THE CATHOLIC TRADITIONALISTS (No. 5)
In the following pages I use "traditionalists" in a loose sense, applying it to those Catholics who would rather Vatican II had never happened, and to all who call themselves traditionalists, rightly or wrongly. I do not concern myself about the false philosophical Traditionalism usually associated with the name of the French priest Lamennais.
In a preceding paper I mentioned my objection to "Catholic Traditionalist", preferring to speak of the Catholic Resistance. My reason for this was that by accepting the "traditionalist" tag we thereby imply that there can be another kind of Catholic, perhaps that strange breed called "Progressive." But my attention has been called to the fact that in Italy the Communists call themselves "the Resistance", and the TFP uses the word. So, to avoid confusion I will stick to "traditionalists", mainly because I write here of those who call themselves that.
My appeal, however, is to simple Catholics who want no tags or labels but only to keep the Faith as it was passed down from a saner age. My purpose is to caution against traditionalist publishers and leaders who, wittingly or not, serve the purpose of the Revolution by diverting attention from the main source of subversion in the Church, the man who occupies the Papal Chair. Whether or not he was or could have been canonically elected to that Office is not my concern. Let the few remaining orthodox bishops and cardinals look to their responsibility in the matter.
My thesis has been that Paul VI is deliberately working to destroy the Catholic Church; that total success of the worldwide Revolution requires this grab of the Papal Chair, and, having taken it, a program to hide the fact. The usurper will, of course, periodically deplore and denounce the very demolition at which he is engaged. He will weep over the "auto-demolition" and "neo Modernism" he has worked for all or most of his adult life. He will do what a Progressive spokesmen, calming his fellow revolutionists more impetuous and less crafty than he, assured them Paul VI would do: "The pope will speak for the right, but act for the left." This Paul VI has done. It has been self-evident to those who have kept a clear head. The confusion comes from the majority of traditionalist publishers who tell their readers, "Yes, there are abuses, heresies and bad bishops, but the pope if not the best -- perhaps weak -- is not responsible for the demolition."
"It all started way back," they say -- and so it did -- "and there's that Bugnini," they say, etc., etc. To deceive others, or yourself, or both, requires a fair dose of truth, more or less according to the spiritual, psychological and mental states of individuals, who fall naturally into several group categories. For each of these groups there are so-called conservative or traditionalist publishers and leaders of movements. It is my intention to comment briefly on the main ones in the United States, offering these as examples, or points of departure, for judging those not here mentioned, including those from other countries, especially Canada.
First as a rough guide, a list of notions heretical and psychological the Revolution had going for it among those inclined to resist the Vatican II reforms. Number one, what someone has called "absolute popery", which sees the Pope as infallible in all his official words and acts, a rejection of the First Vatican Council's definition of Papal Infallibility as circumscribed; (2) sentimentalist piety concerned mainly with spiritual consolations, including those derived from our normal love for the Pope, which emotion the sentimentalists refuse to be deprived of, regardless of the truth; (3) a Jansenistic harsh view of man and Redemption naturally antagonistic to Vatican II Pelagianism, and which takes in an heretical interpretation of "No Salvation Outside The Catholic Church", and which has the appearance of the real Catholic orthodoxy; (4) confusion about the Two Kingdoms, of this world and the next, and a consequent leaning toward religious indifferentism in its tendency to identify political conservatism and Catholic tradition; (5) Romanticism -- flags and banners, berets, castles in Spain. Obviously there will be some mixing of these things and much honest confusion among well-intentioned people.
So, on to my examples. I will refer where possible to recent or representative publications. I shall be brief, knowing as I do by now that those who don't want to see, won't see, regardless of the amount of evidence presented. I refer the new reader of my papers to what he can see around him -- to the strange "New Mass" and queer-sounding 'Catholic' doctrines, practices and general chaos in the church, particularly among the Clergy and Religious since the beginning of the time of Paul VI, the main features of which I have mentioned in previous papers.
Number One on my list is, of course, The Wanderer, which from the first has diverted attention from the responsibility of Paul VI for the present destruction. Always the editors of this paper play up the orthodox-sounding weekly talks of Paul Vi while suppressing news and comments on his destructive words and works. The Wanderer has gone over to the New Orthodoxy of Vatican II, and when its editor features on his front page a story about a "New Priests' Group Dedicated To Orthodoxy", as he did in his 19 June 1975 issue, without the slightest doubt he means loyalty to Paul Vi and his program. That purpose is stated clearly int he article referred to, as follows: "The CCC's purpose, as outlined in their brochure, stresses the strengthening of the priest's personal sanctity, promotion of brotherly cooperation among priests, and the renewal of priestly commitment to the lawful authority of the Church, especially that of the Holy Father who is the essential bond and sign of unity in the Church." So here again is the same old act of pointing with a straight face at Paul VI as the bond and sign of unity, whereas the chief effect of Paul's pontificate has been his tearing apart of the unity that was always the chief mark of the Catholic Church.
