St.

Michael the Archangel Church of the Society of St Pius X

900 Hor seblock Rd Far mingville NY 11738 P h 631 736 6515 Web www.sspx.or g

Issues of the Day no. 1

Is Accepting the Novelties of Vatican II Thinking with the Church?

By Professor Dr Brian M. McCall On September 14, 2011, Cardinal William Levada, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, presented Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X, with a doctrinal preamble that would become the heart of a stormy year of contacts between the Roman authorities and the SSPX. Over a year later, the Vatican seems bound and determined to win some compromise in the position of the Society, which is the position of Archbishop Lefebvre, regarding parts of Vatican II which appear in direct contradiction to previously defined dogmas. The Vatican seems to have vacillated between threats of persecution (excommunication) and conciliation. Throughout the process, the precise position of the Vatican toward the texts of the Council has been evasive and ambiguous. Can the Council be criticized? What does it mean to accept the Council? The Vatican communiqu announcing the presentation of the doctrinal preamble contains an interesting phrase that might help us to understand the confused nature of the Vaticans position and the proper Catholic attitude towards Concilar novelty. The Vatican communiqu reads in part: [T]he Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith maintains that the fundamental basis for achieving full reconciliation with the Apostolic See is the acceptance of the text of the Doctrinal Preamble, which was handed

over during a meeting on 14 September 2011. The Preamble defines certain doctrinal principles and criteria for the interpretation Catholic doctrine, which are necessary to ensure faithfulness to the Church Magisterium and 'sentire cum Ecclesia'. The Latin phrase sentire cum Ecclesia means to think with the Church. This phrase is often used by Conservative Catholics to demand unquestioning obedience to those presently holding ecclesiastical offices. In their meaning of the term to think with the Church means to think with the minds of the holders of ecclesiastical office. If John Paul II disapproves of altar girlor as one English friend refers to them serviettesaltar girls are bad. If John Paul II then approves of altar girls well we have to think with the Church and approve of them as well. Thinking with the Church means keeping up to date with the latest changes of mind of the current office holders. So if Benedict XVI thinks all of Vatican II is traditional and in harmony with prior teaching well then we have to think with Benedict XVI. This understanding of the phrase seems to permeate much of the reported communications from the Vatican to the Society this past year. The Society is urged to interpret Vatican II in light of the teaching of John Paul II and Benedict XVI. Thus, even Vatican II is not a fixed point of reference. Our thinking must evolve to keep up with the changing interpretations of the current teaching authorities. Rather than an objective continuity of Truth in Church thinking, sentire cum ecclesia requires a subjective continuity of officeholders. Yet, this phrase, thinking with the Church is ancient, and possesses a traditional definition. I recently came upon St. Ignatius of Loyolas rules for thinking with the Church. Almost half a millennium ago St. Ignatius composed eighteen rules to be observed to foster the true attitude of mind we ought to have to think with the Church.1 Examining the text of these rules presents a very different understanding of sentire cum ecclesia, one which I am certain the Society of St. Pus X and all Catholics committed to Tradition would happily accept and sign. Yet, when we review these rules in detail we will find that it is those attached to Tradition and not those attached to the letter and spirit of Vatican II that are thinking with the Church.
1

All quotations from the rules are taken from Christian Warfare, p. 448-451.

