Next Article >        < Prev Article

Fri, 1 Mar 2019 | Cover | Page 01

From the Editor's Desk...

By Michael J. Matt

The Remnant in Rome

Remnant TV was in Rome this past week covering the Vatican’s clerical sexual abuse summit on the "protection of minors". It seemed a dismal assignment, to be sure, but the reason it was necessary for The Remnant to be in the Eternal City was so we could throw in with our traditional Catholic allies in Rome who’d organized an act of formal resistance to the Vatican sham summit.

Going in, we all knew that the ultimate goal of the summit was to establish child abuse—not rampant homosexuality in the priesthood—as the main cause of a crisis in the Catholic Church which now rivals that of the Protestant Revolt. (Remnant TV coverage of this event as well as the Vatican summit itself, can be found on The Remnant’s YouTube channel: YouTube.com/ TheRemnantVideo) The Remnant was honored to join Professor Roberto de Mattei’s Acies Ordinata—a title taken from the Song of Songs for Our Lady who will lead her faithful army in battle against the enemies of Her Son—in making a dramatic "Stop the Silence" demonstration on the eve of the Vatican summit that had already attracted massive media attention, similar to that on hand for the last conclave. And so, with the Associated Press, ABC, NBC, CNN, FOX, etc., in the wings, a remnant

~ See Editor's Desk/ Page 2

Editor's Desk,

Continued...

of believers put on a demonstration in defense of truth that was reported all around the world just one day prior to the start of the Vatican summit.

Strategically speaking, it was positively inspired!

In the Piazza San Silvestro, very near to the Vatican, Catholic activists from Italy, Poland, France, Canada, the United States, Germany, Estonia, England and many other countries— literally a remnant of the believers of Christendom—came together, rosaries in hand, and for more than an hour stood in silent witness to the fact that the Vatican is still involved in a coverup, still leading the flock astray.

I was proud to stand with these faithful men and women for one hour, in formation, police guarding the perimeter, media people coming and going, snapping photos of Catholics who will not go along with the Modernist madness any longer, who are resisting the Vatican and who are refusing to leave the battlefield.

From a statement by the organizers of the demonstration: "The event is intended to be a public profession of the Catholic faith and an attempt to break down, through the weapon of silence, the wall of silence of the Pastors of the Church in the face of an unprecedented doctrinal and moral crisis."

And afterwards, during a press conference organized by the coalition, God in His Providence gave us the opportunity to address the Associated Press, ABC News, NBC, Vatican journalists, the Tablet and many others, all of whom seemed intrigued by the fact that Catholics had come to Rome to ask the Vatican become Catholic again.

Eight representatives, including your editor, addressed the press. Here is the transcript of my statement, read to the assembled representatives of the mainstream media:

The Vatican’s Clericalism and the Abuse Crisis

By Michael J. Matt Editor of The Remnant, USA Catholics in my country were disappointed in the August 20, 2018 "Letter of His Holiness Pope Francis to the People of God," in which the Pontiff attaches blame for the clerical sexual abuse crisis to what he calls "clericalism".

Our first concern is that the term itself lacks universally accepted definition.

Clericalism can mean a disordered attitude toward clergy whereby lay Catholics make a general assumption of the moral superiority of priests.

Pope Francis contends that clericalism is when "Clerics feel they are superior, [and when] they are far from the people."

But even Francis notes that clericalism can be "fostered by priests themselves or by lay persons". Lay persons, in other words, can fall into clericalism.

So, if the crisis is to be confronted, will the Vatican hold the people guilty of clericalism, or the priests?

Already, the sheep are confused by a lack of clarity.

Certainly, in one sense, "clericalism" appears to be the very thing in which the Vatican itself is engaging when, in the face of this crisis, even the Pope abuses his power as head of the Church by attempting to discredit the "Great Accuser"—Archbishop Vigano—who is now in hiding and whose relevant testimony will not be granted a hearing at this Summit Meeting.

In addition, key ecclesial figures— personally involved in abuse and cover-up—have been promoted by Pope Francis in the past, e.g., the former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick and Belgian Cardinal Godfried Danneels who was caught on tape attempting to cover up abuse and yet nevertheless appeared on the loggia when Francis was selected to become pope, and later personally chosen by Pope Francis to attend the Synod on the Family.

Again, this seems like clericalism at the highest levels.

The other concern with Francis’s citing of "clericalism" is that in its essence it seems designed to avoid addressing the root cause of the crisis, which is homosexuality in the priesthood.

From the John Jay report, we know that 81 percent of the victims of clerical sexual abuse are males between the ages of 14 to 17. This is a male-on-male crime, with the most high-profile cases involving bishops sexually abusing seminarians and young priests.

Two words were conspicuous by their absence from the Pope’s August 20th Letter: "Homosexuality" and "Bishop".

The people of God cannot end the crisis in the priesthood. The people of God cannot stop the cover-up.

American Catholics agree with Cardinal Burke, who on two separate occasions has insisted that only the Pope can address the negligence and misconduct of bishops: "It is the Roman Pontiff, the Holy Father, who has the responsibility to discipline these situations and it is he who needs to take action following the procedures that are given in the Church’s discipline. This is what will address the situation effectively."

We call upon Francis to use his authority to address the crisis with papal action rather than words.

The Vatican in Twilight

On the first day of RTV shooting in Rome, we encountered a group of high school kids on holiday, walking along the Borgo Pio. I couldn’t help but to think how tragic it all is, how scandalous, that the children of the world who once regarded the Catholic priest as a veritable symbol of trust—so near to the heart of Western Civilization that for a millennium they’d referred to him as "Father"—now must witness the successors of the apostles meeting with the pope to try to find a way to stop priests from attacking children. Could there be a more Luciferian plan of attack for the destruction of Christ’s Church?

Some anti-Catholic critics say: "Yes, well, and so it’s always been. This is nothing new." But that is the Devil talking. It was not always this way.

Certainly, there have always been sinners, even in the priesthood, even in Rome—but not like this.

This is the handiwork of the Modernist Revolution!

The Church of Vatican II emasculated the priesthood. The Church of Vatican II turned the Altar of Sacrifice into a protestantized supper table. The Church of Vatican II has brought this crisis of Faith and Morality upon itself. This is what the Revolution of Vatican II was all about—the destruction of priesthood, the destruction of Faith, the eradication of Sacrifice.

But somehow seeing it all come crashing down before our eyes, as we saw in Rome last week, gives one confidence that God has not abandoned His Church.

If there was one thing we learned at the Vatican summit on clerical sexual abuse, it’s that the wheels are coming off the Church of Vatican II.

Perhaps now, finally, the real work of Catholic restoration—based on a return to sacred Tradition—can begin in earnest.

The survivors of spiritual abuse have work to do. We cannot break the covenant with God even if and when the Pope and his Bishops do. We cannot walk off the battlefield just because they have.

God is intervening. The Summit on clerical sexual abuse did not go the Vatican’s way. I’ve covered several major Vatican events (including the last two conclaves) and I’ve never seen the press more skeptical than they were at this event.

CNN’s Delia Gallagher, for example, asked questions every day that were not only probing but downright confrontational, at one point even demanding to know why the press should believe Cupich and O’Malley this time when the last time around it was the "reassuring face" of Cardinal McCarrick who assured the press that the Vatican could be trusted to do the right thing.

Hard-hitting questions on homosexuality and the coverup were raised during the Vatican press briefings by vaticanista Sandro Magister, LifeSite’s Diane Montagna, ABC News, and on Sunday, the last day of the Summit, Argentine journalist Inés San Martin of Crux, who

Continued Page 3

Acies Ordinata Press Conference in Rome, February 22, 2019

From the Editor's Desk . . .

Continued from Page 2

caused Malta’s Archbishop Charles Scicluna some anxiety when she asked:

"We know that there’s a bishop in Argentina, Zanchetta, who had gay porn in his phone involving young people. How can we believe that this is in fact, you know, the last time we’re going to hear ‘no more coverup’ when, at the end of the day, Pope Francis covered up for someone in Argentina who had gay porn involving minors? I mean, can we actually believe that this is going to change now?"

In reply, Archbishop Scicluna nearly gave away the show when he stammered: "Well I’ll quote what the Holy Father said this morning about the law. About the case, I’m not, I’m not, you know, I’m not authori[zed]… I mean, yeah."

Not "authorized"? What an odd word choice by a spokesman for a Vatican summit that had spent four days touting its undying commitment to transparency. Very early on, by the way, it seemed that somebody had put Cardinal Cupich on a leash. The man who was supposed to be leading the summit, appeared at only one of the press briefings. I felt he was conspicuous by his absence, almost as if someone realized the Cardinal-Archbishop of Chicago was not the man for the job, given how the press was out for blood.

Cupich doesn’t even speak Italian and because he was constantly taking his headset off and on to hear the translators, he eventually knocked off his own red hat—which I thought offered a pretty plausible "path forward" for him.

In other words, at this Vatican summit I certainly did not see the raw power of the Revolution with which we’ve all grown up. Instead, I saw the bumbling incompetence of men who appeared out of touch with reality. I saw an opponent at the mercy of the press, too.

At least in potential, I saw the end of Pope Francis and the fall of the Revolution of Vatican II. The media, the victims’ groups, the traditionalists—all united in decrying the incompetence and duplicity of the Church of Accompaniment. Somewhere along the line, I began to see a massive opportunity for the Traditional Catholic counterrevolution.

I returned home from Rome feeling confident that this is far from over. God works though his people, and, at the moment, Traditionalists are rising while Modernists are exposed and fading away.

In Rome last week, I believe we all witnessed the beginning of the end of the Modernist reign of terror. ■

Powered by TECNAVIA

Copyright (C) 1996-2019 Remnant Press 03/01/2019

Next Article >        < Prev Article

Fri, 1 Mar 2019 | Cover | Page 01

Traditionalists Demonstrate in Rome

by Roberto de Mattei

According to the traditional calendar, the first Tuesday after Septuagesima - this year falling on February 19 - is dedicated to the Agony of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, which is perhaps the most painful [moment] of His Passion, of spiritual not physical suffering, culminating in the sweating of His blood (Luke, 22, 43-44).

One of the principal reasons for His sufferings was His vision of unfaithfulness—not only in The Chosen People—but in all those during the centuries to come, who would guide the Church, founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ. Quae utilitas in sanguine meo? (Psalm,29,10). This agonizing question penetrated His Heart and needs to penetrate ours, like a sharp sword. God responded that every act of unfaithfulness, every apostasy, every sacrilege which passed through the centuries, was permitted so that the purity of doctrine and life would shine with even greater splendor in those, who, throughout the course of the centuries had picked up and held high the bloodstained banner of the Cross, opposing that of the followers of Lucifer.

Today, as it has always been throughout history, we are experiencing the battle between the two banners: that of the friends of the Cross and that of its

~ See Traditionalists Resist/ Page 5

Flanked by Michael Matt and 100 Catholic activists, Professor Roberto de Mattei leads the Stop the Silence demonstration in Rome, just before the Vatican Summit on clerical abuse

Traditionalists Demonstrate in Rome

de Mattei/ Continued from Page 1

enemies, who are not only persecutors, but also unfaithful apostles. The summit taking place over the next few days in the Vatican, in the eyes of many, is like a "confabulation" which has as its program the diverting of the attention of Catholics from the terrible crisis, caused by loss of faith and morals, so as to concentrate on one problem – the abuse of minors, a limited symptom of a much more extensive and deeper evil.

But, a word of comfort to Our Lord for His sorrows, has certainly come from three events that took place on February 19th. A coalition of lay-people, Acies Ordinata, lined up like an army on a battlefield - a hundred lay Catholics coming from all over the world, stood upright in silence, to "break down the wall of silence created by the Church authorities."

The demonstration took place right in the centre of Rome in the Piazza San Silvestro, which carries the name of the Church of San Silvestro in Capite, where the relic of the head of St. John the Baptist is kept. The precursor of the Messiah was not silent in front of Herod and underwent martyrdom for having broken silence about his conjugal infidelity. In this church, after the event, the demonstrators gathered together in prayer, reciting the Holy Rosary.

