apostles, the numerous martyred Popes of the first four the bishops) authoritatively condemns certain literature as centuries, etc.); and 4) universal Church laws — sch heretical, necessarily relates as well to those papal disciplinary laws, by the Church’s divine charter, cannot be judgments that censure movements as heretical. Can anyone seriously believe, for example, that Pope Saint Pius immora! or of a nature that would put the eternal saivation of the faithful at jeopardy. (See ibid.) So these critics X was noi exercising the plenitude of his authority when he condemned Modernism? Yet this is precisely what actually aid the enemies of the Church by minimizing the sedevacantism’s semitraditional critics seem to say. But to scope of infa!libility to pronouncements that iiterally occur deny the infallibility of Pius X’s encyclical on Modernism with less frequency than sightings of Halley’s Comet! But it would mean: 1) that a Pope could err in judgment on is vital to their defense — either fully committed or matters vital to both the preservation of the Church and the halfhearted — of John Paul If that they adhere to this false salvation of souls by unjustly anathematizing a movement version; otherwise, they would be forced to alter their / that might, in the end, be orthodox and, therefcre, 2) that perception cf kim. We must not give ther: an inch cf“ opposition to Vatican Il, its “reforms,” and post-Conciliar ground on this question — they are simply wrong about it, “Popes” becomes merely a matter of opinion. For it can be and must be shown to be wrong. maintained: “Evenif it can be shown that Conciliar changes 8. John Paul II is the Pope and, therefore, he cannot are Modernistic, who can say that with absolute assurance be a heretic, but only seems to be one. Here is an that Modernism is wrong? After all, the condernnation of it argument that should be used in logic classes to il‘us trate by Pius X wasn’t infaliible. He might have been wrong about circular reasoning. On the one hand, as stated, his it.” In order that the absolute faiseness of such a severely orthodoxy is claimed to be protected by his office; cn the limited view of infaliibility be further torn down, let us other, when this is challenged, tne order is reversed, so tha’ examine another Catholic Encyclopedia article. An Irish John Paul II’s office becomes guaranteed by his orth odoxy.

THE ATHANASIAN MARCH 1, 1993 Put together, it goes something like this: “Since John Paul using them as a means of salvation which derive their IL is the Pope, he cannot be a heretic, and since heis nota efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted heretic, he must be Pope!” Thisis plainly one of the most to the Catholic Church.” (The Documents of Vatican Il, iilogical and sophomoric arguments advanced by the anti- Abbott ecition, p. 346) It is of the Faith that Christ institut- sedevacantists. If the logic used to construct. it is bad, the ed only one Church — the Roman Catholic Church — and theology behind it is even worse, for it suggests that that it is tne only means of salvation. Vatican II’s somehow a man once raised to the Chair of Peter is no proclamation is one in spirit with that condemned as longer capable of exercising his free will, but is transformed contrary to Catholic truth by Pope Pius IX in his Syliabus of intoa divinely programmed clerical robot. The Church has Errors: 188. “Protestantism is simply another form of the w, however, recognizing that, although same true Christian religion, and it is possible to please God ‘ven each Pope to aid in his governing of as muc’ in it as in the Catholic Church.” (The Church the Church, the possiviiity still remains that he could lose Teaches, p. 86) But the Council went even further along the Faith, end hence lose his office. Father J. Wilhe:m, these lines in its Declaration on the Reiationship of the S.7.9., considering the question, “Can a Council Depose Church to Non-Christian Religions. (Nostra Aetaic) There

—7 the Pope?”, writes that it may depose him — actually one reads the startling ciaim ‘hat Hindus seek, in the declare him ceposed — for heresy: “For a heretical Pepe practice of their idolatrous religion, “a loving, trusting has ceased to be a member of the Church, and cannot, flight toward God.” (Op. cit., p. 662) It is fair to ask Paul VI therefore, be its head.” (“Councils,” Catholic and the Council Fathers: A flight to which god? Krishna?