First Rule: We must put aside all judgment of our own and keep the mind ever ready and prompt to obey in all things the true Spouse of Christ, Our Lord, Our Holy Mother, the hierarchical Church. First, we must adhere to traditional doctrine not because of any judgment of our own but because of the judgment of the Church over the course of centuries. It is not because we personally judge the traditional doctrine to be more pleasing or acceptable (in fact much of it is hard to live by) but simply because it is the traditional doctrine that we adhere to it. What did Vatican II want to do? It wanted to update doctrine to be more pleasing to modern man. Archbishop Muller, newly appointed head of the CDF, has declared that we must: always be associated with the intellectual developments of the time, the sociological changes, the thinking of people.2 So for His Excellency thinking with the Church means thinking with the people. Notice the obedience of mind St. Ignatius requires is not to the current people holding hierarchical offices but to the true Spouse of Christ. Obedience is directed to the whole entity, the Church, not merely to a part of that entity at a given point in time. Archbishop Lefebvre expressed the same understanding of obedience in his 1974 Declaration when he said: 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 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. Those thinking with the Council rather than the Church continually tie themselves not to the whole Church but to the teaching of some particular pope or to the thinking of the people. They require acceptance of the novel teaching of John Paul II on sexuality or the hermeneutic of Benedict XVI of reform in continuity. They prefer the personal judgment of these popes over the judgment of the whole Church over centuries. Second Rule: We should praise sacramental confession, the yearly reception of the Most Blessed Sacrament, and praise more highly monthly reception, and still more weekly Communion, provided requisite and proper dispositions are present.
2

July 2012 interview with KNA, the German Bishops News Agency.

Praise for regular sacramental confession and worthy reception of the Most Blessed Sacrament are hallmarks of thinking with the Church. But since the Council both have been either blatantly attacked or given the cold shoulder and pushed to a corner of obscurity. Hours when a priest is available in a confessional have given way throughout the post-Vatican II era to the abuse of group general confessions. Over the years, I have known quite a few people find their way from the Novus Ordo to a Traditional chapel not because they were looking for the Traditional Mass but were simply trying to find a Church offering regularly scheduled confessions. The need for sacramental confession is preached regularly by traditionalist priests but utterly ignored by most Novus Ordo clergy. A traditional chapel can expect a sermon at least every few months praising good frequent confessions. The topic is quietly replaced by sermons assuring everyone that nothing is really a sin in the Novus Ordo. As to the requisite and proper disposition for receiving Our Lord in Communion, which practice accords with this sentiment: reducing the fast to a measly one hour or encouraging observance of the former liturgical law of at least three hours or the Midnight fast? How many bulletins or pulpit announcements in Novus Ordo parishes remind people that one must be free from mortal sin to receive Communion? Does Nancy Pelosi read such a warning when she attends Mass? To the contrary, Novus Ordo priests who refuse Communion to public figures clearly known to be giving grave public scandal are punished and exiled for defending the honor of the Blessed Sacrament. If Pelosi went to a Traditional chapel she would find her conscience reminded. Third Rule: We ought to praise the frequent hearing of Mass, the singing of hymns, psalmody and long prayers whether in the Church or outside; likewise, the hours arranged at fixed times for the whole Divine Office, for every kind of prayer and for the canonical hours. Who exhibits this praise of hearing many Masses and fostering the traditional devotions and (long) prayers? Has the widespread use of a single concelebrated Mass by priests in a religious community encouraged the hearing of many Masses or has the retained practice of each priest saying his own Mass? Has the widespread abandonment of disciplined community life which has devastated convents and monasteries shown praise for reciting the office in common at the canonical hours? I refer readers to the article of Hillary White in the October 31 edition of The Remnant demonstrating how saying prayers in Church is met with harassment and ejection in Novus Ordo churches in Italy. Who is thinking with the Church according to this rule?

