ADVENT 1985 (No. 77)

News and Comment. . . Publications. . . Mail on Fatima

Advent or the coming of Christ, the season before Christmas.  I have headed two previous Letters Advent -- Advent 1980 and 1984, thinking then of Advent in the usual sense, as a season of the liturgical year.  This year I think of it only as it applies to Christ's second coming.

In his Discourses on the Latter Days Fr. Henry James Coleridge, S.J., 1883, whose book I have often quoted, titles chapters or sermons "Anticipations of the Latter Days, The Decay of the Faith, The Decay of Charity, The Loosing of Satan," all of which with remarkable prescience he sees as shaping up in his own time.  But he does not harbor gloomy thoughts.  On the contrary, he calls his book The Return of the King, and quotes St. Luke, xix. 15, "And it came to pass, that He returned, having received the kingdom," a message of hope and gladness, as we get it from the Gospel.

   "Not only is the second coming of our Lord to judge the world, the article which we profess every time we recite the Credo," writes Fr. Coleridge, "spoken of from one end of Scripture to the other, so that we may almost say, that there is no one thing so constantly foretold and dwelt on as the last end of all things. . . "  And further, "It is as if the light of the fires of the great judgement day made everything else pale and faint in comparison, to the eyes of those who saw the future of God's doings in the world,; as if the figure of Jesus Christ coming in the clouds of Heaven, with all His holy angels, to judge mankind, was so grand and fearful as to draw to itself their gaze from everything else, even from the prodigies of love of Nazareth, Bethlehem and Calvary."

   In Advent 1984 I wrote of the Woman of Samaria, to whom was given the first explicit revelation by Christ that He was the Messiah.  This seems strange to many, I suppose.  The state of mind of the Jews, including the generality of the Hebrew people, may have had something to do with it.  Christ did not go about openly proclaiming to the crowds that followed him, that he was the Messiah.  He did not do so, because of the Jews' expectation of a worldly Messiah.  He carefully refrained from lending support to the prevalent Jewish notion of what the Messiah would be and do.  There were those among the Jews who agitated rebellion against the Roman authorities.  It was not an isolated question which the Scribes asked of Jesus:  "Is it lawful to pay tribute to Caesar?"  The question was alive among the rabbis, and Jew revolutionists had, shortly before Christ's time, been executed by the Romans for having publicly agitated that it was not lawful for Jews to pay the Roman tax.  The Samaritans would not have been puffed up with the Jews' pride of race and religion.  They were therefore more receptive to the right sense of Christ's message.  And it seems that the Jews were partly responsible for the Samaritan schism, by refusing to work with them to rebuild the Temple at Jerusalem.  Then, too, the Samaritans were partly of pagan stock, and would not go along with all the laws the Jews had added to the law of Moses.

   Christ knew that the Jewish leaders were hostile to Him, and that the people had taken up their idea that the Messiah would make them masters of the nations; and so He turns to people of a better disposition; even though first preaching to the Jews.  Yet He who is the Good Shepherd, who would go in search of the lost sheep, might have had also another purpose in seeking out the Samaritan woman, her own salvation.

   "Other sheep have I that are not of this fold."  Our Savior came first to the house of Israel.  The Apostles at first taught in the synagogues.  Jews were most numerous in the first century or two in the primitive Church.  But in the prologue to St. John's gospel appears the last word on the Jews as a nation, as a Chosen People:  "He came unto His own, and His own received Him not."  Even so, the Church has always held its door wide open to Jews, as well as to all others.

   Before Christ revealed himself to the Samaritan woman, John the Baptist had some intimation of this truth which was changed into perfect knowledge by the heavenly manifestation, a voice from heaven, saying "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased" (Matt. 3, 15-17).

   John denied that he was Elias, whom the Jews were looking for.  But Jesus' words to His disciples point another way;  "Elias indeed shall come, and restore all things.  But I say to you, that Elias is already come" (Matt. 17, 13).  Commenting on this, the writer on John the Baptist in the 1907 Catholic encyclopedia refers to St. Matthew as saying "the disciples understood, that Christ had spoken to them of John the Baptist", and that this was equal to saying "Elias is not to come in the flesh," as the Jews had expected.  This doctrine of the return of Elias in the flesh is still being propagated today, even by a few Catholics, as a necessary event to precede Christ's second coming.