A little later, in the Foreign Press Room, before a large group of journalists, representing the most important international newspapers, seven Catholic leaders, from different countries, explained the reasons for the silent protest, stressing that it would be a scandal if the Bishops at the summit were silent on the problem of homosexuality, so intimately connected to that of pedophilia.

Lastly, the most authorative voice arrived in the evening, from two princes of the Church, Cardinals Walter Brandmüller and Raymond Leo Burke, who, all but responding to the supplication of the lay-faithful, addressed the Presidents of the Episcopal Conferences gathered in Rome: " The plague of the homosexual agenda is pervasive inside the Church, promoted by organized and protected networks in a climate of complicity and omertà. The roots of this phenomenon are evidently found in that atmosphere of materialism, relativism and hedonism, wherein the existence of an absolute moral law i.e.

with no exceptions, is openly put up for debate. Clericalism is blamed for sexual abuses, but the primary and principal responsibility of the clergy is not in the abuse of power, but of having strayed from the truth of the Gospels. The denial, even in public, in words and facts, of the Divine and natural law, is at the roots of the evil that is corrupting certain environments in the Church. Faced with this situation, cardinals and bishops are silent. Will you also be silent at the meeting convened in the Vatican this coming February 21st?"

We may say that for the first time since the start of this pontificate, the Catholic resistance against the auto-demolition of the Church has shown itself forcefully and successfully.

The week Pope Francis has chosen to hold this summit of Bishops is precisely the one in the liturgy (February 23 in the ancient and February 21 in the new) when the great figure of St. Peter Damien is honoured, that Bishop-Cardinal who thundered against sodomy in his book Liber Gomorrhianus. To ignore his teaching, and that of the Catechism itself, as the Shepherds gathered in Rome appear to want to do, is a provocation. But the voice of St.

Peter Damien and the Magisterium of the Church have resounded faithfully in Cardinals and lay-people, who, with their words and actions made themselves heard on February 19.

May Our Suffering Lord in the Garden of Olives and Our Lady of Sorrows, Who along with Him is watching over the agony of the Church, infuse courage and hope in these faithful people. ■

Translation: Contributor Francesca Romana

Powered by TECNAVIA

Copyright (C) 1996-2019 Remnant Press 03/01/2019

Next Article >        < Prev Article

Fri, 1 Mar 2019 | Cover | Page 01

VATICAN SUMMIT:

Two Cardinals Intervene

OPEN LETTER TO THE PRESIDENTS OF THE CONFERENCES OF BISHOPS

Dear Brothers, Presidents of the Conferences of Bishops, We turn to you with deep distress!

The Catholic world is adrift, and, with anguish, the question is asked: Where is the Church going?

Before the drift in process, it seems that the difficulty is reduced to that of the abuse of minors, a horrible crime, especially when it is perpetrated by a priest, which is, however, only part of a much greater crisis. The plague of the homosexual agenda has been spread within the Church, promoted by organized networks and protected by a climate of complicity and a conspiracy of silence. The roots of this phenomenon are clearly found in that atmosphere of materialism, of relativism and of hedonism, in which the existence of an absolute moral law, that is without exceptions, is openly

~ See Vativan News/ Page 7

Cardinals Brandmüller and Burke

VATICAN SUMMIT:

Two Cardinals Intervene

Continued from Page 1

called into question. Sexual abuse is blamed on clericalism. But the first and primary fault of the clergy does not rest in the abuse of power but in having gone away from the truth of the Gospel. The even public denial, by words and by acts, of the divine and natural law, is at the root of the evil that corrupts certain circles in the Church. In the face of this situation, Cardinals and Bishops are silent. Will you also be silent on the occasion of the meeting called in the Vatican for this coming February 21st?

We are among those who in 2016 presented to the Holy Father certain questions, "dubia," which were dividing the Church in the wake of the conclusions of the Synod on the Family. Today, those "dubia" have not only not had any response but are part of a more general crisis of the Faith.

Therefore, we encourage you to raise your voice to safeguard and proclaim the integrity of the doctrine of the Church. We pray to the Holy Spirit, that He may assist the Church and bring light to the Pastors who guide her. A decisive act now is urgent and necessary. We trust in the Lord Who has promised: "Behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world" (Mt 28,20).

Walter Cardinal Brandmüller Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke ■

The silent demonstration was a powerful witness against the Vatican’s current program of silence and obfuscation in the face of one of the largest coverup/abuse scandals in the Church’s history. The Letter from Cardinal Burke and Brandmuller was seen as answer to a prayer.

Powered by TECNAVIA

Copyright (C) 1996-2019 Remnant Press 03/01/2019

Next Article >        < Prev Article

Fri, 1 Mar 2019 | Cover | Page 01

Trump Doubles

Down on Pro-Life, Infuriates Swamp Creatures

By Michael J. Matt

While Planned Parenthood is still funded by your tax dollars and mine, President Trump took steps this week to cut funding for the abortion-providing behemoth by some $60 million.

Trump’s Department of Health and Human Services made changes to funding regulations under the Title X family planning program to include a "Gag Rule" which will block any medical provider receiving federal assistance from performing, promoting, referring for, or supporting abortion as a method of family planning.

The move is being hailed by pro-lifers who’ve long-since grown weary of GOP words in place of action when it comes to defunding one of the evilest organizations on the face of the earth.

And this is only the latest in a growing list of significant signs that pro-life and pro-family issues top Trump’s to-do list—including his State of the Union address, in which he condemned New York’s infanticide law as well as Governor Ralph Northam’s promotion of what the president called the "execution" of newborn babies.

On Valentine’s Day Trump also hosted a mini pro-life summit at the White House in which he welcomed abortion survivor Melissa Ohden, a six-year-old boy born at 22 weeks, Dr. Alveda King, Susan B. Anthony List president Marjorie Dannenfelser, and pro-life advocate Katie Shaw.

~ See Trump Doubles Down/ Page 9

Trump Doubles Down on Pro-Life, Infuriates Swamp Creatures

M. Matt/ Continued from Page 1

In a later Facebook Post, Miss Ohden writes: "I can tell you that in our private time with him, he was warm, so very funny, genuine, and yes, fired up about a few things, including the protection of life.

It was a historical moment, to have the survivor of a failed abortion in the West Wing…" Earlier this month, Trump was blasted by mainstream media for having "pounced" on Sen. Coons over the abortion issue at a dinner party in the White House.

Here’s part of MSN’s whining report:

The night before last week’s National Prayer Breakfast, President Donald Trump was hosting religious leaders and lawmakers for dinner at the White House when he spotted Democratic Senator Chris Coons — and pounced.

Trump confronted the Delaware lawmaker — who attended the event as the Prayer Breakfast’s official Democratic co-chair — over the issue of abortion, creating a tense scene in the White House’s Blue Room, according to three sources familiar with the exchange.

Trump leaned in close to Coons, who calls himself "a practicing Christian and a devout Presbyterian," and laced into the Democratic senator over controversial moves to change statewide policies on abortion that have roiled New York and Virginia politics in recent weeks. "He was in his face about it," said one person familiar with the exchange. The person described Trump as extremely "worked up."

"He saw a Democrat in the room, a Democrat who’s known to be a person of faith, and he was like, ‘Why aren’t you speaking out about this?’" the source added.

Another source who was in the room confirmed the account, describing the moment as both "awkward" and attention-grabbing. Rarely has Trump been so vocal about abortion when the masses aren’t watching, this person said.

So, what’s the upshot?

What's going on here? Is President Trump playing politics? Or, is this for real?

For just a moment, let’s try to imagine the personified evil Donald Trump has encountered every day since taking office, keeping in mind he’s never had the benefit of the Sacraments of the Church, he’s never been to Confession, doesn’t have the advantage of grace to steel him against the Powers of Darkness. And yet he finds himself staring down demons, as the default champion of the "basket of deplorables" with their guns, God and Bibles.

He doesn’t know about the scapular and the rosary and the Mass. It’s just him, with his limited understanding of Good and Evil, Heaven and Hell, God and Man. He's just a guy who built a lot of buildings, made a lot of money and now finds himself facing a whole lot of evil, such as that spewing from Soros, Beelzebub and even, God help him, Nancy Pelosi itself!

Sure, Donald Trump used to run in the same circles of people that now want him crucified. But because he’s standing with us and making statements in defense of the unborn and against the priests and priestesses of satanic child sacrifice, they’ve all turned on him. They never leave him alone, in fact. All night every night, they cackle at him from the shadows and sinkholes of the Swamp, track his every move, wait for him to let his guard down so they can pounce on him, his family, his grandkids, his friends.

Just imagine how his impression of the "live and let live" liberals must have changed by now.

Think of the freaks that show up for the anti-Trump rallies, the cursing and foulmouthed obscenity, the ugly threats, the violence.

My point? Donald Trump has seen the dark side as few people have. Clearly, he is not the same man now as he was in November of 2016. The demonically possessed scream for his blood every moment of every day. The horns show and the cloven hooves are full on display. Because he’s defended the unborn (no matter how imperfectly), the "social justice warriors" and "paragons of tolerance" have shown this man more hate and injustice and intolerance in the past two years than most men see in a lifetime.

I don’t mean to lionize this man.

Donald Trump’s weaknesses, flaws and cracks are plain to see. I’m speaking here of the phenomenon, of something we’ve not seen before. Seems to me he really has only two moves: Throw in with the demons (and move away from the light) or run for his life in the direction of the light. And at this point, there’s nothing to be gained from his trying to placate the demons, which may be why Trump is sounding more genuinely pro-life and pro-God every day.

When demons want your blood and your soul, why not seek out the company of the unfallen angels? What’s he got to lose! In other words, it would seem that the Demons of the Swamp, under the watchful eye of Albert Pike, are driving Donald Trump up onto the high ground and into the camps of the righteous. His understanding of theology is superficial at best, obviously, but when he speaks of God these days he knows firsthand how much God is hated by the devils who also hate Trump almost as much.

Honestly, I believe Trump is horrified by the evil of the Swamp creatures, and he’s turning to us in all sincerity--almost like a child would—and saying I’m with you. No, seriously, I really am.

In any case, let us presume so, and let’s pray for Donald Trump now more than ever. ■

Powered by TECNAVIA

Copyright (C) 1996-2019 Remnant Press 03/01/2019

Next Article >        < Prev Article

Fri, 1 Mar 2019 | Cover | Page 03

The Remnant Speaks

Letters to the Editor: The Remnant Speaks P.O. Box 1117, Forest Lake, MN 55025 ~ Editor@RemnantNewspaper.com

Trump Fan

Editor, The Remnant: President Trump is one of the greatest presidents this country has ever had.

He truly wants to make America great again. He cares about everybody, not just the rich and famous, but about the little people as well. He feels sorry about the way veterans have been neglected and treated so badly for so many years.

Unlike many politicians, he tries very hard to keep the promises he made during his campaign. Some politicians will promise anything in order to get elected, but once in office they could care less about keeping those promises.

Another thing that adds to the greatness of president Trump is his belief in the sanctity of all human life. He is the most pro-life president this country has had in many years. God bless President Trump! Donna Kruger

What Persecution Looks Like

Editor, The Remnant: I’m an eightysix- year-old man who appreciates and enjoys a part-time job as a monitor on a First Student School Bus.

I’m writing about what happened on the bus I was working on about two years ago because I’m convinced it calls attention to modern happenings concerning sexual identity. My job seniority allowed me to win the assignment I then had on a "special needs" bus which transported seven kids to St. Mary School in North Providence.

Everyone on the bus including myself called the student I’m writing about "Emily" even though I knew this student’s name was also listed as "Jeffery" on the list of the students assigned to our bus. Sometime later, another student on the bus asked me: "What name shall we call you?" I responded, "Call me Mr. George."

The student I’m writing about (Emily/ Jeffery) did not like my suggestion and shouted out: "His name is not 'Mr.' George, his name is George!

At his point I became a little upset and called this student "Jeffery"! which is the name on the bus list. I had not spoken this name before on our bus. He/ She became so upset that I received a punch in my mouth to which I quickly responded by hitting him/her with my cap. Next this student called 911 on a cell phone and two Pawtucket Policemen quickly arrived at our bus. I was taken off the bus and talked to and Jeffery/ Emily was talked to on the bus.