Fourth Rule: We must praise highly religious life, virginity, continence; and also matrimony, but not as highly as any of the foregoing. Are the highly publicized opinions of many bishops around the world that the Church should scrap clerical celibacy examples of obeying this rule? When is the last time a Bishops Conference wrote a pastoral letter praising virginity and celibacy? A major change occurred in the discussion of vocations since Vatican II. Now all vocations are presented as equal and mere matters of preference including the choice of no vocation, or what they now call the single vocation. Yet among traditional orders, there remain only three, the priesthood, religious life or marriage with the first two being praised as higher vocations while still honoring the dignity of the married state. According to this rule then it is the flourishing traditional orders with overflowing vocations who think with the Church and not the empty convents and seminaries celebrating the beauty of all different vocations. Fifth Rule: We should praise vows of religion, obedience, poverty, chastity and vows to perform other works of supererogation, conducive to perfection. However, it must be remembered that a vow deals with matters that lead us closer to evangelical perfection. Hence, whatever tends to withdraw one from perfection may not be made the object of a vow, for example, a business career, the married state, and so forth. Who within the Church calls for perfection, for faithfully living according to the evangelical counsels? Do those who minimize sin or who suggest there is no one in hell? Do those religious orders that revise and update their rule, leave the cloister to live in apartments, lay aside the habit of poverty for polyester business suits praise supererogatory works conducive to perfection? Is it rather the groups scorned by the official superiors of these ancient orders who must build new communities adhering to the ancient rules of their founders who praise the call to perfection? Do school programs, like the one I experienced thirty years ago, which treat all choices of vocation as ambivalent choices depending on what is right for you encourage religious vows? Who thinks with the Church on this point? Those with full convents and seminaries who preach the way of perfection clearly think with the Church not those who treat all jobs and careers as equivalent to vocations. Sixth Rule: We should show our esteem for the relics of the saints by venerating them and praying to the saints. We should praise visits to the Station Churches, pilgrimages, indulgences, jubilees, crusade indults, and the lighting of candles in Churches.

On yet another account, clearly it is the traditional orders who think with the Church and not the post-Vatican II authorities. Relics are thrown out or ignored. Two years ago when I went into the Church of St. Zachary in Venice to pray at the relics of St. Athanasius, I went to the gift shop to try to buy a holy card or statute of St. Athanasius to touch to his reliquary. The gentleman running the store had no idea who St. Athanasius was or that his relics were enshrined in that very Church. He tried instead to sell me a poor reproduction of a Botticelli paining. We traditionalists have collected relics from all over the world which were being thrown out or sold by parishes or religious communities no longer wanting to venerate these great heroes of the Church. Beyond relics, the traditional devotional practices and traditions mentioned by St. Ignatius, such as indulgences and lighting of votive candles have been ignored and discouraged by silence for the past forty years except in traditional chapels and religious communities. I will not even dwell on the crusade indult as it is clearly not ecumenical enough for the authorities of today and if mentioned too much is more likely to elicit a long apology from some bishop for the Church ever having preached the crusades. Seventh Rule: We must praise the regulations of the Church with regard to fast and abstinence, for example in Lent, on Ember Days, Vigils, Fridays, and Saturdays. We should praise works of penance not only those that are interior but also those that are exterior. On this score, the authorities have abolished the Ember Days, Vigils, Friday abstinence (with the exception of its recent re-establishment in England) and have reduced to an embarrassing minimum the obligation to fast to Ash Wednesday and Good Friday and abstinence to Fridays in Lent. Acts of penance are treated like embarrassing old relatives to be shunted off to a dark corner of history. Meanwhile the statutes of the Society of St. Pius X bind her members to observe these traditional practices of fast and abstinence on the Ember Days, Vigils and throughout Lent. While those attending the Novus Ordo are congratulated on being nice people traditional Catholics are exhorted by traditional priests to embrace penitential practices in due measure and due season. Eighth Rule: We should praise not only the building and adornment of churches but also images and veneration of them, according to the subject they represent. The last fifty years have seen churches demolished and pillaged. Altar rails, statues, tabernacles, and high altars have been hatched and thrown in dumpsters. Meanwhile traditionalists have roamed about gathering up the broken fragments and attempted to restore respect for the buildings and images of the Church. While Cardinal Mahoney