Fr. M.J. Lagrange on the Advent Gospel

   Surely one of the two greatest of modern Biblical scholars (the other Fr. Fernand Prat, S.J.) was Fr. Lagrange, O.P. whose two volumes The Gospel of Jesus Christ were published in 1938.  Concerning the overthrow of the Temple and the coming of the Son of Man Fr. Lagrange writes the Jesus' discourse on this subject was chiefly an admonition concerning the dispositions required by all to be ready for the hour when the judgments of God shall fall -- that this fact is so plain that no one questions it.

   Christ dealt with both questions in one discourse, writes Fr. Lagrange, but he did not say both events were to be contemporaneous.  The first event, the destruction of the Temple, was a catastrophe which the disciples might and should escape by flight.  They must not delay.  "Let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.  Let him that is on the housetop not go down into the house.  And let him that shall be in the field" -- where men work with little more clothing than a tunic -- "not turn back to take up his garment.  Pray that you flight be not in the winter."

   Of the second event, the coming of the Son of Man, Jesus refuses to say anything at all; it is the Father's secret.  But that an interval would pass between the two events is indicated by a reference to the "times of the nations" (Luke 21, 24).  According to Fr. Lagrange, there is only one thing to be done when that time is fulfilled.  "Stand fast in the faith, against the seductions of error and the appearance of false Christs and false prophets."  "What I say to you I say to all," a solemn warning to be handed on;  "Watch" (Mark 13; 33:37).  Fr. Lagrange cites the parable of the wise and foolish virgins, the real point of which is that we must be ready even though the Son of Man be long in coming.  In plain words St. Paul gives the signs which are to closely precede that event, all of which signs have appeared since the Second Vatican Council.

At Vatican Two was announced the end of conversions to the Catholic Faith, which puts the official seal on this ending.  This official pronouncement by Pope and Council together, followed by the invalidation of the true Mass, and the sacraments which require a priest, is doctrinal evidence of the imminent Return of the King.

   As was said above, Fr. Lagrange writes that Christ spoke of the first part of the Advent prophecy, the destruction of the Temple, as local.  Several passages in Scripture demonstrate the universality of the second event.  We have all heard or read this from St. Luke many times.  "And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations; by reason of the confusion of the roaring of the sea and the waves. . .  Men withering away for fear, and expectation of what shall come upon the whole world.  For the powers of heaven shall be moved; and then they shall see the Son of Man coming in a cloud, with great power and majesty."

   When we see these things, we are to know that the "kingdom of God is at hand."  This passage refers, explains Fr. Lagrange, to the eternal kingdom of God the Father in Heaven, that of the Son on earth having come to its end.  Christ's words "Amen, I say to you, this generation shall not pass away, till all things be fulfilled", apply to the generation of men then living.  "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall not pass away", speaks of eternity.  No matter what a shambles the Great Apostates make of the Catholic Church by their distortion of the sacramental forms, and so on, Christ's words, His truth and divine aid to those who seek eternal life by prayer and obedience, by fidelity to duty, will always be available.

NEWS AND COMMENT

   "The People's Pope in Canada", this from the front page of Our Sunday Visitor, 14 October.  The Kingdom of God become the People of God.  OSV, once a Catholic publication, now keeps up with the pack on the road to the Kremlin.  JP2 is shown with his crooked cross and, this time, a prissy kind of smile.  He appears in full regalia, wearing the head piece as awkwardly as usual.  On an inside page is a photo of young males and females in orange, holding up bowls of incense; quite pagan, which is not unexpected, not out of tune with the New Religion.  "I come among you as a pilgrim of Faith and as Bishop of Rome."  In Catholic theology and tradition the Bishop of Rome is more than that; he is Pope, successor of St. Peter.  Which reminds me of the strange expression of John Paul II in his Redemptor Hominis, where he speaks of having "entered the papacy".  I think those words were well chosen -- as Satan entered the Garden.

   According to the Cleveland "Jewish News" of Friday, Sept. 14, John Paul met with ten Canadian Jewish leaders around midnight Monday.  From a local paper an AP report:  "Pope urges priests to meet crisis on values," which is about as vague as even our politicians can manage.  He speaks against Marxism but says we must carry on the revolution.  John Paul says that on Judgment day the poor of the South will judge the prosperous North; always the Marxist collective thing; and now man to be the Judge.  It is a notion to make, if possible, old Bolsheviks laugh.  Only a comrade in papal attire could put it over.  The Pilgrim of Faith and Bishop of Rome is shown kissing a young girl, then talking to a hard-looking old dame, Governor General Jeanne Sauve.  Why didn't he kiss her?  Correcting the Church as always, he condemns the old missionaries to Canada for their errors; and so on.  His vulgarity increases with each new trip abroad.