——|» Encyclopedia, Vol. $V, p. 435) How, then, cana Pope who Vishnu? Shiva? Or, perhaps, another of the more than 300 promulgates or otherwise official’y advances teachings or million deities accorded veneration by Hindus? And why — laws that are contrary te sound Catholic dogma remain the since the Hindus supposedly worshiped God — did not Sovereign Pontiff, since he who, like Saint Peter, is someone spare Saint Francis Xavier of his arducus — but commanded by Our Savior to “strengthen thy brethren” in also, according to the Council, ultimately meaningless — the Faith, has rejected that very Faith, and is no longer a missionary activities in India?) Catholic, much less a Pope? The answer is: he cannot. Since, however, the main focus of this article is John Paul 9. The real answer to the sedevacantists’ question is II, it is of the greatest importance to see that he not only quite simple: He (John Paul II) remains Pope because these errors, but actually surpasses them in he never has done what they claim; that is, promulgate ian scandal. Within a year of his false election te or otherwise officially advance teachings contrary to the Holy See, John Paul II established whet was to be Catholic dogma. True, the documents of Vatican H, expected ‘rom his “papacy.” In October, 1979, he published which he upholds, often are written in language that is an “Apostolic Exhortation,” Catechesi Tradendae, which carried the rather ponderous cover legend: “Of His

lila, A ae, vague and ambiguous, but they can all be safely interpreted in the light of tradition. This has already Holiness Pope John Paul II To The Episcopate, The Clergy been dealt with somewhat regarding the scope of And The Faithful Of The Entire Catholic Church On The infailibility (see argument 7 above), but there is another Catechesis In Our Time.” [Italics added.] (Note the angle to it as well. Long has been the position of these unmistakable suggestion of the magisterium being used critics (and a view more or less accepted by even some here.) There he gives a clear nod to one of the Council’s traditional Catholics) that what makes Vatican II so chief errors: “it is extremely important to give a correct and deplorable is the “vague and ambiguous” language that the fair presentation of the other Churches and ecclesial Modernist “reformers” were able to foist on the Church. communities that the Spirit of Christ does not refrain from While this is true in large part, there are also certain using as means of salvation.” (Vatican Polyglot edition, p. propositions of the Council thai cannot reasonably be 45) [Italics added.] An even more outrageous statement construed as Catholic, no matter how one tries to fit them had already appeared some seven months before on March — into a traditiona! mold. 4th, when he issued his first “ercyclical,” Redemptor Hominis. in that letter, the pseude Pope calls “the firm Among the heresies, which Paul VI attempted to ferce on belief of the followers of non-Christian religions — a belief Catholics on December 7, 1965, are two particularly glaring that is also an effect of the Spirit of truth operating outside ones — errors so cutrageous that it defies explanation kow the visible confines of the Mystical Body…” This passage they ever gained Conciliar acceptance. In the Decree on surely smacks of blasphemy of the Holy Ghost, ascribing to Ecumenism (Unitatis Redintegratio) the following enormity Him the false beliefs of non-Christians. (United States appeared, regarding Christian denominations outside the Catholic Conference editiori, p. 18) John Paul II also uses Church: “[T]he Spirit of Christ has rot refrained from the ietter as an attempt to bind Cathosics to Vatican II with

THE ATHANASIAN MARCH 1, 1993 ies. Not only the same caricature of the Holy Ghost. This time, however, cannot be made as to current ecclesial realit n the y be ma de , bu t the y mu st be, if the fai thful are to true to form, he does his impersonation of a traditional Cath- ca ity. olic, writing of “our Lord’s grace as revealed recently maintain anything resembling theological san through what the Holy Spirit said and we heard during the already had 12. Stop right there! The Church has stern such a situation in the past. During the Great We Council…” (p. 17. Note that this is only one page before he is claiming that the “firm belief” of non-Christians is the ubtful Schism (1378-1415), there was not only a do “effect” of the same Holy Ghost!) In other words, John Paul legitimacy at Pope, but three doubtful Popes claiming His most certainly endorsing Vaticaa 1’s errors, adding some caused the same time. Despite