has spent $150 million dollars to build a monstrosity bearing no resemblance to a Catholic Church, exiled and scorned traditional orders have had to break new grown and build Catholic buildings to house images for veneration. Ninth Rule: We must praise all the precepts of the Church, remaining always on the alert to find reasons for their defense, while seeking never to offend against them. What have the authorities done with the precepts of the Church? They have undertaken a two-fold attack by eliminating most talk of them and legislating away much of any of their force. I challenge readers to go to a Novus Ordo parish and take a poll of those coming out of the building and ask them to name even three precepts of the Church. They have been blotted out of catechetical programs but retained in those traditional chapels adhering to the Baltimore Catechism of the Catechism of St. Pius X. Legislatively, the authorities have not treated them with the vigilance and care urged by St. Ignatius. Rather, they have been eviscerated of much of their content. Holy Days of Obligation have been reduced and transferred to Sunday. Days of Fast and Abstinence have been reduced to a handful. The laws of the Church forbidding solemnizing marriages at forbidden times have been gutted. Dispensations to marry non-Catholics have been handed out like candy on Halloween. About the only precept still vigorously spoken about in the Novus Ordo is the obligation to contribute to the support of the Churchafter all the CCHD cannot be deprived of its multi-million dollar funds! Meanwhile, traditional orders still preach the precepts of the Church, encourage observance of the old practices of fast and abstinence, and insist on Catholic marriages except in rare exceptional circumstances. Having reached the half-way mark through St. Ignatius rules for thinking with the Church, the score seems to be Traditional societies and orders 9, Novus Ordo authorities 0. The thinking of the post-Vatican II authorities has been contrary to these traditional rules for thinking with the Church either by direct opposition and destruction or by simply ignoring them and making that which ought to be praised scarce and obscure. Meanwhile rather than being told they need to learn to think with the Church, the Society of St. Pius X should be congratulated by the prefect of the CDF for being some of the only people left in the Church still thinking with the Church. In part II of this article we will turn to the final nine rules which will include two regarding obedience to superiors which will require careful consideration.

Thinking with the Church Part II Brian M. McCall In part I of this article, we examined in detail the first nine rules of St. Ignatius of Loyola for thinking with the Church. On all accounts those remaining faithful to Tradition showed themselves to be thinking with the Church whereas the post-Vatican II hierarchy has acted in a manner diametrically opposed to every rule. In this part we will consider the final nine rules St. Ignatius composed to aid us in thinking with the Church. Living according to rule ten constitutes the challenge for faithful Catholics of our era. We will thus devote more time to this particular rule.
Tenth Rule: We should be more ready to approve and praise the orders, recommendations, and way of acting of our superiors than to find fault with them. Though some of the orders, etc., may not have been praiseworthy, yet to speak against them, either when preaching in public or in speaking before the people, would rather be the cause of murmuring and of scandal than of profit. As a consequence, the people would become angry with their superiors, whether secular or spiritual. But while it does harm, in the absence of our superiors to speak evil of them before the people, it may be profitable to discuss their bad conduct with those who can apply a remedy. This rule touches on the topic of how we react to the fact of the intermingling of the divine and human elements of the Church. The Churchs human element explains the existence throughout time of bad superiors, authorities who issue bad orders, recommendations and ways of acting. It may be profitable in aiding our understanding of this rule to begin by distinguishing what it does not say. The rule does not say that we deny reality and declare bad orders and actions to be good. We should not drape the divine element of the Church as a blinder to deny reality. St. Ignatius speaks of a spirit, a disposition towards the orders of superiors not of specific reactions to specific situations. He says we should be more ready to approve and praise the action of superiors. He does not say we should praise our superiors wicked actions and pretend they are good. He rather describes the attitude of spirit we should have. We should want to be able to praise rather than to rebuke. We should want to see the good in our superiors more than the evil. The final sentence of the rule demonstrates that the see no evil, hear no evil Neo-Conservative monkeys of the post-Conciliar era are wrong. What is to be avoided is stirring up the people to rebellion