A few weeks went by when I received notice to appear at the Pawtucket Police Station where I was taken into a back room by three cops. I was fingerprinted, questioned and given a date to appear at a Providence Court. Except for the former "Operation Rescue", (for which I have no record) I had never before been to court for anything.

I contacted Local 251 which is the Labor union which represents our bus employees. They chose not to represent me in this situation. I am no longer allowed to bid for a job on a statewide bus because of this incident.

I obtained my own attorney who represented me during my three court appearances. He informed me that he would charge Emily/Jeffery and his/her family with a felony if they did not show up for this third session. They had not appeared for the first two. I was being charged with a misdemeanor which is a lesser offense. They did not show and so the judge dismissed my case. Thanks be to God!

George R. Bedford

1989 in the Catholic Church?

Editor, The Remnant: The modernists have had their 1789 in the church and used totalitarian methods to maintain their doctrinal victory in everything from parishes to seminaries. More and more Catholic leadership today reminds me of the Soviet Politburo just before the collapse of their empire. Out of touch and covering up for a failed system that never delivered any of the promises of their revolution. Is it 1989 in the church?

Warm regards, Bill Choquette

The Church-Emptying Pope

Editor, The Remnant: I am afraid that Pope Francis is a little behind the times on his "Pluralism and Diversity of Religions" agreement that he recently signed with Ahmad el-Tayeb, Grand Imam of Egypt’s al-Azhar Mosque that you mentioned in the February 15, Remnant.

A good friend of mine, that I have known for decades through our involvement in the Pro-Life movement (and who is an evangelical protestant) just recently mentioned to me that many Catholics that he knows by name are taking it upon themselves to search for "greener pastures," so to speak. He told me that Baptist churches are having a heyday with all of the new arrivals of previous Catholics. Sort of like a "buyer’s market." Being that he never mentioned anybody by name, I have no way of knowing how strong religiously these previous Catholics are—although I assume that they must have had a fairly good foundation of Catholicism. After all, it is much easier to convince persons who have had at least a rudimentary Christian education to believe that some other Christian denomination is a better place to worship than someone who is completely irreligious. And he never said this to me in any kind of a haughty way like, "We Protestants are stealing Catholic sheep." No, he is sincerely concerned with what is happening in the Catholic Church, with questions like: "What is it with Pope Francis?"

He seems well informed with what we Catholics are going through in our present doctrinal travails that are splashed all over the internet. He even mentioned with regret how members of his own small circle of evangelicals, who were part of his Christian conversion, are compromising in a number of areas—that this is the "Great Apostasy" that Jesus mentioned would be part of the end days.

Yep, Pope Francis is doing a great job in really emptying the Catholic Church by all his pronunciations in support of unrepentant sodomites, Catholics in serial marriages, adulterers, public official’s uncontested prideful support for abortion, and other public sins, some of which "cry to heaven for vengeance."

And this to the detriment of the faithful Catholics who are being generally ignored and even verbally abused for adhering to the practices of the Traditional Catholic Faith as witnessed to and prayerfully passed down to us by the Apostles, the Church Fathers, and the Catholic Saints and martyrs.

Continued on Page 4

Powered by TECNAVIA

Copyright (C) 1996-2019 Remnant Press 03/01/2019

Next Article >        < Prev Article

Fri, 1 Mar 2019 | Cover | Page 04

Letters to the Editor

Continued...

Maybe Pope Francis, in his mistaken zeal, truly believes he is the "Good Shepherd" who needs to leave his flock to go after the long-lost sheep.

Unfortunately though, while he is away signing protocols so that other religions can feel "equal?" to the True Faith of Jesus, he is, in effect, also denying the efficiency of the only True Religion that he should be really concerned about and letting the ravishing wolves take a toll of the remaining members of the flock. In Christ's love and care, Michael Steil Omaha NE

Keep Fighting, Remnant!

Editor, The Remnant: I very much appreciate the important work you and others do. On behalf of those who, like myself, are struggling to make sense of the inconceivable damage done by those within the Church to Catholics and Mother Church Herself. I ask that you keep speaking out. For if all are silent… not to speak is to speak. Truly, I cannot fathom how far down we've fallen in my lifetime. It’s as if nothing is sacred and truth is relative. The body of Christ is diseased; flesh is falling away from bone, only Christ can save us from ourselves. Remain vigilant and obedient to the word.

S.L. Stone

What's the Point of the New World Order?

Editor, The Remnant: Enjoy your newspapers greatly, look forward to reading them and sharing the knowledge with friends and family. Sometimes the world feels like it is going a bit nutty and your paper is the only thing that makes sense.

What is liberalism and what is its final goal? Some say they are working toward a one world government. But what is to be gained by a one world government? Will civilization be more for the common good? In what way will the common man be better served, appreciated, accomplished? What is the final goal of liberalism?

Communism and international Socialism seem to be pushing these box cars to a goal somewhere. As I see it, it deprives man of his rights as a human being. It deprives man of his religion. It deprives him of his country, his family, his land.

It deprives him of freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of action.

The government becomes his god, his very purpose for living. So where does the good part come in?

All the things that were part of the culture are removed. God becomes a bad word. The Ten Commandments have to be removed from state buildings, the crucifix of Jesus Christ has to be taken from public places, statues of past heroes have to be removed, books of our past history, including the Bible, have to be burned. Guns have to be confiscated, our police who protect the innocent have to be killed, Churches have to be destroyed and burned. Any couple having more than one child or perhaps two have to abort them. Only the people who believe in these things are allowed to teach the children in schools and universities.

Only those who agree with this line of thought are allowed to get decent jobs.

Those who disagree too much are killed or put in sanitariums.

Yet, these are the people who look down on Adolf Hitler for doing the same things they are doing and have done.

Hitler killed Christians and Jews by the thousands. Are the Communists and Socialists today doing anything different than the Nazis? Perhaps they are not like Hitler for wanting a master race but now they don't seem interested in any race at all. All races must go. Same piece of cloth, just a different angle.

What is the end goal? Removing Almighty God? It seems to be going in that direction. Man can marry men and women can marry women and if they want children, they can just get themselves a male sperm and a female egg and go from there. Children will not have blood parents to protect them from abuse or worse. Make Christian marriage and family against the law. Is that the final goal of liberals?

Life is short and everyone dies. God has the last word.

Ann De Falco

League of The Sacred Heart

Editor, The Remnant: Providence led me this morning to your video about the League of the Sacred Heart. Beautiful!

I happily joined a few moments ago. I whole-heartedly agree with everything that you said in the video.

I discovered a treasure of a book on the Devotion to the Sacred Heart a few months ago. I do not know if you are familiar with the book written by St.

Margaret Mary Alacoque’s spiritual director, Fr. John Croiset, 'The Devotion to the Sacred Heart', published by Tan Books? If you are not, I hope that you may get a copy and read it.

The Lord Jesus told St. Margaret Mary "the book was so completely in accord with His wishes that it would never be necessary to make any changes in it."

The Saint also told Fr. Croiset that "it was the Lord Himself who had inspired him with the ideas for the book.' It is a truly remarkable book! I had never understood before that the Devotion to the Sacred Heart is a Devotion of reparation to the Sacred Heart of Jesus in the Most Holy Eucharist. May God reward you for your work.

God bless you, Christina MacCabe

St. Philip Neri on Visions

Editor, The Remnant: I am reading again the biography of my Confirmation Saint, written by his disciple in 1600 and I found this passage quite impressive: '…I should briefly explain what Philip thought about visions. ‘Visions’, he used to say, ‘may present themselves to the servants of God under various forms, but everything depends on the frame of mind in which a man perceives them.’ He was constantly warning his pupils to be careful about visions, for you can be very easily and very dangerously deceived by them, given that the angel of Satan can appear to men under the form of a good angel. He was therefore very averse to any prurient curiosity about visions and revelations, which can be extremely dangerous for spiritual persons, and he would severely correct anyone who was interested in such things. He said plainly that there was no snare of the devil more perilous for men than these absurd demonic deceits.

He instructed us that we should apply ourselves continually with diligence to correct our behaviour, extirpate vice, embrace virtue, control our desires and the like, and for that reason taught us to repudiate visions; the Lord would not be angry if we did so, he said, even if it really was He who appeared.'

'The Life of Saint Philip Neri', by Antonio Gallonio of the Oratory. Family Publications, Oxford, 2005, p.54 Alex Sepkus

Don't Back Down!

Dear Michael (what an appropriate name!), You and your Remnant Foundation are in the forefront of keeping well-meaning traditional Catholics from cannibalizing each other. Your well-organized Catholic Identity Conferences are an effective tool.

Don’t back down! (Our Kids used to say, "Don’t mess with Mom'.). At the age of 80, I will give you that advice, also. May St. Michael the Archangel help you keep your sword sharp!

Prayers, Audrey Amberg

Is this Intentional, or Just Stupid?

Editor, The Remnant: After watching your video on 'The Pope and the One-World Religion,' I decided to send this email to you. Sometime back I was looking over the vestments newly created for Pope Francis' visit to Ireland and noticed the circular symbol in the middle.

Because of some things I had read I decided to do a Google search with '666' and the result is the second image below.

I am not saying that Pope Francis is of the antichrist but it is somewhat distressing anyhow. Just bringing this to your attention.

Michael Steil Omaha NE

Vestments worn in Ireland:

I did a Google search of 666 and this is what I came up with:

Waiting for Pilgrimage Sponsors:

Patrick Seeley - SPONSORED Devan Brandalick - SPONSORED David Kirk - SPONSORED Joseph Meyers- SPONSORED Bridgette Mitchel- SPONSORED Sean Homcy - $2500 thus far Brad Montgomery and the 5 'U.S.

Rangers'... $2000 thus far Please send tax-deductible donations to:

Remnant Tours Youth Fund

PO Box 1117 Forest Lake, MN 55025

Tel: (651) 433-5425

Powered by TECNAVIA

Copyright (C) 1996-2019 Remnant Press 03/01/2019

Next Article >        < Prev Article

Fri, 1 Mar 2019 | Cover | Page 05

THE QUEEN AND THE ABORTION BILLS

By James Bogle, Esq.

In the light of the recent Abortion Reform Bill 2018 in the Isle of Man, in the UK, I would like to take this opportunity to reply to those who ask "why did the Queen sign it [the Abortion Bill]? Isn’t she supposed to be a Christian?".

The Isle of Man is an island off the coast of the UK, between England and Wales to the East, and Ireland to the West. It is a self-governing part of the UK and its Bills, like those in the UK Parliament, are, once passed by the Isle of Man Parliament, declared law by what is called "the Royal Assent", an assent that is not personal but purely formal and is, in effect, a rubber stamp exercise.

This Isle of Man abortion legislation has almost certainly been influenced by the recent abortion referendum in nearby Ireland, a republic with no monarchy, in which some 2/3rd of the Irish people voted to abort their own future. That, alone, tends to show that dispensing with the Monarchy is no protection against abortion laws. Indeed, in America, a republic with no monarchy, there are many more babies aborted than in the UK, a kingdom which retains the Monarchy.

Here, then, is the answer to those who try to blame the Queen for the abortion laws.

It is an answer standard among almost all UK constitutional lawyers (of which I am one).

The short answer is that the Queen has no power (save for the exception of a Bill to abolish democracy, Parliament or the Constitution) to veto any Bill duly and properly passed by the UK or Isle of Man Parliaments.

To attempt to do so would be an act of sedition and a coup d’état against the British Constitution, the UK Parliament and the State, which she has sworn before God to protect. It would thus be immoral, even if her aim was the good one of seeking to circumvent the Abortion Bill/ Act.

St Paul teaches ( Rom 3:8) that we may not do evil that good may come of it.

Thus, neither we, nor the Queen, may morally or legally engineer a coup d’état in order to stop a Bill duly and lawfully passed by Parliament, even an abortion Bill. The blame for the Abortion Act lies with Parliament, not the Queen. She is blameless.

Let us examine the issue in a bit more detail.

