FRIDAY
February 6, 2004
vol 15, no. 37





Viva la Résistance!

Editorial on

The latest "frontal attack" on the Ecumenical Agenda that has taken modern Rome so far from eternal Rome

At last, thanks to the leadership of Bishop Fellay and the SSPX, Traditional Catholics are starting to put the church of Vatican II on the defense in trying to defend what they cannot. Yet they will surely try no matter how futile or ridiculous they appear in their defense of the indefensible. After all what is truth when it comes to the progressivist fabricators of the Fabric of Peter? Is this not the same regime that retracted what 'is' is? Is this not the same regime that replaced 'is' with 'subsists' and therefore gave manifestation of slippering into the silent apostasy it finds itself in today? Thank you, Ecumania!

    "You say the Society of St. Pius X is in schism. What about the Society of Roger Cardinal Mahony & Company, a society of heretical apostates who could care less about the Teaching Magisterium of Holy Mother Church in favor of their own defined to suit the times? Why does anyone in Rome not have the time to address THAT schism, the biggest, which is destroying the Church from within - all in the name of the 'spirit of Vatican II,' a council whose documents contain built-in ambiguities, thanks to the work of the liberal periti, that afford any reader a selective quote to advocate for the 'novelty of the day' with no fear of incrimination. I have yet to see a member of the Society of St. Pius X advocate for contraception, abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality, woman's ordination ad nauseam, while I have witnessed many dissenting Novus Ordo clergy to include bishops, whom Rome evidently holds to be in good standing judging by its lack of definitive action to correct them, espouse all of the above. I have yet to hear of scandal in the Society of St. Pius X on the order of what is going on in the Novus Ordo Church. Why is that? Why is there not a homosexual subculture in the Society of St. Pius X? Can it be that where the liturgy is held as inviolable, so are the teachings of the Faith?"
    Quote from Gary Morella


   The ZENIT headline screamed this banner on February 2nd: "Lefebvre Group Attacks Pope's Ecumenical Vision" Should we have expected anything else from this malleable house organ puppet of the Ecumaniacal agenda ZENIT has become? Rather than addressing the contents of the solidly documented document From Ecumenism to Silent Apostasy - 25 Years of Pontificate, ZENIT has chosen to infer the old, tired and ridiculous 'schismatic' spin in trying to defend the indefensible. What ZENIT fails to understand is that it wasn't an attack, but a defense of the constituted evangelic traditions of Holy Mother the Church which have been so ravaged over the past 40 years, intensified in the last 25 years of this Pontificate. Indeed the tone of the letter was firm and uncompromising, but respectful as always. ZENIT did not bother to include that attribute.

   It is obvious from their surface remarks that neither the reporter nor anyone else at ZENIT truly read the letter that accompanied it or the document composed and signed by Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X and fully endorsed by Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, and Bishop Richard Williamson who all affixed their signatures to the document dated January 6, 2004 on the Feast of the Epiphany of Our Lord. All four bishops were consecrated by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1988, after which the maelstrom from Rome ensued resulting in the canonically illegal 'excommunication' of His Excellency and the Society. Also endorsing the document, which was prefaced by a letter to each cardinal, was the First Assistant General of the Society Father Franz Schmidberger.

   ZENIT is blatant in their defense of the Pope's ecumenical agenda, trying to rationalize that it is in perfect harmony with Catholic teaching by referencing the very documents of the Pope's which have been the roadmap to taking the Church away from Catholicism. Make sense? This is the crux of Fellay's argument.

   ZENIT makes an inference that Fellay was trying to go around the Pope:

    Even though John Paul II is keeping daily public engagements, the letters signatories explain that "because of the aggravated state of health of the Holy Father, we have not written to him directly."

   Well, it's a fact that in 25 years he hasn't done a thing to indicate he has any intention of returning to the Truths and Traditions of Holy Mother Church. In fact, quite the opposite, more than several times he has announced that there is no turning back in his ecumenical agenda. Yeah, he boasts of this position. Considering his days are numbered, it makes sense that Bishop Fellay sent it to all the princes of the church for out of that very lacking-of-faith group will come the next Sovereign Pontiff. Not a pleasant thought. Yet, perhaps, the Society's arguments will wake up some who have not totally sold their souls into apostasy.