and revolution, essentially the approach of Martin Luther in St. Ignatius century. Note, that St. Ignatius says we are not to ignore the evil done by a superior but we may bring it to the attention of another or higher superior who can address the problem. Maintaining this spirit of wanting to be able to approve rather than reprove poses many challenges in an age when virtually all the superiors in the Church have joined in a conspiracy to think against the Church. This is an important point of interpretation. These rules are meant to be read in conjunction not as isolated precepts. Thus, St. Ignatius would not expect us to violate the other seventeen rules so as to follow one rule. We cannot abandon all the other requirements of thinking with the Church so as to live according to this tenth rule. Yet, we cannot simply throw out this tenth rule. We must struggle, and this neo-Modernist crisis we live in makes it a real struggle, to maintain the spirit of filial love and proper obedience while striving to honor all the other rules. For traditionalists there are two forms of error in walking this difficult tightrope. The first is to become overwhelmed by the evil of the superiors in the Church and give way to a bitter zeal. Such souls can come to love the denouncing of error more than the Truth. Even though the unprecedented crisis in the Church requires us to witness our superiors issue many evil orders and acts, we must not relish in any way this fact nor the necessary separation of ourselves from such evil. Many blogs and websites associated with sedevacantism fall into this trap. They live on broadcasting with glee the latest scandal of the Holy Father and the bishops. Rather than these cyber-sewers of scandal our model for this delicate balance should be Archbishop Lefebvre. Certainly, he spoke out publicly when necessary. He always did so in front of his superiors, either by writing to them directly or in a public manner. He did not privately stir up ill feelings among people. He also always spoke in a manner maintaining the desire to approve rather than being forced to reprove. He always expressed his great sadness for the necessity of what must be done and a longing to return to a time when the vast crisis would not require his extraordinary actions. A few years ago, Father Arnaud Rostand, U.S. district superior, wrote to the members of the chapel where I attend Mass to explain the sentiment of the Society of St. Pius X on this matter. His words are a succinct and beautiful reiteration of this important necessary Catholic attitude as directed toward the Holy Father bequeathed by Archbishop Lefebvre: The Society of St. Pius X professes filial devotion and loyalty to Pope Benedict XVI, the successor of St. Peter and the Vicar of Christ. The Societys priests pray for the Holy Father and their local diocesan bishop at every Mass they celebrate. We pray for the Pope but refuse to follow him in his errors on

religious freedom, ecumenism, socialism, and the application of reforms destructive for the Church. Our seeming disobedience is in fact true obedience to the Church and the pope as successor of Peter in the measure that he continues to maintain holy Tradition. . . All the members of the Society have one desire to be submitted in filial obedience to a Rome returned to Tradition. (Declaration of the SSPXs first General Chapter 1982). We should prefer not to be in the crisis rather than relishing it. The second error that traditionalists can fall into has been on full display the past few months. The need to avoid blindly following authority in the destruction of the Church can never turn into the wholesale rejection of authority in general and the abandonment of Traditional superiors on merely prudential grounds. Unfortunately a few members of the Society, including His Excellency, Bishop Williamson, appear to have flirted with this danger these past few months in their scurrilous attacks on the superior of the Society, His Excellency, Bishop Fellay. Through recorded sermons and conferences that have spread like viruses over the internet, a few members of the Society have attempted to stir up rebellion and revolution against Bishop Fellay (including calls for an Estates General type act of the General Chapter to overthrow him) on the basis of mere rumor and speculation about a deal with Modernist Rome that has been shown to exist only in their own imaginations. Sadly their rebellion has bordered on a renunciation of all authority as such, recommending that hierarchical orders and societies should be abandoned leaving independent priests, perhaps loosely confederated, as the only option available for Tradition. Although we are forced into difficult positions with our diocesan and Vatican superiors forcing us to choose between blind obedience to destruction and thinking with the Church, we must hold fast to the spirit of the Church which is built on the principle that authority and hierarchy are goods. When we are blessed to have a Traditional superior we should persevere in that filial devotion that we should want to be able to express to all superiors. The Tenth Rule deserves much contemplation as it can present a path the devil can use to deceive even the elect. Eleventh Rule: We should praise both positive Theology and that of the Scholastics. It is characteristic of the positive doctors . . . to arouse the affections so that we are moved to love and serve God, our Lord, in all things. On the other hand it is more characteristic of the scholastic doctors . . . to define and state clearly, according to the needs of our times, the doctrines that are necessary for eternal salvation, and that more efficaciously help to refute all errors and expose all fallacies. . . .