CUF and other "errors in the catechisms" groups, Una Voce in New York, Approaches in Endland, are in the same category as the Wanderer. Except that it takes a more orthodox stand, so is The Remnant which practices the Wanderer "praise and suppression" routine concerning Paul VI's 'good' and bad words and acts. These papers are well named. The first catches the disgusted Catholic as he emerges from the front door of his Reformed Catholic Church and leads him around in circles, back into the same 'church' -- the moderate branch, to be sure. The second of these publications keeps only a remnant of the faithful from seeing the significant truth that the Church is being demolished by Paul VI. But I don't want to be unjust. I know that many are led willingly into these dimly lighted corridors.
Uncharitable? No. It is impossible that these publishers lack the doctrinal and factual knowledge they need for presenting the truth to their readers.
So much for No. 1 above. Next, Pious Sentimentalists, Number Two. It is obvious that the attitudes mental and spiritual I have enumerated will overlap, shading one into another between persons and groups. So it is that those Catholics who are concerned mainly with their own devotions will be also, most of them, of the "total-trust-in-the-Pope" crowd. In fact, it would appear that the more these people become deprived by Paul VI of traditional practices, the more they cling to their reverence of, and love for Paul VI, not distinguishing -- in fact desperately closing their eyes to the strangeness and pernicious influence of this man. In this attitude they find comfort in such little periodicals as Divine Love and Maryfaithful in the United States, and in two or more papers from Canada. In these bad times are deplored. But no mention is made of the contribution to present evils by Vatican II and the Montini pope. On the contrary Paul Vi is held up as a shining light amidst present darkness. A few of these publications feature the "get behind the Pope", "poor suffering Paul" messages from hysterical women "seers" who speak the incoherent, jerky cadences of the weird Edgar Cayce. "Pray, suffer, and be silent," as the old fake at San Damiano, Mama Rosa, plainly advises, and which is also the implied messages of the Pieties and Prophecies 'traditionalist' papers. I'll not waste the reader's time on these frauds, all of them since Fatima queer-sounding when coherent at all.
So to Number Three on my list, Jansenistic rigorists who will be primed against Vatican II from the start, and who will appear to many as the real Catholic Voice in the Vatican II wilderness. I'll not go into the Jansenist heresies on Grace here, except to repeat that they lead to harsh and self-righteous attitudes. Near Coeur d'Alene, Idaho is a community of these self-elected Elect who were lured there by a young man, F. Schuckardt, who, although a layman, had put on a cassock and began preaching some time after the beginning of Vatican II. It wasn't difficult to foresee that Schuckardt would take a further step if he could; in fact, he took two, getting himself ordained (?) priest and consecrated (?) bishop by a schismatic bishop of the Old Roman Catholic Church.
"Bishop" Schuckardt's community offers the appearances of a pre-Vatican II parish and community of Religious, mostly females, of which he is Lord and Master. I will say no more about this dreary operation, except that Catholics should have become at least skeptical of Schuckardt when he put on the cassock. It is probably useless to speak to those who follow him in any manner now that he has taken unholy orders. This opinion is confirmed by attempts that have been made to help people who have fallen under the Schuckardt camp influence; also by a quotation from the March 1917 issue of "Theosophy in Australasia", taken from Peter Anson's "Bishops At Large." The words are those of theosophist Bishop Leadbeater of the Old Catholic Church who speaks of a "new presentation of Christianity," as follows: "Among those (who will be living at the time) there are sure to be some who love His older Church and its ritual, and the Old Catholic Church might well offer a convenient resting place for them." A convenient resting place has been provided near Coeur d'Alene, complete with all the ritual, candles and incense anyone might want. But there's no rest there, only turmoil. For those loyal Schuckardt followers at a distance Coeur d'Alene provides words of wisdom, sugary holy pictures, and photos of Schuckardt seated in the center of his nuns, each with a fixed smile.
One more item by Peter Anson on the old theosophist Bishop Leadbeater of the Liberal Catholic Church, offshoot of the schismatic Old Roman Catholic Church from whence Schuckardt got his "Orders": "All sorts of strange things happened when Lady Emily and her two daughters were members of Leadbeater's mixed confraternity. One day the Bishop told her that the Masters had revealed to him that she was to propagate a new form of Mariolatry, and that he would get in touch 'on the astal' with Mahachohan (Buddha's favorite disciple), and find out if he approved. Lady Emily was advised to consult the Lord Maitreya, and the following morning she awoke with certainty that He meant her to be a sort of Theosophist St. Louis Mary Grignon de Montfort, and promote true devotion of our Blessed Lady . . ." I mention this to give some idea of the possibilities of the so-called Marian age, which according to certain cultists we are now in. Very strange indeed it is compared to the true Marian age of the Middle Ages, from which true cult of the Virgin sprung most of the great gothic cathedrals. A shadowy cult or occultism lurks behind much of today's false traditionalism and prophecies.