the obvious problems of his own, and doing ali the ihe claim of ex cathedra the real (even saints disagreed about the identity of authority — thatis, with the full power of Saint Peter’s Keys. Pontiff), the most that peuple living then (including t who 10. Even if what you say is true, all you can do is saints) could advance were only opinions abou the express it as your opinion. It may be the probable was the real Pope. The current situation is much thzologica! opinion but that is all it is — an opinion. same. Although there is only one such doubtful While we would argue that there exists more here thar claimant today, our response must follow theirs. It is mere opinion ‘since the non-papacies of Paut VI and the only natural that Catholics look for some historical two John Pauls can be shown by reason and Faith), let us comparison for today’s dilemma, and the Great Western accept this hypothesis for the sake of argument. Those who Schism does indeed have certain peralleis. But it should be make this claim, however, are far from consistent. If, for noted that the differences are just as important, and example, disputing the validity of John Paul Ii’s reign is but perhaps more so. The theological truth, “Papa dubius; a legitimate opinion, is not an affirmation of its validity nullus Papa” (“A doubtful Pope is no Pope”), which was likewise permissible? it is for those who champion the wisely utilized as a guiding principle during the Schism, is “theological opinion” schooi of thought. Yet, there are today sometimes used — not so wisely — by those who favor other areas of the crisis in which they absolutely (if reducing the “Pope question” to the category of opinion. arbitrarily) brook no differences of opinion. For example, Here, with a moment’s reflection, the distinction becomes they inconsistently make public and categorical obvious. At the time of the Schism there were, declarations about the Conciliar Church being non- simultaneously, different claimants whose conflicting Catholic and the “new Mass” being sacrilegious. The point appeals created no small confustion over who deserved here is that there is no essential difference, ecclesiastically obeisance. This much no Catholic can reasonably deny. But speaking, from such declarations on the one hand and, 02 there is a very striking distinction between the anti-Popes the other, from declaring that certain teachings of 600 years ago and the Conciliar “Popes,” and that is that promulgated at the Second Vatican Council are noi in none of the former (as far as history recerds) were heretics. harmony with Church doctrine; that the post-Vatican II This is no minor point, for their legitimacy (or lack thereof) religion is not Catholicism; that the “new Mass” is not the was restricted solely to the matter of their elections. New, true Mass; that other “reformed” sacraments are not however, the question goes far beyond electoral procedure, pleasing to God; that Conciliar marriage annulments are to the very essence of the office. We challenge those who / not to be honored; that the “new Code of Canon Law” is not raise this issue to debate: Can any well-informed Cathclic legitimate ecclesiai legislation; that the Conciliar hierarchy in good conscience reasonably maintain that John Paul II does not have authority over Catholics; or that John Paul II should be acknowledged as Pope? Of ccurse not! And that is not a true Pope. In each instance (and other similar is precisely the point. Having frequently demonstrated cnes), the break from Catholic iradition has been so himself an apostate, both in word and deed (documented manifest that it has been necessary for the faithful to here and elsewhere far too many times to mention), and denounce the un-Catholic invasion/ innovation. acting in complete accord with his non-Catholic Conciliar predecessors (and thus nof in harmony with the legitimate 11. Again, there is truth in what you state but you successors of Saint Peter), there is little reason to presume make the mistake of trying to make a dogma out of that Joha Paul I! is entitled to anything but @ spot in the this. No, we do not; no more than those who forbid unempleyment line! attendance at the “new Mass.” The only official and Cefinitive ruling on it, as well as on all other questions 13. Whatever his problems, John Paul II is the Pope pertaining to the Vatican I apostasy, rests ultimately with and no one can depose a Pope. This mentality can be some future Catholic Council. In the meanwhile, though, it described as the “Like h’m or not, John Paul II is all that is of no help to the Church’s restoration to pretend that we’ve