This rule encapsulates the wholeness of Tradition. It holds together the entire richness of the Church without pitting one era or against another. Our attitude must be exemplified both by Faith and Charity. The adherents of Vatican II, seek to reduce the Church s Tradition to the arousal of affections, thinking, falsely, that by ignoring precisely defined doctrine they will win more followers of Christ through love without precise Faith. Such an approach reduces Tradition to an anemic love, one without the necessary element of Truth. The thinking of the Church is that error must be refuted and fallacies exposed by precision in doctrine while at the same time inspiring all to the love and service of God. While the Vatican II proponents expel scholastic theology from diocesan seminaries and replace it with the ambiguity of neo-Modernist love doctrines like those of Congar and Balthasar, Traditional seminaries maintain this important balance instructing in both St. Augustine (positive theology) and St. Thomas (Scholasticism). Meanwhile the Ecclesia Dei Commission pressures the Institute of the Good Shepherd to dilute this balance and teach the Vatican II theologians in their seminary. Who is thinking with the Church here? It is those who maintain this Traditional theology in all its breadth, beauty, precision and charity. Twelfth Rule: We must be on our guard against making comparisons between those who are still living and the saints who have gone before us, for no small error is committed if we say: This man is wiser than St. Augustine, He is another St. Francis or even greater, He is equal to St. Paul in goodness and sanctity, and so on. This rule warns against demagoguery. We must avoid the hubris of thinking our age superior to all that have gone before, that we are somehow greater, more enlightened than those who have gone before us in the Faith. This is precisely the attitude of Vatican II in its texts such as Gaudium et Spes and the post-Conciliar worship of figures like John Paul II (called the Great during his lifetime). John Paul II declared he could do something St. Thomas could not. Thanks to the Gnostic insights of Vatican II which it was his mission to unpack, he squared the circle of reconciling St. Thomas and Modernists such as Balthasar and de Lubac. Gaudium et Spes waxes lyrical about the glories of modern man who has come into his own. The penitential road of the great saints is cast aside for the ease and laxity of a more enlightened generation. This entire spirit of Vatican II and the postConciliar pop star like World Youth days run completely counter to this rule. Meanwhile, Traditionalists look to the great Saints as great, as the sure guides to salvation. Thirteenth Rule: If we wish to proceed securely in all things, we must hold fast to the following principle: What seems to me white, I will believe black if the hierarchical Church so defines. For I must be convinced that in Christ , Our Lord, the

Bridegroom, and in His spouse the Church, only one spirit holds sway, which governs and rules for the salvation of souls. For it is by the same Spirit and Lord who gave the Ten Commandments that our holy Mother Church is ruled and governed. As with the tenth rule this rule must be read carefully. It expresses the attitude of Faith which is a belief on the authority of God not simply on my own knowledge. As St. Augustine said, I believe that I might understand. We must believe the truths of the Faith even when we cannot fully understand them. Yet, the rule does not say we believe to be black whatever a pope or bishop says to be black. It says we have this belief with respect to what the hierarchical Church has defined. This is Tradition. We must believe what the Church over time has always and everywhere taught no matter what the cost. We must not confuse this principle to mean we must believe every word written by a Council or uttered by a pope even when they contradict the defined dogma of the Church. I am aware of one neo-Conservative Catholic exhibiting the typical distortion of this rule to the point of absurdity. This man declared that if the Pope said that God did not exist then God didnt exist. St. Ignatius would I believe get a laugh at such an absurd understanding of his rule. The proper understanding of this deep Faith looks to the defined dogma not the people capable of defining dogma. The object of the disposition of the obedience of Faith is the matter of the dogmas defined by the Church not the persons holding the offices of pope or bishop. It is the Traditionalist position that exhibits the real adherence to this rule. This rule requires the refusals of the errors of Vatican II and its progeny. When the current pope and bishops say you must believe a natural right to religious liberty is true or you must believe the Jews are saved through the Old Covenant, we must say no, we believe what the hierarchical Church has defined on these matters. It is the false teaching of many bishops today that fails to follow this rule. They say the dogma of the Social Reign of Christ the King requiring all nations to submit to his rule seems false to me so I reject it in lieu of religious liberty which seems right. The novelties of Vatican II are in this way not thinking with the Church.