The main point I would stress here is that having put himself forward as Brother Orthodoxy, speaking out vehemently against the destructive works of Paul VI, by then taking unholy orders this man serves the Revolution by setting up a bitter little division among the remaining faithful, and provides for the New Clergy a caricature, a "horrible example" to be used against those who, as simple Catholics, rightly reject the heretical New Clergy's own works. This is what "revolution" means, to turn things around, and it is constantly being done. Again, of course, the potential followers have been around right along.
Another harsh view of man and Salvation is that of the followers of Father Feeney, St. Benedict's Center. In writing about this I leave aside the question of whether or not Fr. Feeney was excommunicated, restricting myself to comments on the special doctrinal emphasis propagated by St. Benedict's Center, and by others of the same mind.
As I understand it, Fr. Feeney and company insist that (1) with most rare exceptions there is no salvation except for those baptized with water into the Catholic Church, and (2) in effect they interpret the Papal Bull Unam Sanctam to mean unquestioning loyalty and obedience to the person of any man who gets himself seated in the Papal Chair. It is No. 2 that I am especially concerned about, working as it does to quiet opposition and public protest against Paul VI. That St. Benedict's is also at least ostensibly opposed to Paul's Maniacal Reform only helps to make their doctrine in support of Paul as Pope more convincing to those who are disturbed about Paul VI and his destructive works.
First about the salvation of those not baptized as Catholics. In their "The Dogma of the Faith" booklet, citing the teaching of Pope Pius IX, St. Benedict's reduces the matter for all practical purposes to what is contained in the following words: "Pope Pius IX never says anywhere that (the invincibly ignorant) can get to Heaven without the Faith or the Sacraments of the Church." But, although warning against loose notions on this subject, Pius IX said this: ". . . for God, Who has perfect knowledge, examines and judges the minds, the souls, the thoughts and the deeds of all men, and He does not permit, in His sovereign Goodness and Mercy, any men not culpable of willful sin to be punished with eternal torment." I quote this at the risk of being branded "a right-wing Liberal" by St. Benedict's Center, according to the "The Dogma of the Faith" booklet. The Center had just done with emptying the last part out of the Encyclical of Pius IX, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore.
It is true that the Center admits on another page a "genuine case", the true and invincibly ignorant native. And they "cheerfully believe" that such a man, "on a desert island," apparently out of man's reach can be reached by God with His grace. But they are quick to empty that too out of any but a trace of God's mercy, by adding the following: "The only case on record of an invincibly ignorant native (of good will, of course) is the story of the minister of Candace told in Chapter 8 of the Acts of the Apostles. The grace of God did reach this poor native in the desert by means of St. Philip the Deacon who, brought by an angel, taught him the Faith and baptized him with water (Acts 8:26-39)."
So, says St. Benedict's, it is possible, but there is only one case on record (as though Almighty God can only do what He records for us), and, after all, the man WAS baptized with water -- so there! Presumably those ignorant of the Catholic Church because of the overwhelming weight of heretical teaching in a Protestant society are out of God's reach. According to the St. Benedict's "Dogma of the Faith", to qualify as invincibly ignorant of the Faith a person must be in a desert or on an island, out of man's reach -- as though any kind of contact with humanity were enough to get him the Faith if he wants it, perhaps by osmosis in our modern anti-Catholic or agnostic societies. Thus does St. Benedict's "cheerfully admit" the rare exception and show its low opinion of the "Mercy of God which is above His works," and of His desire for the salvation of all. They admit the possible exception, wherein God may do what He will, and so (they apparently think) qualify as orthodox Catholics, whereas they talk more like Rabbis who insist exclusively on the Letter of the Law, on the outward form, the ritual cleansing.
The mind of the Church on this matter has always been more generous -- more "liberal" if I may say so -- concerning God's mercy toward sinners and the ignorant. The writer of a scholarly article on St. Augustine (Cath. Ency. 1907) says this: "St. Thomas expresses the thought of all when he says: 'It is the common teaching that if a man born among the barbarous and infidel nations really does what lies in his power, God will reveal to him what is necessary for salvation, either by interior inspiration or by sending him a preacher of the Faith." And, "Thus the Doctors most eagerly approved of the axiom: 'God does not refuse His grace to one who does what he can.'" And why should they not, these Doctors, for it was an unbaptized condemned criminal who first benefited by the Blood of Christ's Redemption: "This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise."
These words of Christ surely contain this lesson along with others: that the Law of Christ is one of true spiritual freedom and compassion, opposed to the legalistic ritual washings and three hundred or so precepts of the Rabbis. Surely it was for us men as sensible creatures that our Lord established that the Sacraments were to become effective through water, oil, the laying on of hands, etc. So, although Christ Himself had said that "unless a man be baptized with water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven," Christ could, can and surely does, according to circumstances, dispense with the outward sign. This is not to defend loose notions about the necessity of the Church and Baptism, but only to say that modern errors on this subject do not justify errors of an opposite kind. Anyway, I'll take my chances and believe with Pope Pius IX, who wrote:
"For really when, loosed from these bodily bonds, we see God as He is, we shall certainly understand with what intimate and beautiful a connection the divine mercy and justice are joined together. But, while we live on earth, weighed down by this mortal body that darkens the mind, let us hold firmly, from Catholic doctrine, that there is one God, one faith, one baptism. It is wrong to push our inquiries further than this.