got, and (even if we wanted to) there is not hing we reasonable convictions — based on Faith end reason — can do to remove him from office, so we had better get used ] THE ATHANASIAN MARCH 1, 1993 to him” line. The idea is that we are stuck with “Pope” John will also rise miraculously, even as her enemies gloat over Paul II, and would even be stuck with him if tomorrow, say, their apparent success. Somehow, in a truly wondrous way, a thoroughly Catholic Council is convened to oppose him, God will bring about the full and giorious restoration of Although this notion is quite popular in some quasi- His Mystical Body. Of this outcome, Catholics must be traditional circles, it is, nevertheless, based on a flawed faithfully confident, no matter how black the gloom that conception of Church teaching. The basic premise — no now prevails, and they must work tirelessly to help bring one can depose a Pope — is correct. A Pope can, however, “ about the Church’s triumphant resurrection that the depose himself. According to Saint Robert Be‘larmine v Almighty will accomplish in His good time. “Thou wilt (1542-1621) — eminent as Cardinal, Jesuit theologian and turn, O God, and bring us to life, and Thy people shall Doctor of the Church — in his treatise De Romane rejoice in Thee; show us, O Lord, Thy mercy, and grant us Pontifice (On the Roman Pontiff}, the correct teaching Thy salvation.” (Psalm 84:7-8) + regarcing a Pone who is a manifest (public) heretic is that he facto (that is, by the very act) ioses his office. Saint Robert writes: “…a Pope who is a manifest heretic ceases, in consequence of his own actions, to be the Pope and the Unless the Lord build the house, they labor in vain Head of the Church, in the same way as he ceases to be a that build it. (Psalm 126, 1) Christian and a member of the Body of Christ. All the early Fathers are unanimous in teaching that all manifest / What does not correspond to the truth and to the heretics immediately lose al! power of jurisdiction…” moral law does not objectively have any right to (Quotations from De Romano Pontifice are taken from the existence, or to propaganda, or to action. (Pope Pius translation that appeared in the Engiish language edition of Xil, December 6, 1953) Fortes in Fide, No. 5, Vol. L., p. 41) [Boldface appearing there has been removed.] The saint emphasizes this by There is no true civilization without a moral adding: “those separated from the Church retain not cne’ single vestige of spiritual power over those who remain in civilization, and there is no true moral civilization the Church.” (/bid.) As for the deciaration of deposition, without the true religion. It is a proven truth, a this could be done by a Council, since the man involved is historical fact. (Excerpt from Pope Saint Pius X’s no longer the Pope. Since there is historical precedent as “Our Apostolic Mandate”) well as the teaching of one of the Church’s greatest theologians (and whose writings, the Church — in giving him the title “Doctor” — assures us, are free from error), the premise of John Paul II’s deposition is quite plausible and quite orthodox. 14. Perhaps the idea is plausible and orthodox but, in practical terms, it serves no purpose. For if, as you Pray the Rosary Daily claim, the entire hierarchy has defected along with Jokn Paul Il, there is no one left to form the Council needed ‘o depose him. What you’re telling us, in so many words, is that the Church is dead! And there is ‘The enclosed white envelope is for the convenience of those who may wish to send a donation to the TCA. If a blue envelope simply no way to reconcile such a belief with the is also enclosed, that is to be used for subscription renewal. dogma dealing with the Church’s indefectibility. Undoubtedly, this is one of the stickier problems concerning the sedevacantist stand, but it is by no means unanswerable, As with every aspect of the modern crisis there is an element of mystery involved here. What most SUBSCRIPTION RENEWALS Catholics would have called impossible 50 years ago has The date on the envelope address label indicates the now become reality. The Church does seem to have died. / month and year in which the recipient’s subscription There is nothing heretical in stating such an opinion, for is due for renewal. At the proper time, a subscription Saint Thomas Aquinas (among others) has likened the life / envelope will be enclosed with the newsletter. One may of the Church to the life of Christ. If the parallel holds true enter a new subscription at any time, of course, and throughout, she must succumb in. a manner that, humanly will then receive the eight following newsletter issues. speaking, apnears utterly hopeless but, like the Savior, she