The Crown has always had only limited powers, limited in medieval times but even more heavily limited following the English Civil War and the settlement of 1688 which (for the first time) put Parliament above the Monarch, save for certain very limited powers. The US President has retained powers that were once those of the British Monarch, King George III, but such powers are no longer those of the British Monarch. The British Monarch now has only extremely limited powers, one of which is vitally important.

These limited powers are called "the Prerogative Powers" or "the Royal Prerogative" and the extent of such powers are determined by various UK constitutional sources, since we have no written Constitution (unlike the USA which famously has a Constitution which was written by the American Founding Fathers in the 18th century).

The UK constitutional sources include the UK Parliament, the UK courts and what are called "constitutional conventions".

These conventions are an important part of the unwritten British Constitution.

The Royal Prerogative is largely exercised, on behalf of the Queen, by the Prime Minister and the Cabinet.

There are very few Prerogative Powers that can still be exercised by the Queen personally, but there remains one that is supremely important: the power to protect democracy, as we shall shortly see.

The Prerogative Powers include:

• The power to appoint and dismiss the Prime Minister (but she can only appoint the leader of the majority party and can only dismiss him if he loses his majority)

• The power to summon, prorogue and dissolve Parliament (but only in accordance with statutes passed by Parliament and she is obliged to follow the "advice" of the Cabinet)

• The power to make war and peace (but she is obliged to follow the "advice" of the Cabinet)

• The power to command the armed forces of the United Kingdom (but only in accordance with the "advice" of the Cabinet)

• The power to regulate the Civil Service (but only in accordance with the "advice" of the Cabinet)

• The power to ratify treaties (but only in accordance with the "advice" of the Cabinet)

• The power to issue passports (but only in accordance with the "advice" of the Cabinet)

• The power to appoint bishops and archbishops of the Church of England (but only in accordance with the "advice" of the Cabinet)

• The power to create peers i.e.

members of the House of Lords, the upper House of Parliament (both life peers and hereditary peers - but only in accordance with the "advice" of the Cabinet).

The "advice" of the Cabinet must be followed. The Queen cannot reject such advice. Thus the real rulers of the country are the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. This is because they are elected, whereas the Queen is not and, in our UK democracy, as in other democracies,

Continued on Page 6

The Queen and the Abortion Bills

J. Bogle/ Continued from Page 5

the government must be elected by the people. But the Queen has a vital role in protecting that democracy, as we shall shortly see.

Her Majesty cannot do the following: - vote; - express any shading of political opinion in public; - sit in the House of Commons (the lower House of Parliament, equivalent to the US House of Representatives), although the building is royal property.

She addresses the opening session of each new Parliament, but she cannot write her own speech. That is written for her by the government and she delivers it at the state opening of Parliament. Throughout her speech she announces what the government will be doing, describing it as "my government", but, in fact, everything in the programme will have been decided by the Prime Minister and Cabinet, not the Queen herself; - the Queen cannot refuse to sign a Bill of Parliament, properly and duly passed; and - she cannot appear as a witness in court or rent property from her subjects. Note that: SHE CANNOT REFUSE TO SIGN A BILL OF PARLIAMENT. She has no power to do so and she would be acting illegally if she pretended to exercise such a power.

There is one big exception - and it is the one remaining really important power of the Monarch: she can refuse a bill to abolish democracy.

In short, the Queen’s chief power is to stop any PM or government from installing a dictatorship like that of Hitler or Stalin or any other dictator.

This power alone makes the Queen absolutely vital to democracy and the UK Constitution and worth all her pomp and circumstance, carriages, palaces, robes and royal accoutrements.

Likewise her family are important, since her successor will come from that same Royal Family and any likely successors must be diligently and carefully brought up to be ready to succeed her and, if necessary, to exercise that power to protect democracy. Hence the importance of the Royal Family and the Royal succession.

Save the one big exception I have noted, if the Queen attempted to exceed her powers, and, by her own will, tried to veto a Bill passed by Parliament, that would be an illegal and immoral attempted coup d’état, since she would be seeking to overthrow the will of the dulyelected Parliament and thus to overthrow the Constitution, the Parliament, democracy and the State, the very things she has solemnly sworn, before God and the people, on the Gospels, at her coronation, to protect.

She would thereby be putting herself above the Constitution, the Parliament, the people, the State and the law of the land, all of which she has sworn to protect.

She would also be putting herself above the moral law and God’s law since no Christian is permitted to be a traitor or seditious. We are all bound to be loyal to our country and its Constitution, the Queen included.

At her Coronation, the Queen swears, on the Gospels and before the Archbishop, to govern her lands "...according to their respective laws and customs", i.e.

the respective Constitutions. Likewise, the US President, at his inauguration, swears that he "will, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States".

Normally, therefore, the Queen’s Royal Assent (with the one, big, prime exception) is no more than a rubber stamp and carries no personal moral assent on her part. She is neither giving her assent, nor withholding it. It is a mere formality and thus morally neutral.

This, as I say, is subject to one, vitally important, big exception - an exception which more than justifies the Queen’s special position.

That one prime, and vitally important, big exception is her right, nay duty, to refuse assent to a Bill which extends the life of a Parliament, or the tenure of a Cabinet, indefinitely, or, indeed, any other kind of Bill attempting to abolish democracy.

All agree that she could lawfully (and thus morally) refuse assent to such a Bill and, indeed, that it would be her duty so to do, even when the government concerned had, originally, been duly and properly elected by the people.

Her power is not to stop any government from being elected (that is the supreme democratic power of the people) but to stop that government from trying to abolish all future elections and thus democracy. The Queen’s power is thus to be used precisely to protect the people’s sovereign power to elect the government.

The same applies to her Majesty’s representative in other countries, in accordance with their respective Constitutions. For example, famously, in Australia in November 1975, the Governor-General, the Queen’s representative, in strict and legal accord with the Australian Constitution, and faced with a Prime Minister, Mr Gough Whitlam, who refused to hold an election after he had several times been denied funding by the upper House (the Australian Senate), removed the Prime Minister.

The Australian Governor-General then, in accordance with section 57 of the Australian Constitution, dissolved both Houses of Parliament and appointed the Leader of the Opposition to be a caretaker Prime Minister, but only after the latter had sworn to hold a General Election within one month. And, when the election was held, the Australian people responded by voting, in the biggest ever electoral landslide, against Mr. Whitlam and his government.

The Governor-General had thus acted to protect democracy, the Australian Constitution and the State by putting the whole matter to the people, in accordance with the Australian Constitution. He had furthermore fortified his decision by first taking the advice of the Chief Justice of the High Court (the Australian constitutional court).

The Queen does not have such wide powers as the Australian Constitution gives her representative in Australia, the Governor-General, but, under the British Constitution, she does still have the one residual power to protect British democracy, the Constitution and the State from a dictator who would abolish democracy.

Remember, by contrast, what happened in Germany in the 1930s. The German people were duped into voting for Hitler in 1933.

In our British Constitution, whilst the Queen could not prevent such an election, nevertheless, so soon as the newly elected government attempted to abolish democracy, as Hitler and the Nazis did after the death of President von Hindenburg, she could lawfully veto that attempt.

Since the Germans had (perhaps unwisely) abolished their Monarchy, and replaced it with a President, once that President had died, they no longer had a sovereign who could prevent the unconstitutional abolition of democracy by Hitler and the Nazis.

Hence, also, the importance of the hereditary principle.

Once a President dies, another has to be elected. Once a monarch dies, his heir apparent automatically becomes the lawful sovereign and cannot be circumvented by a dictator.

Hitler seized power once President von Hindenburg had died and before there was any opportunity to hold new presidential elections and elect a new President. Hitler exploited the time gap caused by the need for a presidential election, to abolish democracy, the Weimar Constitution and the office of President and merged the offices of Chancellor and President to create a new, unconstituional and illegal office for himself - the office of Fuehrer, or "leader".

However, if there had still been a King of Germany, not requiring to be elected but being King by right of the hereditary principle, such a king could have vetoed that illegal seizure of power by Hitler and thus prevented the Nazi take-over of Germany and the abolition of German democracy.

Thus, this residuary Prerogative Power is a vitally important one, vested in an hereditary monarch, and is the real reason why we invest the Queen with such importance. She is our last bulwark against a British version of Hitler or Stalin seeking to abolish democracy.

The Queen is thus worth every penny on account of that power alone.

In fact, however, the Queen costs us almost nothing.

Of the 88 pence p.a. per taxpayer that she costs us, most of that comes back to us from the substantial income that the Royal Family brings to the UK each year.

Furthermore, she, herself, contributes a great deal from her own purse each year, paying herself for things that, in republican countries, the State would normally pay for.

Compare that with a US President who, in a non-election year, costs the US taxpayer over $US1 billion, and much more in an election year!

Thus, the Queen and the Royal Family are undoubtedly the best and most costeffective political investment that the UK could possibly make for the safety, security and future of the country. ■ James Bogle (Mr. Bogle is junior counsel in the UK Supreme Court BREXIT case, and in numerous pro-life cases in the UK)

Her Magesty opens Parliament's two-year session.

Powered by TECNAVIA

Copyright (C) 1996-2019 Remnant Press 03/01/2019

Next Article >        < Prev Article

Fri, 1 Mar 2019 | Cover | Page 07

Debating the Relevant Issues. . .

Is the Indelible Mark of Baptism Required for Salvation?

by John Salza, Esq.

That one can be saved by a desire for baptism (called "Baptism of Desire") without having received the actual sacrament of Baptism is an infallible doctrine of the Catholic Faith, having been taught by the Church’s greatest saints, Doctors, Popes and catechisms throughout the ages.

1 The Council of

Trent declared:

"If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that without them

or without the desire of them men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification, though all are not necessary for each one, let him be anathema." Trent, Decree on the Sacraments, Canon 4.

In our day, however, when traditional Catholic doctrine is constantly called into question, if not outright denied,

1. For a comprehensive history of the Church’s perennial teaching on Baptism of Desire, see John Salza and Robert Siscoe, True or False Pope? Refuting Sedevacantsm and other Modern Errors, St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary, 2016, Chapter 4.

Baptism of Desire has not been spared, unfortunately, even by some who go by the title of traditional Catholic.

The denial of this particular doctrine is due, in large part, to a philosophical error known as False Cause, which mistakenly attributes an effect to a cause that did not produce it. In this case, because the Liberals promote salvation even for non-Catholics (the "effect" being universal salvation), some Catholics have falsely attributed this effect to the doctrine of Baptism of Desire itself (the false "cause"), which actually did not produce it. In reality, the true cause of the erroneous doctrine of universal salvation is an overemphasis of Baptism of Desire (the "exception" or "possibility" of salvation without water baptism), which has led some Catholics to reject the doctrine wholesale.

In his celebrated book, On Divine Tradition, Cardinal Franzelin, who served as a peritus at the First Vatican Council, explains that perverting the meaning of a dogma by interpreting it in an extreme sense is the tactic heretics have always used in their attempt to deceive unsuspecting Catholics:

"As the Fathers often explain, whenever Catholic truth stands midway between two opposite errors, heretics always preserve the Catholic dogma only to distort it by presenting it in an extreme sense in one direction or the other. Then, what the Catholic Church does not in the least teach, is placed in this [distorted] way before the inexperienced, as though it were Catholic dogma, which can then be easily attacked."

Regarding the context of the above

Continued on Page 8

Is the Indelible Mark of Baptism Required for Salvation?

J. Salza/ Continued from Page 7

quotation, Franzelin was addressing the error of the "Old Catholics" who claimed that every doctrinal decree of the Pope was infallible (thus exaggerating the scope of papal infallibility). The Catholic truth (that the Pope is infallible only when he defines a doctrine on faith or morals for the universal Church) stood midway between two opposite errors (the Pope is never infallible versus the Pope is always infallible).

The Old Catholics attempted to preserve the dogma of infallibility, but "distorted" it by "presenting it in an extreme sense" (extending its scope to all papal decrees). In doing so, they refuted the false teaching that the Pope is never infallible by himself (e.g., Gallicanism), but ended by attacking the Church’s true definition of papal infallibility. After all, it is easier to refute a false "dogma" (the Pope is never infallible on his own but needs the consent of the Church) than it is to attack what the Church actually defined.