"For the rest, as the cause of charity demands, let us pour forth continual prayers to God that all nations everywhere may be converted to Christ. And let us do all in our power to bring about the common salvation of men, for the hand of the Lord is not shortened and the gifts of heavenly grace will never be lacking to those who sincerely wish and pray to be comforted in this light."
It would be presumptuous of me to add anything to these words of Pope Pius IX.
Number Two proposition of St. Benedict's Center, the necessity of total loyalty to the person of the reigning Pontiff. They quote the Bull Unam Sanctam of Pope Boniface VIII, of the year 1302: "We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." Of course. And of course St. Thomas Aquinas, who lived in the previous century, and Pope Pius IX, knew this doctrine and taught about the usual exceptions. As to the possibility of a pope false to his office or a usurper through deceit, simony or collusion with heretical electors, we have an actual instance of this in Anacletus II.
The First Vatican Council in its definition of Papal Infallibility admits the possibility of a heretical or malicious pope. This Council rejected the opinions held by an influential party in the Council that the Pope should be pronounced infallible in all his official words and works. Yet it appears that not only Fr. Feeney and Company but also a few of our well known conservatives never did accept the Vatican One doctrine of limited infallibility; or they accept it only notionally, not really, saying within themselves that God would never permit a really false pope.
But about 150 years after Unam Sanctam Pope Paul IV in a document of equal weight had provided a clarification and extension of the Bull of Pope Boniface VIII. This Bull of Paul IV, Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, and the record of past papal elections of sometimes sorry motives, were certainly known to the Fathers of Vatican One when they defined Papal Infallibility. The Bull of Paul IV says this: "Prelates and popes who turn out to have deviated from the Catholic faith before their promotion are automatically deprived of any authority and office and their promotion is null and void and can by no means be validated." Thus Paul IV teaches the possibility of a heretic being elected to the Papal Office. And he says further about heretical office holders: "It should be allowed to their subjects to desist with impunity from obedience and allegiance" (emphasis mine). Paul IV says even more, namely, that "those who do not desist from loyalty and obedience to those (heretics) thus promoted and installed... act, so to speak, as tearers of the tunic of the Lord, (and) shall be subjected to the vengeance of some censures and punishments." We are also to avoid "heathens, heresiarchs," etc., and all who go along with the regime of one who they know as a false holder of ecclesiastical office. This is to include all the Clergy of whatever state and the laity. And that this state of affairs under a heretic bishop or pope might not be of short duration is indicated by the teaching of Paul IV that "subjects nevertheless remain bound by loyalty and obedience to future bishops, archbishops, patriarch and primates, and to the future Roman Pontiff who accedes to his office in a canonically correct manner." This covers the present situation entirely. And it is quite opposite of the St. Benedict's Center doctrine for keeping us loyal to one whose work is that "Reforming Mania", denounced by Pope Pius X, for destruction of the Catholic Church.
Now in the years I have been observing closely, since the beginning of Vatican II, and writing about these matters this past four years, no single piece of propaganda, and possibly no combination of writings except those of The Wanderer and Remnant has been more effective than the booklet "A Pope in Chains" in keeping faithful, "more-or-less-aware" Catholics quiet about the destructive works of Paul VI. This booklet by Louis Post propagates the same doctrines taught at St. Benedict's Center, and it quotes the Permanent Instruction of Freemasonry, "Let Catholics march under our banner always in the belief that they march under the banner of the Apostolic Keys." What would the Freemasonic Alta Vendita Lodge members think of this apparently whole-hearted cooperation by Mr. Post with their program? Why does Post think the Progressive revolutionists would want Paul Vi in chains? Didn't Montini promote their evolutionist doctrines as Archbishop? And their Ne Order, to be injected into the Catholic Liturgy? And didn't top French Mason Yves Marsaudon dedicate in 1964 his book to Popes John XXIII and Paul VI with high praise for these two men? Indeed he did. Does Post know these things? How about Walter Matt? And Alphonse, Jr? I suspect they do, that they know much more, even as I do who live out west among the trees, far from the main centers of action.
As to, "Let Catholics march under our banner . . ." we even have 'traditionalists', the TFP, who actually wave banners and advertise "The Church, Soul of the Counter-revolution," whereas anyone can see who wants to see that the Montini Modernist church within is, on the contrary, Soul of the worldwide REVOLUTION. But I'm getting ahead of myself.