THE ATHANASIAN 7 MARCH 1, 1993 Questions And Answers Fr. Oswald Baker (England)

io n. Con squ ert ly, alt hou gh per fec t contrition re- Question: Comm en absolution, he sto res the sin ner ’s sta te of gra ce ev en bef ore Saint Paul praises the single life as superior to marriage se him sel f fr om the obl iga tio n of prior con- ma y not dis pen because, he says, the unmarried have more concerr for the does not fession befcre going to Holy Communion. If he things of the Lord. Does it fellow that ‘Miss’ realiy is a more y but realize the need for confession beforehand, mistakenl honourable title than ‘Mrs.’? ec to Holy sincerely believing that he is straightway entitl areof Answer: Communion, he incurs no guilt before God, being unaw ed for the wrong he is doing. If he is, however, aware of the ne Saint Paul does (I Cor.) cuite simpiy praise the single state as better than that of marriage, because concern for a spouse is confession frst, yet goes to Holy Communion without con- apt to distract from concer for God. Even so, he cannot fession, he does indeed commit a further sin, of sacrilege. mean that the single state is more praiseworthy irrespective of One who has committeé mortal sin is required by the law of God, not only to recover his state of grace before going to the attitude of mind in which it is chosen, or accepted. The Holy Communion, but to recover it in the surest of ways, choice of celibacy or virginity for a selfish reason, or a confession and absolution. grudging acceptance of it at the hand of fate, would denote rather a frame of mind likely to prove an obstacle to holiness. Question: ‘To remain single out of some weird contempt for marriage as a despicable institution would be even worse, a veritably Is it possible for a Catholic to abandon the Church and speak ungodly attitude. Simple resignation to the unmarried state againstit in absolute sincerity? because opportunity for marriage has not arisen has of itself Answer: neither merit nor demerit before God. The essential factor elevating the single state above that of marriage is the The fact of the sincerity of any individual, in any action, is not correctness and purity of motive in choosing it. Virginity a matter for religious judgement. It is a purely psychological becomes superior to marriage when, in the quest for holiness, question. At the time of abandoning the Faith a Catholic can it is deliberately embraced as a way of self-dedication to God be sincere, and honestly believe that he is acting correctly. inloving continence. But he cannot be innocent. Somewhere a:ong the tine there has been some sin, weakening his judgemert. A soul can Question: never be justified in leaving the Catholic Church. Given the If a person commits a mortal sin, but then says a prayer of divine truth of Catholicism, it is obvious that anyone who perfect contrition and goes to Holy Communion without remains completely loyal to God will retain God’s truth and going to confession, is he committing a further sin? live in accordance with it. Sincerity at the time of defection is possible. Subsequent sincerity sometimes becomes suspect, Answer: when persistent attacks on the Church may be signs of an in- Prayer of perfect contrition means sorrow for sin which is satiable need for self-justification, and of a painfui con- motivated by love for God, without self-interest. In saying this science demanding to be salved. Albeit, one’s possible prayer it is sufficient that one have the intention of going to insincerity is not our business. Our business is to pray that confession the next time he is obliged to do so but race be infused into that person’s soul. The Church is his or preferably, as soon as possible and certainly before Holy her home and the way back can be very hard.

THE ATHANASIAN Published by Traditional Catholics of America Eight issues a year: (Jan.15, Mar.1, Apr. 15, June1, July 15, Sept. 1, Oct. 15, Dec. 1) Subscriptions: $12 per year (via First Class Mail) for the USA, Canada and Mexico; $16 per year (via Air Mail) for all other counties. Additional Copies: Single copy – $1.50; 10 copies – $12.00; 40 ormore to same address – $1.00 each Mailing Address: P.O. Box 38335, Colorado Springs, CO 80937 Telephone: (719) 636-1575 Articles appearing in this newsletter may be reproduced providing no changes of any kind are made in those articles and adequate credit is given to The Athanasian for them, The adequate credit prefered would be the inclusion with the articles reproduced ofthe information contained in thi box