As Franzelin and the council Fathers noted, heretics always retain the Catholic terminology (accidents), but infuse into the terminology a new meaning (substance), and then attack the straw man dogma they erected.

A small cadre of folks who identify themselves as traditional Catholics have fallen into the same error and, as a result, arrived at their rejection of Baptism of Desire. The Catholic truth (there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church) stands midway between two opposite errors (the error of religious indifferentism, which maintains that all religions are paths to salvation versus the error that only members of the Catholic Church, that is, the external, visible Body of the Church, are saved).

As an overreaction to the error of indifferentism (which already began revealing itself in the early twentieth century, before Vatican II), these people began interpreting "no salvation outside the Church" in an extreme sense by arguing that only "card carrying" Catholics (that is, formal members of the Church) could be saved. However, to be a formal member of the Church, one must be sacramentally baptized. Hence, their extreme interpretation of "no salvation outside the Church" finally led to their rejection of Baptism of Desire; and their rejection of Baptism of Desire led to them inventing novelties to defend their position, such as the novelty that the baptismal character is necessary for salvation.

Like the "Old Catholics’" error on papal infallibility, the people who adhere to this error on baptism attempt to preserve the dogma "no salvation outside the Church," but "distort" the dogma by "presenting it in an extreme sense" (extending its scope to mean formal membership in the Church is always necessary for salvation). In doing so, they refute the false teaching of indifferentism (that non-Catholics are also saved in their false religions) but end by attacking the Church’s true teaching on Baptism of Desire and sanctifying grace.

They End by Concluding Sanctifying Grace is Insufficient for Salvation It will come as a surprise to many who hold this error today that the pre-Vatican II promoters of the error (in the 1940s and 1950s) actually believed in Baptism of Desire, and even admitted that it was sufficient to justify man and bring him into the state of grace.

2 Unfortunately, they created a false distinction between justification and salvation, that is, between a soul in the state of grace during life, and a soul in grace which has left the body in death.

However, the Church often uses the terms "justification" and "salvation" interchangeably, and it does so in Trent’s declaration above. Because the Protestants were teaching that man is "saved" by faith alone, Trent’s condemnation of "justification" by "faith alone" clearly reveals the council was equating justification with salvation, here in regard to the efficacy of the sacraments. Just as man is not "justified" without the sacraments or a desire of them (or by "faith alone"), neither is man "saved" without the sacraments or a desire of them (or by "faith alone").

Hence, the state of "justification" and "salvation" are obtained by the "sacraments of the New law" or a "desire of them." These terms synonymously describe a soul in the state of grace, that is, filled with the supernatural virtues of faith, hope and charity. A soul in a state of grace is both justified and saved; the only difference is that during earthly life the grace can be lost through mortal sin. Hence, justification and salvation refer to the same work that God does in the soul of a person, washing the person’s sins away in the Blood of Christ and infusing it with the supernatural virtues.

The Council of Trent defines justification as: "[A] translation from that state in

2. See, for example, Fr. Leonard Feeney, Bread of Life, Still River, Massachusetts: St. Benedict Center, 1952, pp. 18, 42, 121, 125-126; see also Brother Robert Mary’s Father Feeney and the Truth About Salvation, Richmond, New Hampshire, 1995, pp. 61, 65, 68, 77-78.

which man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior." Needless to say, if someone dies in a state of justification (grace) as an adopted son of God in Christ, he receives his inheritance as a son of God, which is Heaven.

In other words, he receives his "final" justification, which is salvation.

Salvation is received by the adopted sons of God who persevere in their justification until death. Again, the difference between the two regards only the temporal (during life) or eternal (in Heaven) dimension in which the state of the soul exists. The effect (going to Heaven) is the same whether justification was obtained by water or desire.

In making a false distinction between justification and salvation, the originators of this error implicitly held a heretical opinion about the doctrines of grace (defined by the Council of Trent), because they believed that sanctifying grace was insufficient for salvation without the indelible baptismal character imprinted on the soul. And today’s adherents continue to promote this error decades later, as they proclaim: "To die in the state of grace is certainly necessary, but not sufficient for salvation."

3 Thus, the fundamental error is to hold that sanctifying grace, by itself, is insufficient for salvation, and that the baptismal character (the indelible mark on the soul from water baptism) is also necessarily required.

Baptismal Character Not Necessary for Salvation The Church has never taught (anywhere!) that the baptismal character is necessary for salvation, and that is because it is not necessary for salvation. After all, the Old Testament saints who are now in Heaven do not have the baptismal character, and the grace of the New Covenant far surpasses that of the Old Covenant ( cf. Rom 5; 2 Cor 3; Leo XIII, Divinum Illud Munus, No. 7).

3. Father Feeney and the Truth About Salvation, p. 98.

So, what, then, is the purpose of the baptismal character? The theologians teach that the baptismal character is ordained to the worship of God on Earth and the reception of the Holy Eucharist. This is a very important point that is not commonly taught, much less understood, by Catholics, and certainly misunderstood by those who reject Baptism of Desire. Because in Heaven we will no longer receive Christ under the Eucharistic veil (we will instead have the Beatific Vision), the baptismal character is not necessary for admission into Heaven.

St. Thomas Aquinas explains that, through the baptismal character, "men are commissioned ( deputantur) to the worship of God according to the rite of the Christian religion."

4 He also explains that those who have the baptismal character "partake of a certain spiritual power with respect to the sacraments and to those things that pertain to divine worship."

5

Msgr. Joseph Fenton further elaborates by explaining that this divine worship is definitely and primarily concerned with the celebration of the Eucharistic sacrifice on Earth (which is why sacramental baptism is required to receive the other sacraments, on Earth). Just as the priestly character enables man to confect the Eucharist, the baptismal character makes a man capable of receiving it legitimately and fruitfully.

6

Thus, the baptismal character is a capacity or potentia which empowers and commissions man to participate in the worship of God on Earth and is not absolutely necessary for entrance into Heaven. Those who deny Baptism of Desire will search in vain for a teaching of the Church that makes the indelible mark of water baptism an absolute necessity for salvation. And it follows that such an opinion would come under the anathema of the Council of Trent, which condemned anyone who said that the sacraments of the New Law or "the desire of them" are "not necessary for salvation" (Trent, Decree on the Sacraments, Canon 4).

In today’s unprecedented ecclesial crisis, let us make sure we do not commit the error of excess or defect, embracing extreme positions, either on the Right or the Left. Rather, let us heed the divinely inspired instruction of St. Paul, who teaches us to "stand fast and hold to tradition" (2Thess 2:14), which, as St.

Vincent Lerins said, "can never be led astray by any lying novelty." ■

4. ST, III, q. 63, a. 2.

5. ST, III, q. 63, a. 5.

6. Fenton, "The Baptismal Character and Membership in the Catholic Church," Vol.

CXXII, No. 5, May 1950, pp. 376-377.

The American Ecclesiastical Review,

Powered by TECNAVIA

Copyright (C) 1996-2019 Remnant Press 03/01/2019

Next Article >        < Prev Article

Fri, 1 Mar 2019 | Cover | Page 09

Constantinople Tomos Strikes at Christendom

By Elena Chudinova | Russian Correspondent

Editor's Note: The Ukrainian Orthodox Church has officially split from the Russian Orthodox Church in one of the largest schisms in Christian history. The situation is not easy to fully understand.

What follows is the opinion of an Orthodox Russian, and we're grateful to Remnant columnist Elena Chudinova for this effort to help our readers begin to grasp at least the sense of an exceedingly complex political and religious conflict.

MJM

The whole world of the Orthodox Christianity now stands under a horrible strike. Some observers compare this event even to the catastrophe of 1917. Is it an exaggeration?

One hundred years ago a vast empire, where Orthodox Christianity was confessed as the state religion and where the peaceful life of other confessions and religions was guaranteed by the law, turned into a country of official godlessness. Acts of antireligious bloodshed turned into years of terror and decades of suppression.

It was a metamorphosis terrible for all of Christendom. Not only Orthodox Christianity, but the Christian religion as a whole lost its global position. Remember that the Catholic Church in those years called the faithful to pray for the clerics and lay people of Russia assenting to martyrdom.

At first glance, the religious collision in Ukraine doesn’t look catastrophic.

Atheism doesn’t triumph, the faithful are not being condemned to torture.

However it is far more than breaking of the Eucharistic intercommunion between Russia and a relatively small Ukraine.

This crack shakes all of the Orthodox world. The politics have intervened into the sphere of faith. Constantinople has no political independence but possesses a great historical meaning for the Orthodox.

So we ask Philipp Grill, an Orthodox public activist, who initiated the building of the first Royal Martyrs* Church in Moscow (*The Romanov family, canonized by the Serbian Church, the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad and then by the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchy), to comment on the situation.

Ph. Grill: In 1589 the Moscow Metropolis was raised to a Patriarchy in conclusion with the Greek churches.

As a result of the Orthodox Councils in Constantinople in 1590 and 1593 the Patriarchy of Moscow and All

Continued on Page 10

Philipp Grill at a pro-life rally in Moscow

Tomos Strikes at Christendom

E. Chudinova/ Continued from Page 9

Russia was acknowledged by the three Patriarchies of the East, though de facto it had already been an inter-Orthodox diplomatic reality. So the signing of the tomos proclaiming the Autocephalous Ukrainian Church is an absolutely anti-canonical action taken by the Constantinople Patriarchy. No autocephalous church except the Russian one can rule church life, raise bishops and priests in what has been a canonical territory of the Russian Church for many centuries. Thus the Russian Orthodox Church was driven to interrupt the Eucharistic intercommunion with Constantinople until this dramatic collision comes to a comprehensive settlement. The creation of this absolutely unlawful Kiev Autocephaly by Constantinople was provoked by political ambitions and chauvinist motives, not for the reasons of the spiritual good of the people of Ukraine.

The Ukrainian nationalists dreamed about ‘a united national church’ since the late 19 c. They imagine it as one more tool of radical Ukrainian nationalism and hysterical Russophobia. That’s the point enthusiastically supported by the current Ukrainian regime striving for a total cultural and spiritual breakup between Ukraine and Russia.

No doubt, the consequences of the tomos signing led to a spiritual and public disaster. A massive attack has already started to capture the churches of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchy. Members of Ukrainian nationalist paramilitary organizations attack and beat priests and lay people. Extremists vandalize churches of the Moscow Patriarchy that have been used in Ukraine for a long time. Some acts of aggression still meet with resistance from the officials, but others take place under a real connivance.

These are just the recent events: On January 19 in Sumy two men exploded a ‘fireworks unit’ at the Holy Transfiguration cathedral’s door during the service and were arrested on the charge of hooliganism.

On February 1 in Bogorodchany village near Ivano-Frankovsk, the priest and lay people found out in the morning that the church door’s lock was changed by the local mayor’s order.

On the night of February 2-3, a fire started in the wooden church of St.

Vladimir in Lvov, but firemen saved the building. Before this, on January 28, a crowd of nationalists demanded to close the church, as they insisted, ‘built without official permission’, though it was built 15 years ago with all permits and formalities. The meeting leader, a deputy of the Lvov city council and a member of the Svoboda party, Andrei Karbovnik, proclaimed he would have the church destroyed. On February 3 in Gnezdychno village near Ternopol, the ultras of The Right Sector organization, led by the local school director and supported by the police, attacked the Holy Transfiguration church. The prior, Stephan Balan, got a fracture and many concussions, many of the lay people were also beaten, but the assault was repelled.

Ukrainian state officials are preparing acts of legal discrimination, making the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Moscow Patriarchy a real outlaw, driving its clergy and lay people into a ghetto or even underground. The style of such discrimination and suppression is very much like the Communist one.

The policy of Constantinople and the government of Ukraine has produced a disconnect among the global Orthodox commonwealth. The Patriarchy of Constantinople has for a long time been showing itself as a real Trojan horse in the Orthodox world, a puppet of transnational anti-Christian forces.