According to Post in his "A Pope in Chains" it is practically an article of the Faith that we must believe that Paul VI is a prisoner, a Pope in Chains, this Pope who runs all over the world as no pope ever did before. Post heads page one of his booklet, "Why Bishops Revolt Against The Pope". That nearly all the bishops are subservient to the Montini Mafia is shown by their promotion of anti-Catholic reforms, including the Cranmer-Paul VI New Order of Worship for All Religions, proposed at the First Session of Vatican II and carried out by Paul VI. So much for Mr. Post. I have one more gentleman of the St. Benedict's Center line to write about briefly, Father Nugent.
An ardent supporter of St. Benedict's Center wrote to me about two years ago that Fr. Nugent had helped the Center by his missionary trips around the United States. I know that he had stayed at the Center for some time. A group of Catholics in Oregon for whom Nugent said Mass there, invited him not to return after they had pinned him down as holding the same views on Pope and Salvation as they hold at St. Benedict's. In his Christendom Nugent, while not talking Pope-in-Chains nonsense, comes down very gently on Paul VI. In his March and May 1975 issues, in a few pages on the Novus Ordo the old reliable Annibal Bugnini appears as "principal author" of the Novus Ordo -- which is Bugnini's front-man role assigned by the Revolution, as Fr. Nugent surely knows. I quote here a short letter near the end of the May Christendom: "Bugnini's latest coup, a decree 'outlawing' the Mass of Pope Saint Pius the Fifth, must have been greeted with glee in Moscow and Peking, for without the True Mass what is there to stand in Communism's way?" That product of mind-bending would never appear in any paper of mine. Most of its readers will doubtless find Christendom adequate on these matters. I don't. I think it the last smokescreen for those who have begun to see through the other 'traditionalist' rubbish. I know and surely Fr. Nugent knows that it is the Pope who is completely responsible for the Liturgy.
So much for examples of action in 1, 2, and 3 of my list -- the heresy of the Always Infallible Pope, self-deceiving religious sentimentality, harsh views of God's mercy regarding Salvation, and combinations of these. Next, Number Four,
Confusion About the Two Kingdoms:
In my last paper I promised to write about TFP-(JBS)-ORCM, which I put in that relationship. My inclusion of the John Birch Society in an article on Catholic Traditionalists might have occasioned some surprise. I can only say that I didn't bring in Robert Welch and the JBS; that was done by Father Fenton of ORCM. And of course a large number of Catholics have been members of the Birch Society right along.
About ten years ago I had thought of joining the Birch Society, but luckily got hold of Welch's Blue Book and changed my mind. It was obvious from the book that Welch was an agnostic with scant respect for what he calls "Christianity." That he was then a religious illiterate who held the masonic ideal of religious indifferentism is evident from the following statement in the Blue Book: "But I believe," writes Welch, "there is a broader and more encompassing faith to which we can all subscribe, without any of us doing the slightest violation to the more specific doctrines of his own creed or altars of his own devotion. And I believe it is an ennobling conception, equally acceptable to the most fundamentalist Christian or the most rationalistic idealist, because its whole purpose is to strengthen and synthesize the ennobling characteristics of each man and the ennobling impulses of his own personal religion. It is a conception which the Baptist John Birch, the Catholic Hilaire Belloc, and the agnostic Jefferson would alike have welcomed."
Any Catholic who will swallow that has an awful lot to learn about his religion. Anyone who has read the denunciations of Freemasonry, sworn enemy of the Catholic Church, by the Popes, will recognize that passage of Welch's as pure Masonic doctrine. If the Catholic party doesn't know that much -- has never read, say, Pope Leo XIII's thorough exposure of Freemasonry in his "Humanum Genus" -- it should be evident anyway that Welch's words express the One-world, one-church-for-all-religions idea the Revolution is pushing. And if ever a man exposed his ignorance of Catholic thought and writers, Welch did that when he put in the blooper about Belloc, the man who, if he is known at all (as he was to most well informed men of our time) is known for his famous remark "the Faith is Europe, Europe is the Faith." As one critic has written, Belloc was constantly underlining the profound importance of the Catholic Faith as the very soul of Europe, and therefore of our western civilization. What did Belloc mean by "The Faith"? Did he mean anything like Welch's "broader more encompassing faith"? Here is what Belloc said about that in his "The Great Heresies":
"There has never been and never can be or will be a general Christian religion professed by men who all accept some central important doctrines, while agreeing to differ about others. There has always been, from the beginning, and always will be, the Church, and sundry heresies either doomed to decay, or like Mohammedism, to grow into a separate religion. Of a common Christianity there has never been and never can be a definition, for it has never existed."
That is what Belloc wrote. He wrote that way consistently. I think he meant what he said. What reason did Welch have for counting Belloc in on his "broader and more encompassing faith"? a Masonic-Vatican II conception. Welch didn't say.
I have a copy of page 63 of the Blue Book from which I took the Welch quotation. That and the book as a whole show that Robert Welch holds the philosophy of man and his struggle in this world to be purely economic and political, which heresy is Marxist. Christian doctrine to the contrary, developed by St. Augustine in his "City of God" 1500 years ago, and taught in its essence by the Catholic Church since, Mr. Welch does not know, or he has written it off as false. He is by either fact unqualified to lead or advise Catholics in the present crisis of evil.