Fourteenth Rule: Granted that it be very true that no one can be saved without being predestined and without having faith and grace, still we must be very cautious about the way in which we speak about these things and discuss them with others. Fifteenth Rule: We should not make it a habit of speaking much of predestination. If somehow at times it comes to be spoken of, it must be done in such a way that the people are not led into any error. They are at times minded

so that they say: Whether I shall be saved or lost, has already been determined, and this cannot be changed whether my actions are good or bad. So they become indolent and neglect the works that are conducive to the salvation and spiritual progress of their souls. These two rules touch on a similar topic and can be discussed together. The relationship among free will, Gods predestination, faith, and grace has been a mystery which has led to many heresies. It is a mystery how all of these things work in harmony to permit the free yet foreknown (in God) salvation of some and damnation of others. From Pelagius to Calvin, those who emphasize one element of the balance over the others have fallen into heresy and so the mind of the Church has been to call for caution. Traditional colleges and seminaries have maintained this delicate theological balance in the rigor of their curriculum. Yet, the post-Conciliar institutions and theologians have thrown caution to the wind and have held out the false hope of universal salvation either through a neo-Pelagian elevation of free will to the exclusion of grace (all well intended people can go to heaven) or a neoCalvinist elevation of Gods predestination reasoning that since God wills the salvation of all he will achieve the salvation of all. God can operate outside the normal means of salvation to achieve His providential plan has been deformed into God will always find a way to save everyone outside the normal means. Once again the preservation of Traditional theology remains faithful to thinking with the Church while the novel theologians throw caution to the wind producing modern Pelagians and Calvinists. The effects of this promotion of the idea that everyone is predestined to be saved (see Assisi I, II and III for example) is clearly seen in the post-Conciliar laxity. People act as if their actions do not matter, good or bad. They contracept, abort, vote for Obama, violate the sixth and ninth commandment, etc. because after all it really doesnt matter in the end since w will all be saved. Those practices needed for salvation and spiritual progress are neglectedfasting, penance, confession, pious devotions, and rigorous catechism instruction. Yet, all these practices are proclaimed and promoted in Traditional chapels where the prudence advised by these matters as to this great mystery is observed. Sixteenth Rule: In the same way, much caution is necessary, lest by much talk about faith, and much insistence on it, without any distinctions or explanations,