(There is nothing strange about the fact that radical nationalism is a tool of transnational forces – it is a common feature of our days). The Constantinople Patriarchy shows itself as their true aid in spreading of the modernism and the new anthropology with its whitewashing of vices. The Kiev crack should globally strengthen the anti-traditionalistic, anti-Christian tendency in the modern world.

It strikes heavily at Christendom. ■

Powered by TECNAVIA

Copyright (C) 1996-2019 Remnant Press 03/01/2019

Next Article >        < Prev Article

Fri, 1 Mar 2019 | Cover | Page 10

Archbishop Viganò Strikes Again, Targets 1960's as Start of Abuse Crisis

By Michael J. Matt

Last week Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò contributed the following statement to the National Catholic Register, which had invited him to be part of a symposium in anticipation of this week’s Vatican summit meeting on the clerical sexual abuse crisis.

Some of Archbishop Viganò’s more vocal traditionalist critics enjoy pointing out that, since His Excellency has been part of the post-conciliar Church, he must be considered part of the problem rather than the solution. From the moment we reported on the first Viganò letter, we have pushed back against this myopic point of view.

It is interesting to note now, in this latest Viganò letter, that the good Archbishop highlights the years leading up to and including the Second Vatican Council as when sexual abuse in the clergy became a massive problem. The Archbishop also takes a very pre-conciliar position on the admittance of homosexuals to the priesthood. I’d say if we were to scratch the surface of Archbishop Viganò just a bit, we’d find a traditionalist.

You’ll want to read this!

We’ve reproduced the statement below in its entirety:

Despite Grave Problems, the Lord Will Never Abandon His Church

I thank you for inviting me to take part in this symposium on "Abuse and the Way to Healing" in anticipation of the upcoming bishops’ summit at the Vatican. My contribution will draw on my personal experience of 51 years of priesthood. It is evident to all that a primary cause of the present terrible crisis of sexual abuse committed by ordained clergy, including bishops, is the lack of proper spiritual formation of candidates to the priesthood. That lack, in turn, is largely explained by the doctrinal and moral corruption of many seminary formators, corruption that increased exponentially beginning in the 1960s.

I entered a pontifical seminary in Rome and began my studies at the Gregorian University when I was 25 years old. It was 1965, just months before the end of Vatican II. I couldn’t help but notice, not only in my own college but also in many others in Rome, that some seminarians were very immature and that these houses of formation were marked by a general and very serious lack of discipline.

A few examples will suffice.

Seminarians sometimes spent the night outside my seminary, as the supervision was woefully inadequate. Our spiritual director was in favor of priestly ordination ad tempus — the idea that ordained priesthood could be a merely temporary status.

At the Gregorian, one of the professors of moral theology favored situation ethics. And some classmates confided to me that their spiritual directors had no objection to their presenting themselves for priestly ordination despite their unresolved and continual grave sins against chastity.

Certainly, those who suffer from deepseated same-sex attraction should never be admitted to seminary. Moreover, before any seminarian is accepted for ordination, he must not only strive for chastity but actually achieve it. He must already be living chaste celibacy peacefully and for a prolonged period of time, for if this is lacking, the seminarian and his formators cannot have the requisite confidence that he is called to the celibate life.

Bishops have the paramount responsibility for the formation of their candidates to the priesthood. Any bishop who has covered up abuse or seduction of minors, vulnerable adults or adults under a priest’s pastoral care, including seminarians, is not fit for that responsibility or for any episcopal ministry and should be removed from his office.

I am praying intensely for the success of the February summit. Although I would rejoice greatly if the summit were successful, the following questions reveal that there is no sign of a genuine willingness to attend to the real causes of the present situation:

Continued on Page 11

Powered by TECNAVIA

Copyright (C) 1996-2019 Remnant Press 03/01/2019

Next Article >        < Prev Article

Fri, 1 Mar 2019 | Cover | Page 11

Cardinal Müller’s ‘Manifesto of Faith’:

Sign of a Papal Defection?

by Christopher A. Ferrara

Cardinal Gerhard Müller has clearly had enough of the man from Argentina and his out-of-control papal bulldozer. The Cardinal’s Manifesto of Faith appeared in the immediate aftermath, and appears to have been triggered by Francis’ joint declaration with Ahmed el-Tayeb, "Grand Imam of al-Azhar," in which Bergoglio declares: "The pluralism and the diversity of religions, colour, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings."

I will leave it to John Lamont, in this article, to destroy the desperate argument by Bergoglio’s last remaining defenders that he was referring only to God’s permissive will, meaning His toleration of evil in the world—as if el-Tayeb would sign a document declaring that God tolerates the evil of Islam.

The Müller Manifesto can only be seen as a correction of the errors that Bergoglio himself is propagating in the form of a degenerate Jesuit progressivism, even if he is not identified by name. To wit:

• religious indifferentism;

• a systematic omission of any clear reference to Christ’s divinity and His authority over men and nations; the constant denigration of staunch orthodoxy as Pharisaic rigidity;

• the subversion of adherence to the Sixth Commandment by its reduction to an "ideal" not always achievable in "the concrete complexity of one’s limits" and the admission of public adulterers in "second marriages" to Holy Communion where it is deemed "not feasible" to practice continence;

• denial of the extreme gravity of sins of impurity, reduced to "the lightest of sins" and trivialized as a fastidious "morality below the belt" obsessed over by priests who need a psychiatrist—even though the Mother of God has warned that "more souls go to hell for sins of the flesh than for any other reason";

• the practical abandonment of the concept of mortal sin in general and downplaying to the point of non-existence the threat of hell ("no one can be condemned forever");

• the suggestion that priestly celibacy could be abandoned in certain places such as the Amazon — meaning, of course, eventually everywhere;

• the proposal (complete with a semi-secret "study") that women might be made "deacons" even though they are ontologically incapable of receiving any degree of Holy Orders.

Contra Bergoglio, Müller’s manifesto affirms the following truths of the Faith:

• the divinity and peremptory authority of Christ;

• the necessity of the Church and her sacraments for salvation;

• the Church’s unique role in teaching with "the authority of Christ the divine revelation, which extends to all the elements of doctrine, including the moral teaching"— which Bergoglio has been undermining for more than five years;

• the necessity of obedience to the divine and natural law for salvation;

Communion;

• the defense of priestly celibacy as "a sign of new life" and "selfgiving in the service of Christ";

• the impossibility of admitting women to any of "the three stages of this ministry [the priesthood]—a i.e., the diaconate.

Müller concludes on the apocalyptic note that in the midst of this pontificate and the general silence among the bishops concerning the truths of revelation we are witnessing "the greatest deception," "the last trial of the Church," "a religious delusion" and "the fraud of Antichrist."

In the face of which, Bergoglio’s favorite theologian, Walter Kasper, angrily leapt to the fore to defend the Pope who rehabilitated him and his Modernist nonsense concerning "mercy" and advanced them both relentlessly. With shameless hypocrisy, Kasper condemned Müller as "a Luther redivivus [reborn], one who rightly works for reforms in the Church, but then wishes to impose them while bypassing the Pope and working against him." This from the foremost promoter of heresy in Germany, whom even Luther would denounce for corrupting what he considered the essentials of the Catholic religion.

At this point in the Bergoglian Debacle, it has probably entered into the mind of practically every serious, traditionminded Catholic that Bergoglio is acting like an anti-Pope, one who attacks the Church and the teachings he is supposed to be conserving and defending. Many are wondering privately how this strange and rather vulgar man, with his subversive ideas and obvious contempt

Continued on Page 12

• that eternal damnation to Hell of one who "dies in mortal sin without repentance";

• the inadmissibility of "civilly remarried divorcees" to Holy

•

Cardinal Müller’s ‘Manifesto of Faith’:

Sign of a Papal Defection?

C. Ferrara/ Continued from Page 11

for staunch Catholics and for Tradition even in matters of basic morality, could possibly be the Vicar of Christ. Not even John Paul II and Paul VI went this far, but rather, repeatedly affirmed orthodoxy at critical junctures despite the confusion and ecclesial decay their own reckless pursuit of novelty had provoked.

I have long maintained that bickering with sedevacantists is a complete waste of time. Whether a Pope has fallen from office on account of heresy—certainly a possibility that theologians recognize, as even Cardinal Burke has noted—is and always will be an academic question.

No mechanism exists for a definitive judgment of the matter, and the hypothetical but never tried "imperfect council" to declare that a Pope has deposed himself on account of heresy (a proposed remedy I myself have viewed sympathetically on these pages) would still provide no definitive solution for the universal Church. Rather, it would only provoke something like the Great Western Schism as some faction of the faithful, perhaps even a majority, would continue to recognize the "fallen" Pope and reject any successor elected by a conclave whose very convocation would be endlessly contested unless and until some future Pope—assuming his validity would not in turn be questioned!— were to declare that his predecessor had fallen from office. That outcome would involve something akin to the anathematization of Honorius I (r. 625638) by Pope Saint Leo II (r. 682-683) on account of Honorius’ endorsement of the Monothelite heresy. Even in that case, however, Honorius was never declared to have fallen from office and is included in the canon of valid Popes.

But what if a validly elected Pope were to defect from the Petrine office without actually abdicating or falling from it, thus retaining the office and its authority while casting off its duties and limitations? Such a Pope would have no regard for traditional teaching and praxis, even when affirmed by his immediate predecessors. He would think himself entitled to propose any novelty he deemed appropriate according to his own "vision" of the Church. He would, in a categorical abuse of the papacy, propose to remake the Church from top to bottom according to his own thinking as if she were his personal possession by virtue of his being Pope.

Such a Pope would declare an intention such as that which Bergoglio uttered in his own manifesto, Evangelii Gaudium: "I dream of a ‘missionary option, that is, a missionary impulse capable of transforming everything, so that the Church’s customs, ways of doing things, times and schedules, language and structures can be suitably channeled for the evangelization of today’s world rather than for her self-preservation."

The Church’s self-preservation would be less important to such a Pope than the pursuit of his own ideas about what the Church should be and do. And therein would lie his defection from the office he would still retain. For such a Pope would exercise a "ministry" that would not be the Petrine ministry of conservation and preservation of what is handed down, nor an exercise of the authentic Magisterium, but rather an ultra vires enterprise of innovation untethered from Tradition.

Here I have in mind what the always insightful Father John Hunwicke has just written on the subject of "the suspense of the functions of the Magisterium." In praise of the Müller Manifesto, he surmises that "consciously or unconsciously, Gerhard Müller has in mind the teaching of Blessed John Henry Newman about the situation during the Arian crisis," when "the body of the episcopate was unfaithful to its commission," the Pope, the great episcopal sees and even general councils "said what they should not have said, or did what obscured and compromised revealed truth" and "spoke variously, one against another… for nearly sixty years ..."

"It seems to me," Father Hunwicke continues, "that the moment when PF decided not to answer the Dubia of the four Cardinals was the formal, official moment ... the starting gun ... when the Petrine Ministry entered into its current ‘temporary suspense’.

When, likewise, he ignored the Filial Correction which some of us had sent him, he confirmed that Suspense. Thus we are officially in a period in which the functions of the Papal Magisterium are in a vacatio which will be ended at the moment when the same Petrine Magisterial organ formally returns from dogmatic silence to the audible exercise of the functions rightly attributed to it in Catholic Tradition…" Upping the ante, Fr. Hunwicke cites the historic Open Letter to Bergoglio from Fr. Tom Weinandy, wherein he warned that "a bishop who espoused heretical teaching ‘would no longer bear within himself as a bishop the four defining marks of the Church and, therefore, he could no longer justifiably act as an ecclesial member within the Church.

He may continue to act outside the Church, or even within the Church, but his actions would lack a genuine ecclesial character, for the essential and indispensable four marks of the Church

would be absent within his specious ministry."

"If this pontificate lasts much longer," says Fr. Hunwicke, "perhaps we shall need to unpick some of the implications of that last sentence." Meanwhile, the rank religious indifferentism evident in Bergoglio’s joint declaration with el-Tayeb suggests precisely the prospect of Pope who, he concludes, has:

...consciously stopped even bothering to remain within the parameters set by the Magisterium to which he is as much under an obligation to submit as is anybody else. Fas est et ab hostibus doceri: never forget the chilling words of Fr Rosica, that this pope is free from the constraints of Scripture and Tradition. I can see no present grounds plausibly to speculate that PF’s divagations from orthodoxy will in future tolerate any restraints. It is as if, having discovered himself at the bottom of a hole, he has decided that the only thing to do is to keep digging with redoubled energy until he gets to Tasmania.