That Welch and the JBS publications do put out much accurate political information not elsewhere obtainable I do not doubt. I'm not saying that Catholics may not use this information, or that Catholics must abstain from all political initiatives. But it is unquestionable that the Birchers, contrary to Christ's teaching, give precedence to the kingdom of this world. And I have even heard and read Catholic Birchers preaching the monstrous proposition that we must depend on the Birch Society to make this world safe for the Church and the Mass! In fact, this notion is contained in a letter by a Catholic writer in Sangre de Cristo Newsnotes of 2 May 1975, edited by Fr. Dan Jones, ORCM, which I shall comment on presently. Welch and the JBS must not, of course, speak plainly of that significant fact which is the main subject of most of my papers, the religious, moral and political corruption that stems from the enemy of our race and religion seated in the papal chair. So I add the Birch Society to my list of those who, wittingly or not, are contributing to the smokescreen around the revolutionary policies of Paul VI and those behind him.
[...]
✠ ✠ ✠ ✠ ✠
"On the Feast of the Holy Rosary, October 7, 1952, Mar Justinos (styling himself Archbishop of the Old Roman Catholic Church of Germany), issued a 'Bull' in which he accepted into full communion the said Diocese-Vicariate of Niagara Falls, New York, as being the only true and legitimate Old Roman Catholic Church in the U.S.A. and Canada. . ." This from Peter Anson's "Bishops At Large". According to Anson, Mar Justinos says further: "We have condemned the spurious sect known as the North American Roman Catholic Church, and the persons named -- Rogers, Smith, Marchenna, Davis, Kleinschmidt, and G. Shelley."
I've read Anson's thoroughly documented account of the various splits and successions among the "Bishops at Large" of the Old Roman Catholic Church. I wouldn't have any idea at all who among them might with some reason claim to have valid orders. No matter. What I'm interested in at the moment is that, "Archbishop Shelley, still holding the office of Primate," as Anson wrote, "had also acquired the rank of Grand Prior of a branch of the Sovereign Order of St. John of Jerusalem, which had founded a Priory at Shickshinny, Pennsylvania, as long ago as 1906."
About six years ago I received a packed of literature from Shickshinny and was struck by their attack on the Jesuits, who, as we all know, were anathema to the Jansenists at Port Royal and elsewhere. Much later in time -- only a few years ago -- Father Wathen had the following to say in defense of Pichel, boss of the Shickshinny Knights: "Mr. Pichel maintains that the religious body known as the Old Roman Catholic Church was never legally nor justly excommunicated from the Church. He insists that the condemnation of the 'Jansenists' in 1703 by Pope Clement XI was a terrible mistake. He says there is no such thing as 'Jansenism'." Fr. Wathen spoke approvingly about Pichel. He did not dispute Pichel's opinion on Jansenism.
Need I say more about the "Knights" and Father Wathen. Or about their absurd claim to possess a "Privilege of Parallel Authority", an independent Jurisdiction from a pope or popes way back.
There are Catholics who can swallow this stuff. Having been thrown to the wolves by their bishops they turn in desperation to people like Schuckardt, Pichel, and others who offer them candles and incense, and jurisdiction. Recall my quoting Old Catholic Church Bishop Leadbeater: "Among those (who will be living at the time) there are sure to be some who love His older Church and its ritual, and the Old Catholic Church might well offer a convenient resting place for them." The provision of chapels is the specialty of the Knights. And they have an Ecclesiastical Tribunal which is "coordinated into denominational Sections, such as the Roman Catholic Section, the Eastern Orthodox Section, the Old Roman Catholic Section, Lutheran Section, etc." This from Shickshinny, the "Maltese Cross Press", which gives also this information:
"The Tribunal or Committee confers by means of correspondence, sectional meetings, round table discussions, and may sit as a court in preliminary and / or final judgement upon all religious questions including the discipline, doctrine, morals, faith, rituals, liturgy, dogma, jurisdictions, etc., relating to each religious denomination, individually and / or collectively, when being discussed or considered for or applied to a projected Christian unity."
Well, a Catholic has got to have lost most of his marbles if he will go to within a city block of this Operation. But, as I have said, many are desperate for religious consolations; many more are of a Jansenistic cast of mind, including some who reject these desperate measures. So much for the Knights and the Old Roman Catholic Church.
The CTM: I suppose it is mean of me to recall here that Fr. De Pauw, Doctor of Theology and Canon Law, fell into the Shickshinny trap some years ago. Anyway I might as well put in here my few lines on the "Catholic Traditionalist Movement, Inc.". I have their Spring, 1975 publication in which Fr. DePauw speaks for 42 pages, strongly as usual, about the Novus Ordo being Bad, Bad, and Paul VI as not geing good, then on page 43 he says this: "But what would we of the Catholic Traditionalist Movement do if tomorrow Pope Paul -- or his successor -- would infallibly 'ex Cathedra' rule in favor of the Validity of the 'New Order of the Mass' -- even in its 'as is' vernacular version?" Answer: "Traditionalist Catholics would then do what Real Catholics always did when faced with an infallible 'ex Cathedra' definition or declaration: Unreservedly and Unqualifiedly Accept It."