   Cardinal Newman has written that "vulgarity is inconsistent with Catholicity.  For the essence of Catholicity is self-effacement."  Contrary to this is the vulgar, constant self-exposure of John Paul.  In writing about him as I do, I mean to say, "Look, some of us are not fooled, we know what you are, what kind of people you work for, and we resent your clumsy, extremely vulgar aping of the Popes."  I cannot in the least understand Catholics who can see in this man any priestly qualities.

Tridentine Mass in the news

   From the Vatican comes word that the Tridentine Mass may have limited permission, but hedged about with many restrictions.  Petitioners will be required to sign a paper acknowledging the right of the pope to have imposed the New Order 'mass', the Lutheran service.  This will be in effect to sign on as an apostate.  It is quite certain that this revived Tridentine Mass will be effectively modified, so that it will signify falsely.  And who among the younger clergy will be able to go through the motions of it?  And of course it is sinful to join in with the apostates in their deception, but many will.

   We are still receiving Bayside rubbish from many sources.  This is frightening, as showing how widespread is the false mysticism and lack of good sense which contributes so much to the present spiritual blindness, foretold by St. Paul.

PUBLICATIONS

   In Letter No. 76 I mentioned recent books on the Vatican, the authors of which, obviously not Catholic, put together thousands of bits of pieces of Vatican routine, gossip, and caricatures of persons and their presumed motives.  In these books the Church appears as entirely political, as of course the hierarchy have become since Vatican Two.  The mind boggles as it tries to follow from one page to another; except that here and there plain, fairly reliable factual details relieve the strain on the reader.  The one book not of this kind which I have read is Piers Compton's The Broken Cross, subtitled The Hidden Hand in the Vatican.  Compton, who was for fifteen years literary editor of the London Catholic weekly The Universe, one time conservative publication, writes with professional excellence, exposing the vilest of works by many churchmen, and by our old enemies outside the Church, especially those of the secret lodges.  In one Letter I wrote that the Vatican Two affair is more vile than I could say; Mr. Compton demonstrates it.  It is a book that should be read by those pious Catholics who persist in closing their eyes to the evil of Vatican Two.  I do not recommend it for children.  For them the Church needs to be seen in its holiness, and within the divine plan of salvation before concentrating too much on present betrayals.  It is the great merit of Mr. Compton's writing that he stresses the deliberate work of the Enemy to undermine the Church from within, even as Pope Pius X forewarned in his time.  But the book has this serious defect, that the author fails to stress the assault by Vatican Two popes and bishops on the Mass, sacraments, on all of Catholic practice.  He writes that it has all happened before, thus joining with those who put aside the Great Apostasy as unthinkable in our time, despite all the evidence.

   Another book I have been reading is Pontiff.  It is of the kind described at the beginning of this section, loaded with every little bit of detail the authors could find about the Vatican and its people.  Tiresome and irritating reading but, as in most such books an occasional bit of significant truth appears.  In Pontiff the reader is told that when Cardinal Villot came to take the Fisherman's Ring from the dead hand of Paul VI and smash it, as is the custom, the ring was not there.  It took them four days to find it.  I would suppose Paul removed it no later than after accepting the emblem of Royal Arch and high priest Caiaphas in New York.

Britons Catholic Library Letters One and Two

These are rather curious 'Letters' that I'd been hearing about, copies of which have been sent to us by friends.  No. 1 is of 36 pages, the size of this sheet, No. 2 runs to 96 pages.  They are offered as a guide to all things Catholic in our time of Vatican Two confusion.  There is also a "Catalogue of Poisonous Priests."  I find that the compilers are unable to discover any other kind of priest.  They beg to be informed should such a one be found.  One who had only recently seemed to qualify is given a 28-page treatment as quite unworthy after all.  Twenty-three others of the kind, in England, France, the USA and Australia, are given short treatment.

   Britons provides also a "Not-Recommended Reading" list of current Catholic writers, which leaves only Britons publications as acceptable to faithful Catholics.  I happen to be one of the not-recommended writers to merit the authors attention, starting with the caution that "It is truly remarkable how many obviously intelligent and orthodox Catholics have failed to see through Strojie . . ."  About some things I've written on the Antichrist and Paul VI as occupant of the papal chair, Britons says flatly, "The Catholic Church disagrees," meaning, of course, Britons.  I am credited with "what may turn out on the Day of Judgment to have been the most pernicious lie in the history of Catholicism."  And, "Those who are critical will rapidly discover that Mr. Strojie rarely writes anything that can be unconditionally approved."  By whom?