To which Fr. Hunwicke adds, and I hasten to add here, the following caveat: "I do not, of course, in any way suggest that [Francis] and the silent or heterodox bishops have lost the right or capacity to use the Magisterium of his and their offices. On the contrary. Precisely as Newman did, I am simply observing that, as a matter of fact, he is not and they are not at this moment using it."

Indeed, the Arian bishops were never deemed by the Church to have fallen from office, nor Pope Liberius, whose "fall" consisted of subscribing to a semi-Arian formula while in captivity. Rather, they defected temporarily from the same offices whose proper exercise they resumed once Arianism was defeated and orthodoxy restored throughout the Church (with the aid of the Holy Roman Emperor, Theodosius I).

I would suggest, then, that today we are witness to a defector Pope who has not lost the right or capacity to be Pope, for he has not abdicated, but who has decided to be something other than the Vicar of Christ while wearing the papal garb and sitting in the papal chair. Like a father who abandons his duties to wife and children yet remains head of the family, Bergoglio, who has abandoned his duties to the Church, to Tradition and to souls, remains the earthly head of the great ecclesial family. And like a wayward father who returns home and takes up the burdens of his fatherhood once again, Bergoglio can return to—or more precisely begin— a right exercise of his papacy. Which is why, despite any weak and fleshly inclinations to the contrary, we pray that Jorge Mario Bergoglio, under the influence of the Holy Ghost, will assume not only the mantle but the substance of the pontificate that bears the name of Francis. ■

His Holiness and Cardinal Müller

Powered by TECNAVIA

Copyright (C) 1996-2019 Remnant Press 03/01/2019

Next Article >        < Prev Article

Fri, 1 Mar 2019 | Cover | Page 11

Archbishop Viganò Strikes Again,

Continued...

• Why will the meeting focus exclusively on the abuse of minors? These crimes are indeed the most horrific, but the crises in the United States and Chile that have largely precipitated the upcoming summit have to do with abuses committed against young adults, including seminarians, not only against minors. Almost nothing has been said about sexual misconduct with adults, which is itself a grave abuse of pastoral authority, whether or not the relationship was "consensual."

• Why does the word "homosexuality" never appear in recent official documents of the Holy See? This is by no means to suggest that most of those with a homosexual inclination are abusers, but the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of abuse has been inflicted on postpubescent boys by homosexual clerics. It is mere hypocrisy to condemn the abuse and claim to sympathize with the victims without facing up to this fact honestly. A spiritual revitalization of the clergy is necessary, but it will be ultimately ineffectual if it does not address this problem.

• Why does Pope Francis keep and even call as his close collaborators people who are notorious homosexuals?

Why has he refused to answer legitimate and sincere questions about these appointments? In doing so he has lost credibility on his real will to reform the Curia and fight the corruption.

In my third testimony, I begged the Holy Father to face up to the commitments he himself made in assuming his office as Successor of Peter. I pointed out that he took upon himself the mission of confirming his brothers and guiding all souls in following Christ along the way of the cross. I urged him then, and I now urge him again, to tell the truth, repent, show his willingness to follow the mandate given to Peter and, once converted, to confirm his brothers (Luke 22:32).

I pray that the bishops gathered in Rome will remember the Holy Spirit, whom they received with the imposition of hands, and carry out their responsibility to represent their particular Churches by firmly asking for, and insisting on, an answer to the above questions during the summit.

Indeed, I pray that they will not return to their countries without proper answers to these questions, for to fail in this regard would mean abandoning their own flocks to the wolves and allowing the entire Church to suffer dreadful consequences.

Despite the problems I have described, I continue to have hope, because the Lord will never abandon his Church.

Archbishop Carlo Viganò is the former apostolic nuncio to the United States. ■

Powered by TECNAVIA

Copyright (C) 1996-2019 Remnant Press 03/01/2019

Next Article >        < Prev Article

Fri, 1 Mar 2019 | Cover | Page 13

The Church is Very Sick and in Need of Renewal, and Covington Proves It

By Deion A. Kathawa Student, Notre Dame University

Imagine if half the country turned against you overnight and blasted you with white hot anger, death threats, calls to ruin your future, and much else besides.

Then, instead of shielding you from the abuse and standing with you in love against the crazed mob, imagine if your own parents abandoned you and even actively joined their voices to the chorus of those attacking you.

How would you feel?

Wronged? Angry? Betrayed?

Hopefully, all three. But what if your spiritual parents did that? Wouldn’t that be at least as bad?

That is exactly what the Church has done with the Covington travesty currently roiling our public discourse (that is, if our national habit of kneejerk screeching at the latest pseudocontroversy qualifies as "discourse").

One of the most beautiful images to meditate on is that the Church—in addition to being the Bride of Christ, the ark of salvation, and more—is also our Mother. You could be forgiven for not knowing that, given the shameful way She has handled this debacle.

Mothers are nurturing. They protect their children. They form them and build them up to be virtuous and God-fearing.

Mothers are tender and often slow to anger, yes. But they also know danger when they see it, and they quickly move to defend their offspring and strike out at any who would harm them. The Church is to imitate God in this manner; of Him it is written "how many times I yearned to gather your [Jerusalem’s] children together, as a hen gathers her young under her wings" (Matt. 23:37).

And if merely human mothers do this instinctually, how much more ought Holy Mother Church rush to our aid when the mob closes in, the social media attacks begin, and the injustices mount?

But that is not what happened. Rather than cover her children with her mercy and protection, the Covington diocese and high school joined in the bloodbath.

They eagerly signaled how "woke" they were, how on board they were with the perversion of "social justice" currently practiced and preached by our secular elites and permitted to grow in power by spineless enablers in the Republican Party and much of the "conservative" movement: We condemn the actions of the Covington Catholic High School students toward Nathan Phillips specifically, and Native Americans in general, Jan. 18, after the March for Life, in Washington, D.C.

We extend our deepest apologies to Mr. Phillips. This behavior is opposed to the Church’s teaching on the dignity and respect of the human person. The matter is being investigated and we will take appropriate action, up to and including expulsion.

What nonsense is this?

Before all of the facts are in, the Church immediately sides against the students she personally knows and with a man of whom she has just heard, a complete stranger. What mother, knowing her children intimately, trusts completely a total stranger, particularly when his words ring as hollow and maliciously false, contrary to all her experiences with her children, and then seeks to punish her children without finding out if what was said about them is true?

A negligent mother. A mother we would readily say is not fulfilling her role well. A mother that owes her children an apology and a firm promise that she will not do that again.

However, even more galling than the betrayal is the purported justification for it. "This behavior is opposed to the Church’s teaching on the dignity and respect of the human person," the diocese and high school write jointly.

First of all, what did the teen do wrong?

Except for smirking and not backing down in the face of an adult man who confronted him and then proceeded to bang a drum by his ear for over two whole minutes, except for being white, except for wearing a red MAGA hat, a hat associated with a duly elected president of the United States, can anyone point to what he actually did that was "racist" or "bigoted" or "hateful"?

Anything at all?

Of course not. Because all he did was stand there and "smirk." Which, at least for now, remains something Americans are free to do. I ask Covington: Is it consistent with "the Church’s teaching on the dignity and respect of the human person" to immediately assume your students are hateful, bigoted racists? Is it consistent with "the Church’s teaching on the dignity and respect of the human person" to join a braying, bloodthirsty mob who would cheer with unbridled glee if your "homophobic" and "misogynistic" diocese shut down tomorrow? Is it consistent with "the Church’s teaching on the dignity and respect of the human person"—is it "pro-life"—to pile on and libel a bunch of kids caught on video acting like kids at an annual march whose purpose is to witness to the dignity of every single human person on this earth?

Is this the "consistent ethic of life" I keep hearing you rave about? If it is, I want no part of it.

Lest the bishops—Foys and Kurtz— think I have forgotten them: Where is your manly courage, your fatherly instinct and felt duty to fight evil when it rears its ugly, Satanic head? Where are your shepherding hearts? Where is your Christian independence of mind, rooted in the truths of the Gospel, that should help you stand firm with Christ when others are convulsed by manufactured outrage, and the storm rages about you (Matt. 8:23-27)?

Where is your willingness to sacrifice yourself rather than expose mere children to the fury of opportunistic outrage-mongers who would howl with approval if you and your brother bishops were thrown in prison tomorrow for refusing to marry same-sex couples and opposing employer-provided contraception?

The Church’s singular job is to convert the world to Christ, not appease it; if you think that the former will lead to the latter, and all that’s needed is more "dialogue," then hang up your mitres and turn in your crosiers, because you are standing in the way of the Great Commission.

Fathers and mothers do not treat their children this way. They do not side with known enemies of the Church because they fear pressure campaigns and PR nightmares. Stop betraying our trust for the approval of a world in the grip of God’s enemy, a world which hates you and which crucified the Son of God.

On the heels of true repentance must come reform and recommitment to authentic Catholicism. If it does not, many in the Church will one day find themselves facing the Just Judge, robed not with courage, zeal, faithfulness, truth, and charity but instead with banal HR-sourced platitudes about "tolerance" and "inclusion." They will not have a defense for why they did not do more to defend their flocks against the ravenous wolves.

Then, sadly, they will understand the parable of the unfaithful servant (Luke 12:42-47). ■

Powered by TECNAVIA

Copyright (C) 1996-2019 Remnant Press 03/01/2019

Next Article >        < Prev Article

Fri, 1 Mar 2019 | Cover | Page 14

Pope Francis

and the United Religions Initiative

Editor’s Note: In light of the recent concord between Francis and the Egyptian Imam, in which diversity of religions was declared "willed by God", we thought it a good time to remind our readers where Francis came from. The following appeared in The Remnant back in April of 2014.

MJM Back in 2013 and in dramatic fashion, PBS Frontline took it upon itself to highlight the contrast between the newly-elected Pope Francis who was going to reform the Church and his "evil predecessors" who’d more or less let it all go to hell.

The PBS Documentary Secrets of the Vatican (viewer discretion strongly advised) was so deeply disturbing that at the time I decided not to link to it from The Remnant website for fear of further scandalizing young people visiting our site. I remember several particularly sordid details of homosexual orgies in the shadow of St Peter’s Basilica which would conclude at sunrise with the participants offering Mass. Yes, "offering" it.

Now, of course, news reports have more than corroborated Frontline’s findings, and we see Francis—the great "reformer"—emerging now as the worst pope in history who, far from reforming the Church, seems poised to destroy her, at least in the human element.

It’s beginning to seem like a long time ago when Francis was declared Time magazine’s "Person of the Year" and Fortune’s "greatest leader in the world".

At that time, a CNN Money report captured the spirit of the moment when the world the flesh and the devil seemed positively on fire with love for the new Pope:

Francis has electrified the church and attracted legions of non Catholic admirers by energetically setting a new direction. He has refused to occupy the palatial papal apartments, has washed the feet of a female Muslim prisoner, is driven around Rome in a Ford Focus, and famously asked "Who am I to judge?" with regard to the church’s view of gay members.

After 2000 years contra mundum, it was Peter’s "new direction" that was garnering the accolades of a world gone mad—a world no longer capable of distinguishing right from wrong, a world at war with God, a world crushing Christian marriage, eradicating the last vestiges of truth, goodness and beauty while wiping out millions of unborn babies.

I’m sorry, I just don’t get it. There must be something else – something we’re missing, which is inspiring worldly hope that our Church is on the verge of an unconditional surrender. It is no secret that the Holy Father has his supporters in radical organizations such as the Council for a Parliament of the World Religions. He is also regularly praised for his extensive experience in interreligious relations in Argentina.

And then there is this strangely underreported connection between Pope Francis and a global organization called the United Religions Initiative (URI)—which, according to their website, "envisions a world at peace, sustained by engaged and interconnected communities committed to respect for diversity, nonviolent resolution of conflict and social, political, economic and environmental justice."