Rather disappointing this, coming from a theology and canon law professor. It contradicts the sense of his quotations of Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci in his Spring issue, to wit, that (page 21) "The 'New Mass' (is) Infidelity to that deposit of Doctrine to which the Catholic is bound forever." And on page 12, "Popes never contradict each other . . . in Essential Matters." Doesn't Fr. DePauw know what are essential matters? And (page 11) "Quo Primum of St. Pius V . . . NOT REVOKED". Page 22, "The New Mass. . . 'A Denial of all Catholic claims to be the True Church'. . . Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci."
Back to page 43: "There remains, of course, always the possibility -- and how we continue praying to see that happen during Paul VI's reign -- that the Supreme Shepherd, realistically appraising what the 'liturgical renewal' did to his flock, calls an end to the 'New Mass' experiment, and firmly orders his priests to return at once to the exclusive use of the so-called Tridentine Mass of St. Pius V. . . . What a sigh of relief such a decision would bring to Catholic homes, rectories -- Yes! -- bishop's residences all over the world! And how such a decision could then turn Paul VI overnight from one of the most unpopular popes in history to one still capable of earning a respectable niche in the gallery of Roman Pontiffs."
Just like that, overnight. This is dream stuff. There isn't the slightest sign of any yearning in rectories and among the bishops and the generality of Catholic laity for the true Mass. Most priests today don't believe as Catholics about the Mass. They have become just what their actions signify, Protestant ministers. And is this one Command, contradictory to all he has said and done, all it would take to earn Paul VI a "respectable niche among the Popes"? A whole generation of young people has been lost to the Church during Paul's time -- certainly not a "reign" as Fr. DePauw calls it. These are facts and it has been my main concern to show in this paper that most "traditionalists" have been, wittingly or not, setting up smokescreens around the truth of what is being done to us and the Faith by this crooked man in the papal chair.
With these few paragraphs on "CTM" I end my remarks on the main traditionalist confusers in the United States.
I make no adverse judgments about anyone's good intentions. As usual in my papers, I have restricted to remarks to information available to anyone, mostly taken from publications of the party criticized, although I have much more information at hand. I have written only against those who have put themselves forward as guides through the foul growth of Vatican II, and who then, intentionally or not, deceive by printing only the news that fits their weak resolve, mistaken or unworthy purpose -- suppressing, glossing over, or explaining away the words and works of destruction by the man, Paul VI, now in the papal chair. This deception by silence, omission, etc. cannot be justified by "mantle of Noah" considerations. Paul VI is not drunk or drugged. Without a doubt he knows what he does. He plays his part well, as he did before and during the Council. The simple faithful are taken in by Paul with the aid of traditionalist "defenders" of the Faith -- defenders who are weak in the Faith, weak in the head, or heretics.
The most "advanced" method designed to confuse the more "aware" resisters of Paul VI and his works is to build up a convincing exposé of the evils of Vatican II, citing orthodox writings, including those of Pope Pius X, then, near the end of the book or article quote Paul VI as deploring how the poor Catholic people are being taken in by "neo Modernism", or some such remark. The method is to play it straight, simply speaking as though the heretical works of Paul Vi do not exist. I have a thin book of this kind written by a Bishop Graber of Regensburg, Germany. It sounds good; it is a lie. If the author was concerned mainly with the fact and background of the Modernist heresy he writes about, even quoting "Pascendi" of St. Pius X, why didn't he leave out Paul VI entirely, which would be bad enough? Bishop Graber certainly cannot be ignorant about the destructive works of Paul VI. From reading this book the not very discerning reader will get the impression that Paul VI is on the side of St. Athanasius, who appears in the title. No wilder notion has ever been sown. I quote here from my Letter No 1 on this matter: "Bishop Graber devotes much space to the presumably orthodox wisdom of Fr. Karl Rahner. Why Rahner, of all the phonies? Can it be because Rahner has a useful device, "cryptogamous heresy" which we are supposed to believe, no pope can dispel by words or deeds? This notion supports Pope Paul's hand-wringing, weeping "I will wait for Christ to calm the storm" posture. The most significant truth about Rahner's crypto heresy or immanent apostasy is that it receives its greatest impetus from attendance at the Novus Ordo, the "New Mass" which in no way has K. Rahner or Paul VI (nor Bishop Graber surely) condemned."