   Rather than responding to those points, ZENIT dragged up the old-news refuse of how dare the Society be so bold with their "frontal attack" as Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos termed it back on April 5 of 2002. ZENIT wrote,

    In a letter sent to Bishop Fellay on April 5, 2002, by Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, prefect of the Congregation for Clergy and president of the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei," following contacts to overcome the fraternity's rupture with Rome, the cardinal referred to the "frontal attack" implied in the accusation addressed to the Pope of "having abandoned Tradition.

    "It constitutes, in fact, a dangerous presumption to also judge the Supreme Authority" and, quoting Vatican Council I, the cardinal added that in these types of questions "we believe that no one can arrogate to himself the right to judge the Holy See."

    In his 1988 apostolic letter "Ecclesia Dei," John Paul II stressed the "unlawful" ordination of bishops within the fraternity on the part of Archbishop Lefebvre, which constituted "a schismatic act." The archbishop died in 1991."

   Yep, that's modern Rome's answer. Try to change the course of the argument. Isn't it interesting that the only time anyone in the church of Vatican II refers back to anything before 1960 is when confronting Traditionalists. That is because, first of all, they realize no Traditionalist will accept any argument or rationale after Vatican II because it can't hold water, and secondly, because it will give others the impression that what modern Rome has and is and will do are in total conformity with Apostolic Tradition. Oh, they are crafty devils. Notice how Hoyos brings up Vatican I, but skips over the part that no Pope has the right to alter Tradition? That was a very basic element of that sacred, infallible council in defining Papal Infallibility. Conveniently that is left out.

   The fact is that this Pope has abandoned Tradition. Christ affirmed the results of such a dangerous venue in Matthew 7: 20, "By their fruits you shall know them" Despite all the efforts to prop it up and force-feed a synthetic liturgy, Vatican II and all that evolved from it are a bad tree, barren of good fruit.

   What are Catholics to think? One solid Catholic provides his thoughts here. Gary Morella, who has lamented the depths to which the modern church has sunk, asks who is really in schism. Here in part is what he expressed:

    The Society of St. Pius X is said to be in schism, while Cardinal Roger Mahony in LA advances practically every dissenting position from the Teaching Magisterium of the Church on faith and morals, and is hypocritically held to be in perfect union with Rome, usually by himself.

       I challenge you to read carefully From Ecumenism to Silent Apostasy, and then ask yourself, "Who are the real schismatics?" Everything that I see articulated in this document is the Catholic Church of my youth, the Church that you could trust to stand up uncompromisingly for the Truth that is Christ. I have a very difficult time finding that same Church today, the "Church of Christ" which some in Rome seem to believe is no longer the Catholic Church but rather any conglomeration of believers, or even non-believers in the extreme whose gods are perfectly able to be worshipped in Catholic basilicas on Catholic altars. God had a problem with this however, as the basilica where this atrocity occurred was hit with an earthquake. This is a group containing individuals who can still wait for the Messiah because the Old Covenant suffices for them, or so we are told by high Curia officials. And we would not want to hurt the feelings of these individuals, would we, in the name of ecumenism. Why that might wreck their self-esteem elevated to a sacrament in the new Church, and there are few sins any greater than that.

       When I grew up, real, as opposed to a false ecumenism, meant being a witness to the Catholic Church, the One, True Church founded by Christ, with the idea being to convert non-Catholics or non-believers to the Faith instead of making them comfortable with their errors. In that Church the supernatural had priority over the natural. There was never any talk about working toward a geopolitical utopia on earth with solely peace and social justice concerns using worldly bodies that were morally bankrupt as the main tool because that utopia was recognized as fleeting due to the existence of the devil who never sleeps. The main priority was getting to Heaven instead of hell! But of course, in that Church, Catholics believed in the devil. Now expert theologians like Richard McBrien of Notre Dame tell us that he was always a figment of our imaginations, never mind that Jesus Christ, Son of the Living God, talked more about the consequences of doing the devil's work than any other New Testament figure. And if the devil does not exist, neither must hell, and Christ is a liar!

       Today when I go into a Roman Catholic Church usually what I see is a creeping Protestantism with only small vestiges of Catholicism remaining. The choir will toss in an odd Latin hymn now and then to placate the ultra-conservatives in attendance, read Catholics prior to the Council. And it is so very important to see the choir in their new position of being on stage out front as they are a main part of the entertainment. No choir lofts today where the music of the Angels formerly descended from Heaven with the emphasis vertically on God Almighty, ALWAYS, as it should be. Why, if you are really lucky, and get to go to one of the "rock Masses", you can even jive with a drum accompaniment, clapping to get that real sense of the sacred mysteries. Nothing like the bringing in those guitars to elevate oneself to the importance of what is about to happen uniquely on Catholic altars.