   On page 14 of the "Poisonous Priests" catalogue the compilers urge rigorous doctrinal testing of one another; inquisition all around.  By Britons the charge of heresy is directed freely at all sorts of people.  It is apparent that these doctors of the Law know nothing of simple error, lapse of memory, more or less culpable ignorance, material and formal heresy obstinately held to or not.  To these, add opinions on matters about which we are not called on to decide; for example, whether Paul VI was validly elected according to canon law.

   The authors of these astonishing Letters and lists are, so they admit, converts of only five years.  But judging by what they write, even more so the spirit in which it is written, they are mistaken about what they have been converted to.

Veni Sancte Spiritus, an article "What Price Unity?"

   One of the producers of this little 'Traditionalist' paper, in their Fall 1984 Issue, quotes the words of a priest, spoken in 1976:  "The scandal of the divisions among traditionalists in some way surpasses even the crimes of modernist Catholics."  The author writes that the principle of unity in the Church is the Holy Ghost.  This man is not a convert, but he did suffer the influence of a modern seminary, in which place they would have been passing on Vatican II "spirit" notions.  As an older Catholic who escaped seminary and Catholic college, I have always understood that it is the pope who is the principle of Catholic unity.  In the thorough article under POPE in the 1907 Catholic encyclopedia appears this teaching on Peter and his successors:  "He is to be the principle of unity, of stability, and of increase."  It follows from this, then, that when we come to the end of the long line of true popes, that is the End.  No substitute can be found for the Papacy; therefore the continuing squabbles and scandals among the 'Traditionalist' sects, the latest of which has surfaced in England.

   Further along in this article appear the following lines:  "Is the Mass enough?  The answer, of course, is:  Yes, the Mass is enough.  Enough, that is, to provide the power of cohesion among traditionalist Catholics. . ."  This is a restatement of "It is the Mass that matters" I've criticized in these Letters.  What might be the difference between the 'principle of unity' and 'the power of cohesion' is unclear.  What is clear enough to those outside the little Mass groups, is that most of the 'Traditionalist' bitter quarrels are over 'Traditionalist' priests and the Mass; with their doctrine of let the devil take the hindmost.

   Anyway there can be no such thing as "the Traditionalists" or "Remnant Church" as an identifiable body having a legitimate place in the divine plan.  This is surely the reason for the scandals and confusion among the Traditionalists, on which the priest quoted above remarked in 1976.

MAIL ON FATIMA

   During the past few months we have received fifteen or so letters on Fatima, some of them in partial disagreement with what I've written lately on that subject; a few in irate disagreement.  I have thought to reply to parts of these letters.  From one person:  "St. John of the Cross may have said, 'the law and doctrine of the Gospel are sufficient for every necessity', but Almighty God in His mercy can send consolations through His holy Mother.  I am still waiting for you to encourage your readers in praying the Rosary.  Never once since I have received your newsletter have I seen anything encouraging on Our Lady."

   To take the latter complaint first; I do not write a devotional paper but leave such to certain types of males for whom I have scant respect.  F. Schuckardt, John M. Haffert, and a Stephen Oraze come to mind.  As to the first assertion, the rampant false mysticism of the Vatican II age shows the wisdom of holding close to the law and gospel.  It confirms the wisdom of what Pope Benedict XIV laid down as a rule, that certain cults may be permitted, but are never obligatory.  As to consolation, Fatima was never presented as being only or mainly for that.  The message was "do penance", and a "certain period of peace" was said to have been promised.  Such a period followed the ending of the first world war.  Now Fatima is being used to uphold the demolitionist popes; and Catholics are being persuaded to look for a millennium of peace and prosperity in line with the propaganda of Jewish and other false prophets.

   From another letter on Fatima:  "For the past several years I have looked forward to your Letters.  But your no. 76, "Lunacy and the Law" surprised me, because of your denial of the Fatima occurrence". . . The letter from which this is quoted is a long one, quite typical in that it contains much irrelevant material, including quotations from St. Louis de Montfort and others.  Another Fatima supporter wrote to say "Take my name off your mailing list," and sent us a de Montfort pamphlet.

   I haven't denied the fact of phenomena witnessed at Fatima.  As to its source, I have read carefully most of the evidence, including all that is contained in Wm. Thomas Walsh's excellent Our Lady of Fatima; but at this late date I do not concern myself very much about that.