occasion be given to the people, whether before or after they have faith informed by charity, to become slothful and lazy in good works. The entire inter-religious dialogue phenomenon of the post-Conciliar era shows the effects of violating this rule. The premise of these interminable meetings, gettogethers, and joint-declarations is to emphasize the common beliefs shared between the Church and [fill in the Protestant flavor of the event] by speaking about a common faith without any distinctions or explanations. The result of all the emph asis on a common vague faith in Christ is the decline in Mass attendance, confession, fasting, abstinence, penance, religious vocations, missionary zeal etc. Where do these good works thrive? They proliferate in traditional communities where faith is emphasized with all the appropriate distinctions and explanations. Seventeenth Rule: Likewise we ought not to speak of grace at such length and at such emphasis that the poison of doing away with liberty is engendered. Hence, as far as is possible with the help of God, one may speak of faith and grace that the Divine Majesty may be praised. But let it not be done in such a way, above all, not in times which are as dangerous as ours, that works and free will suffer harm, or that they are considered of no value. Again the entire Vatican II platform of laxity and a vague universal salvation violates this rule. The false idea that God does not refuse to make use of elements of sanctification in false religions (see Lumen Gentium and Unitatis Redintegratio) talks about Gods grace as if our choices to persist in error do not matter. When Cardinal Kaspar announced that the Church no longer teaches the need for conversion, this promotes an idea of grace as able to overcome willed rejection of Christs Church. The Vatican II love fest with false religions coupled with disciplinary laxity and toleration of heresy and grave depravity and abuse at the highest levels leads people to believe that free will really does not matter. John Paul IIs speculation that hell might be empty merely feeds this de facto denial of free will. The downplaying of indulgences which are treated like old embarrassing relatives also leads to this lessening of faith in the truth that our actions matter. In a twist on Luther the lesson many have drawn from the nice guy approach has been sin and sin boldly because we are all saved anyway. Meanwhile, Traditional clerics preach the necessity to avoid mortal sin, that one un-repented mortal sin will condemn a soul to hell. Traditional

chapels likewise promote indulgences, pilgrimages, retreats, fasting, abstinence, mortification, works of charity, reinforcing the idea that our willed actions will determine our eternal destiny. Eighteenth Rule: Though the zealous service of God, our Lord, out of pure love should be esteemed above all, we ought also to praise highly the fear of the Divine Majesty. For not only filial fear but also servile fear is pious and very holy. When nothing higher or more useful is attained, it is very helpful for rising from mortal sin, and once this is accomplished, one may easily advance to filial fear, which is wholly pleasing and agreeable to God, our Lord, since it is inseparably associated with the love of him. This final rule presents a final condemnation of the Vatican II ethos. From the new Mass to the new Catechism to the new Code of Canon Law to the new sappy religious images, all has been revised to ignore or avoid praising the fear of the Divine Majesty. God is love, Jesus loves you, although true, have become the nearly exclusive refrain of pope, bishops and clergy. The New Mass was created to remove the servile fear of God. Christs body is received standing in the hand as an equal rather than humbly kneeling and on the tongue. The Traditional Mass is the means par excellence to praise both the love and fear of the Divine Majesty. Its prayers, its gestures, its very spirit breathe forth both the love and the fear of Gods Divine Majesty. The Novus Ordo merely celebrates Gods love of the community gathered together. Which of the two expresses the thinking of the Church? To conclude part II we have confirmed the conviction of Vatican II and its progeny as not thinking with the Church. All the novelties that are hallmarks of the crisis in the Church, the New Mass, rejection of scholasticism, the new catechism, the disciplinary laxity, the lack of precision in doctrine, religious liberty, ecumenism, the downplaying of good works and free will, the abolition of abstinence, fasting, ember days, and vigils, the demolition of beautiful churches, the despising of relics, the raising to demagogic status of contemporary popes, the rejection of strict adherence to the doctrines defined by the hierarchical Church, all of these acts are not consistent with thinking with the Church. Meanwhile those preserving Tradition love and treasure all that thinking with the Church holds dear. Yet, we must be on our guard. Our enemy prowls about looking for an opportunity somewhere. Our need to carefully apply the

Tenth rule in a time of a crisis of authority can lead to a dangerous rejection of all authority or bitter zeal that revels in scandal. The past few months have demonstrated the consequences of not maintaining the balanced attitude of Archbishop Lefebvre, the loss of one of the four bishops he consecrated and a handful of good priests to the Society. Let us pray that all priests, religious and faithful attached to Tradition continue to think with the Church in all things and eagerly await the day when the Vatican turns to Tradition and says thank you for remaining faithful to thinking with the Church when so many in authority lost their minds.

First published by the Remnant Newspaper December 2012