       In the Diocese of Lexington Kentucky I actually observed Protestant ministers conducting Good Friday Services before I walked out in disgust, and said a Rosary. Yes, it is the same God, but you would never know it by the lack of reverence shown Him in favor of celebrating the masses instead of the Mass. Moreover, the Novus Ordo Mass with its increasing number of options is unrecognizable to me as Catholic. One day, one enterprising disciple of the "spirit of Vatican II" will decide that the Consecration can be made optional with the Protestantization of the Church complete.

       I tire of the distraction of watching lay people play priest running around the sanctuary like so many carnival barkers with the biggest sin in the modern ecumenical Church being to want to attend the Mass of Pope Saint Pius V. I have remedied that by going to Byzantium which celebrates the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom. For me today it is a Godsend that my oldest son was married in the Byzantine rite, which serves as a local lifeboat for me and my family while watching the Catholicism of my youth sink into an ecumenical oblivion. The Byzantine Rite does not make it a habit of trashing tradition especially in their beautiful Liturgy, which is something that any Catholic should be able to immediately respect. And with the demise of the Liturgy, so goes the faith, lex credendi, lex orandi.

       You say the Society of St. Pius X is in schism. What about the Society of Roger Cardinal Mahony & Company, a society of heretical apostates who could care less about the Teaching Magisterium of Holy Mother Church in favor of their own defined to suit the times? Why does anyone in Rome not have the time to address THAT schism, the biggest, which is destroying the Church from within - all in the name of the "spirit of Vatican II", a council whose documents contain built-in ambiguities, thanks to the work of the liberal periti, that afford any reader a selective quote to advocate for the "novelty of the day" with no fear of incrimination. I have yet to see a member of the Society of St. Pius X advocate for contraception, abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality, woman's ordination ad nauseam, while I have witnessed many dissenting Novus Ordo clergy to include bishops, whom Rome evidently holds to be in good standing judging by its lack of definitive action to correct them, espouse all of the above. I have yet to hear of scandal in the Society of St. Pius X on the order of what is going on in the Novus Ordo Church. Why is that? Why is there not a homosexual subculture in the Society of St. Pius X? Can it be that where the liturgy is held as inviolable, so are the teachings of the Faith?

   Truly food for thought for every Catholic. As Gary points out, rather than being confrontational and abrasive, Bishop Fellay has laid out irrefutable arguments. We encourage you to read the entire document which, I assure you, is much shorter, much more concise, and much clearer than any of the ambiguous documents John Paul II or any other Vatican operative has ever issued. In addition, the footnotes of "From Ecumenism to Silent Apostasy" are an infrangible compendium of documentation that thoroughly cement the Society's argument that indeed the ecumenical agenda is the "crisis" that has signaled the loss of the Catholic Church's own identity by putting it on the same level with Christian denominations of other confessions. [For those wanting to know the real story on the so-called 'excommunication' we recommend Mario Derksen's series on this available at The Illicit Episcopal Ordinations of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.]

   How refreshing that someone is willing to follow what that venerated Doctor of the Church Saint Robert Bellarmine taught in his masterful work De Romano Pontifice

    "It is permissible to resist the Pope when he invades souls and troubles the commonwealth: and moreover, if he appears to be causing harm to the Church. It is permissible, I say, to resist him by not doing what he enjoins and by preventing his will to triumph."

   The fact that John Paul II has invaded souls and troubled the commonwealth and caused great harm to the Church is the very reason Bishop Fellay, the Society and Traditionalists worldwide are doing all in their power to not only resist what he enjoins but doing everything possible to prevent his will from winning out. And he is a stubborn one. Yes, it is refreshing and encouraging that Traditional Catholics have someone of the stature of Bishop Fellay and his group of prelates who are able to go head to head with the VaticantwoArians in Rome by offering as their argument the infrangible truths representing all that Holy Mother the Church taught from Saint Peter through Pope Pius XII.

   They say in football the best offense is a good defense, but in apologetics when souls are at stake, the best defense is to go on the offense against the offenders of the Faith. Viva la Résistance!

Michael Cain, editor


    February 6, 2004
    vol 15, no. 37
    Concise, hard-hitting editorials on HOT ISSUES