Pope Francis, while still Cardinal Bergoglio, was reportedly a friend and supporter of the San Francisco-based URI, which has regional offices in 83 countries and seems to have as its ultimate objective the establishment of what conspiracy theorists used to call the One World Religion, whereby Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Shintoists, Bahá’is, Sikhs, Hindus, Zoroastrians, New Agers, Wiccans, representatives of aboriginal religions, etc., would set aside all doctrinal differences or claims of religious supremacy in order to engender universal peaceful coexistence.

According to an article written by Lee Penn in the December 1998 issue of the New Oxford Review, The United Religions Initiative, A Bridge Back to Gnosticism, the URI hopes to enroll "60 million people in what it describes as ‘a Worldwide Movement to create the United Religions as a lived reality locally and regionally, all over the world.’" In 2007, URI celebrated its 10th anniversary in the Metropolitan Cathedral in Buenos Aires, Argentina.

And guess who was there. "Little did we know," writes an enthusiastic Maria Eugenia Crespo of URI in Argentina that "one of our esteemed participants and friends, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, would be named Pope just five years later!

Felicitations, Papa Francis!"

According to the Covenant of Faith blog site, Cardinal Bergoglio was a known supporter of the United Religions Initiative in his diocese for some time.

Maria Crespo, an Argentine Catholic and Global Support Coordinator for the URI said in an article last March that she had "worked directly with Bergoglio on interfaith efforts. He hosted a meeting of Crespo’s URI Cooperation Circle, which fosters interfaith cooperation, at the Buenos Aires Metropolitan Cathedral.

‘He is so open and welcoming and humble at the same time,’ she said."

(Laird Harrison, Bay Area Catholics May Find the New Pope a Mixed Bag, KQED News Fix, March 13, 2013.

In The One World Religion: The Details - Learn to Recognize Them, Lee Penn provides useful background information on the URI:

The United Religions Initiative (URI) is an interfaith movement founded in 1995 by William Swing, the bishop of the Episcopal Church’s diocese in the San Francisco Bay Area. It has expanded worldwide, with over 200 chapters – the majority of which are outside the affluent nations of North America, Western Europe, and the Pacific Rim.

The URI works closely with the United Nations, and it has received funding from many sources. Among them are wealthy donors (including foundations headed by George Soros and Bill Gates), a Federal agency (the United States Institute of Peace), and organizations (the Rudolf Steiner Foundation and the Lucis Trust World Service Fund) that promote various forms of Theosophy, an anti-Christian, New Age spiritual movement. . .

URI leaders repeatedly equate evangelism to manipulative "proselytizing" and violence. As Bishop Swing has said, "In order for a United Religions to come about and for religions to pursue peace among each other, there will have to be a godly ceasefire, a temporary truce where the absolute exclusive claims of each will be honored, but an agreedupon neutrality will be exercised in terms of proselytizing, condemning, murdering or dominating. These will not be tolerated in the United Religions zone" (1) - which evidently covers the whole world.

URI leaders say "proselytizing" is the work of "fundamentalists," and Paul Chafee (who was then a URI board member) said at a URI forum in 1997, "We can’t afford fundamentalists in a world this small." (2) If the URI vision prevails, Christian evangelism based on the unique, saving identity and acts of Christ would be ruled out.

Could this provide context for Pope Francis’ famous quip "Proselytism is solemn nonsense. It makes no sense"?

( See Eugenio Scalfari interview) Might it even explain our Holy Father’s not infrequent scolding of "fundamentalist" and "neo-pelagian" Catholics? Is the Holy Father still somehow committed to the vision of the URI—an organization opposed by the Church under the pontificate of Pope John Paul II, as the author of the 1998 New Oxford Review article observes:

Within the Catholic Church, opinion about the URI is divided.

Rome stands firm against it, but some theologians, priests, and sisters – and a few members of the hierarchy – actively support it. At Rome in 1996, Bishop Swing met with Cardinal Arinze, head of the Vatican’s Council for Inter-Religious Dialogue.

Bishop Swing received a firm rebuff from the Cardinal; he reported that the Cardinal "said that a United Religions would give the appearance of syncretism and it would water down our need to evangelize. It would force authentic religions to be on an equal footing with spurious religions." Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald, who works under Cardinal Arinze, pointedly ignored Bishop Swing’s invitation to attend the 1997 URI summit conference.

Some Catholics, however, are not

Continued Next Page

Pope Francis (then Cardinal Bergoglio) in Argentina in 2007, where he celebrated the 10th Anniversary of URI in Latin America in the Altar of the Metropolitan Cathedral of Buenos Aires with Bishop Swing, Swami Pareshananda, Raul Mamani, Beytullah Cholak, Rabbi Sztokman, and Maria Crespo.

The United Religions Initiative

Continued from Page 14

following Cardinal Arinze’s lead. Paul Evaristo Cardinal Arns, the recently retired Archbishop of São Paulo, Brazil, is claimed by the URI as a "strong supporter," and Archbishop Anthony Pantin of Trinidad is forming a URI support group in his country.

Fr. Gerard O’Rourke, director of ecumenical affairs for the Catholic Archdiocese of San Francisco, has been an enthusiast for the URI from its beginning, serving on its Board of Directors. He took part in its 1995 interfaith service which announced the URI to the public. Other Catholic URI supporters include Fr. John LoSchiavo, S.J., Chancellor of the Jesuit-run University of San Francisco (and a member of the URI Board), and Fr. Luis Dolan and Sister Joan Kirby (associated with the Temple of Understanding). Theologians supporting the URI include Paul Knitter, senior editor of Orbis Books and professor at Xavier University, and Hans Küng.

If Francis is still a "friend and supporter of URI" this could shed some light on the media’s optimism that a papal declaration of a doctrinal and moral ceasefire is imminent. It would also suggest that when Pope Francis reprimands "reactionary, selfabsorbed neo-Pelagians" he is, in fact, not referring merely to Latin Massloving traditionalists (a small and comparatively insignificant group), but rather to all those who insist on rigid fidelity to the doctrines of the Catholic Church. This could include EWTN, Catholic Answers, Opus Dei and any number of conservative, pro-family, pro-life organizations whose dogmatic belief that Christ founded only one true church -- the Catholic Church -- would be regarded as divisive and counterproductive.

Protecting the environment, refusing to "judge", tearing down the old Catholic bastions of Tradition, not being "obsessed" with the life issues, showing limitless "compassion" to dissenters from the Church’s moral teachings—these are elements the URI would naturally employ to bring about the "religious ceasefire" so key to their utopian vision, what some have called a new world order.

In other words, the precedent for scandal was set long ago and today diabolical disorientation is turning the Church and the world upside down. The Mystery of Iniquity is at hand, and anyone who tells you he has it all figured out is either lying or insane. We must neither panic nor despair but rather watch and pray for Pope Francis even as Christ prayed for Peter—that ‘his faith will not fail him.’ ■

Advertisement:

Powered by TECNAVIA

Copyright (C) 1996-2019 Remnant Press 03/01/2019

Next Article >        < Prev Article

Fri, 1 Mar 2019 | Cover | Page 15

Tell Old Bergoglio to let my people go!

By Father Celatus

The Book of Exodus records the historical account of the plagues inflicted upon the Egyptians by God for having enslaved the Old Covenant faithful and for the obstinate refusal of the Pharaoh to release them so that they could sacrifice to God. Speaking through Moses and Aaron, God commanded this of Pharaoh:

Thus saith the Lord God of Israel: "Let my people go that they may sacrifice to me in the desert." But he answered: "Who is the Lord that I should hear his voice and let Israel go? I know not the Lord and neither will I let Israel go." (5:2-3)

Hey, guess what Pharaoh, "Let my people go" was not a divine suggestion but a divine command! But in his hubris Pharaoh dug in his royal heels and demanded derisively, "Who is the LORD, that I should obey his voice…?"

And so it was that Pharaoh found out the hard way just who the Lord God really is, through a series of ten plagues that culminated in the death of every first born male of the Egyptian households.

We might wonder how any man, including a pharaoh, could remain so defiant when confronted with such compelling evidence of the power of the one true God. At one point even the magicians of Pharaoh recognized that the plagues were by the finger of God and begged him to capitulate to divine demands. But God had hardened the heart of Pharaoh, so that no matter what he suffered he would not submit:

The Lord said to Moses: Behold I have appointed thee the God of Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet. Thou shalt speak to him all that I command thee; and he shall speak to Pharaoh, that he let the children of Israel go out of his land. But I shall harden his heart, and shall multiply my signs and wonders in the land of Egypt, And he will not hear you: and I will lay my hand upon Egypt, and will bring forth my army and my people the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt, by very great judgments. And the Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord, who have stretched forth my hand upon Egypt, and have brought forth the children of Israel out of the midst of them. (7:1-5)

How are we to understand this hardening of heart? It is not that God actively hardened Pharaoh’s heart but God withdrew whatever grace He may have otherwise offered, as punishment for his malice. Devoid of divine assistance Pharaoh became utterly evil, blind in his thinking and hardened in his heart.

God sometimes permits evil to become unmistakably manifest before he crushes it by divine providence.

I suggest that there are many parallels between this ancient account and our modern crisis in the Church. The Old Covenant faithful suffered under the reign of a pharaoh who knew not Joseph; the New Covenant faithful suffer under the reign of a pontiff who knows not Jesus. The pharaoh was a pagan who sought to weaken and crush true religion; this pope is a modernist who seeks to weaken and crush Catholicism.

It would appear that both figures also manifest an absence of divine assistance and a blindness and hardness that are providential punishments for defiance toward the Lord God. It is hard to imagine that Jorge Bergoglio has any supernatural faith whatsoever, in light of his heretical statements.

Saint Thomas Aquinas, among others, teaches that someone who denies knowingly even one article of the Faith forfeits the supernatural grace of faith, as surely as mortal sins forfeit the grace of charity. One wonders whether Francis possesses this grace as well, given his numerous uncharitable insults directed at devout Catholics.

We see a parallel in the fact that the magician’s warnings to Pharaoh that he was contending against God were of no avail; similarly, a handful of the prelates of the present time have warned that the Bergoglian blitzkrieg against the Faith is misguided, for naught. The four Dubia Prelates are completely ignored and two are now dead, another prelate is in hiding for his life and yet another has already lost his high office.

As for the plagues, we are not suffering from the destruction of crops or an infiltration of frogs but for six long decades we have suffered the destruction of Catholic institutions and an infiltration of homosexuals. Diocese after diocese has gone into bankruptcy because of the sexual abuse of minors by clergy and now lawyers and attorneys general are poised to financially crush many more dioceses for sexual crimes. The faithful and the fallen world are scandalized by the corruption of so many clerics and prelates, such that the institutional Church has lost its pastoral and moral authority and it will soon be completely irrelevant.

And let’s not forget the plague of Islam, which is rapidly replacing Christianity as the dominant religion throughout much of Europe and making inroads in North America—a veritable invasion by immigration.

But God will not be mocked, and as surely as providence brought an end to the reign of Pharaoh and release to the Israelites, some day in some manner God will bring an end to the reign of the Modernists and release to the faithful.

Whether this will be through the final Apocalypse that was foreshadowed by the Exodus or whether by some lesser means, Jorge Bergoglio and Modernism will one day be crushed like the Egyptian armies in the Red Sea and the true religion will once again have been purified and set free.

But lest we pity ourselves as purely innocent victims of Modernist oppressors, it would seem that collectively as Catholics we are suffering a chastisement that we corporately deserve. Not unlike the Israelites who became comfortable over time in their secular surroundings, forgetting the God of their ancestors and worshiping Egyptian idols, so too many Catholics have abandoned the Faith in favor of the world, allowing bad shepherds to mislead the flock and even applauding and excusing their wickedness.

And so The Last Word and remnant of traditional Catholics must suffer along with the rest but we do have a word of warning for Francis of Rome on behalf of the Lord God: "Jorge Bergoglio: Let my people go!" ■

Francis Embraces Imam Ahmed el-Tayeb

Powered by TECNAVIA

Copyright (C) 1996-2019 Remnant Press 03/01/2019