This is the kind of thing any writer trying to tell the truth about Paul VI is constantly up against. It comes from stuffed-shirt conservatives, phony seers, "Pope in Chains" writers, Modernists posing as traditionalists. There is nothing or no one person these people will not use: Our Lady of Fatima, St. Louis Mary Grignon de Montfort, Padre Pio, even St. Athanasius and Pope St. Pius X. I do not put aside the possibility of subversive human direction behind some of this, but think it mainly stems from self-delusion made possible by the soft-headed characteristic of this modern age. The work of the old Rationalists, Positivists and today's Progressives has resulted in mental and spiritual degeneration, tending towards the lowest human forms and religions. In this connection a few more words from Belloc's "The Great Heresies": "The Faith and the use of the intelligence are inextricably bound up. The use of reason is the main part--or rather the foundation of all inquiry into the highest things." It is apparent that on all sides today there is taking place an insane search into the lowest things. It is the Devil's own time.
Morally speaking, there are two kinds of lowness, one physical, emotional, sensual, the other which makes false, deceitful use of spiritual things. I have before me a list of chapels in the United States where the true Mass is said to be available. This list (not that by Prof. Jansky) bears the name of a man, Donald Craney, who is well known to be a Schuckardite, and includes Schuckardt chapels, OSJ, and those of Feeneyites, but not identified as such. So, it is assumed that these schismatics are welcome everywhere as traditionalists.
For the simple Catholic who only wants to remain such there are traps to the left and, in a manner of speaking, to the right -- actually all the devil's own left. ("Sit thou at My right hand. . .") Many good Catholics are taken in by appearances. After all, a Schuckardt chapel has the same kind of candles and incense as any other -- and what a contrast to the disturbed Catholic's own idiotic and heretic parish church. So in he goes, not discerning of what Spirit it is.
Thus far I have written mainly of the traditionalist leader-confuser. What about the majority of those Catholics who call themselves traditionalists? I am certain that most of these people want only to keep the Faith as simple Catholics. They ask only for a sane and faithful Clergy, an orthodox liturgy and certainly valid Sacraments, which they have the right to demand. For four years now it has been my privilege to receive letters from such people, which letters reflect mainly kindness and fidelity to the Catholic Faith. Most of these people want only to know what is right to do, or to refrain from doing, which regard to the frightful chaos spawned by Vatican II. My advice -- many ask for it or I'd never have ventured to give it; some might better advise me -- is what it has been right along: Stay away from organizers, especially the "promoter" types whose aim, so they say, is to convert the whole world and save our civilization. Sane and saintly men and women do not talk like that, putting out glossy magazines depicting deeds they never did, or which amount to no more than a puff of smoke.
Among the traditionalists are a fair number who, in the spirit of safety-first, makes deals with the local New Church Clergy for a Latin Mass. The time during which this has been possible seems about past, but it is well to remain alert. Paul VI has said that maybe we will get back to having Latin hymns at least. Remember in this connection the words of theosophist Bishop Leadbeater about "those who will love His older ritual," and that the strange "church" they are building (now the counter-church within) is intended to be the Universal Church of Man. As such it would logically turn to Latin as a common language. Recall what I wrote pages back, that "God does not refuse His grace to one who does what he can." Recall too that "those who do not desist from loyalty and obedience" to a heretic pope and those clergy who support him are guilty with them. We have only one basic obligation -- to keep the Faith.
To complete this paper on the Catholic Traditionalists I must mention Veritas and the Voice. Veritas comes down heavily on the Jews, who the editors see as the Enemy who has sown the cockle in the field of Holy Mother Church. The Voice has published the writings of Dr. Hugo Kellner who was the first to my knowledge to expose the heresies of Paul VI. It was Kellner who uncovered for the Voice the Encyclical of Pope Paul IV (1559) on Papal Authority, which I have quoted in this paper. Both papers appeal to a limited readership, as all must who speak the truth about the Montini pope. As an amateur writer I'm sure there are other reasons why my own papers do not receive a wider reception. As to these others, my one criterion in all this has been that of truthful reporting, not literary excellence. I have headed my previous papers "To be of the truth. . . ", an expression of St. John the Apostle. It is only in truth that faithful Catholics can find unity.
I do not approve any traditionalist publication unreservedly. Two of the better ones refused to say anything against Schuckardt when given reliable information about him before he took unholy orders. One replied, "We do not attack other traditionalists." And I dislike and am uneasy about sectarian postures, word mannerisms and all that departs from the simplicity of the Catholic name, spirit and doctrine. I remain wary of the spirit which guides even the best. I myself read them for the truth they contain -- truth or silence or token truth about the Montini pope and those behind him.
I won't attempt to include in this paper all the minor traditionalist operations, but would add that I do NOT recommend the Catherine Emmerich Shrine at Feasterville, Pa., nor Fr. Nelson's Powers Lake Center, nor the traditionalist group at Houston -- although, no doubt, many good Catholics support these activities. There are others, but I must leave them to the reader's judgement, or of this long letter there will be no end.
What about W. F. Strojie? I have never called myself a traditionalist. And my outline for this paper did not include space for writers of occasional papers, but only for those who at least make pretense of considerable influence among Vatican II resisters. But I will answer the question. I'm an ordinary Catholic layman, retired about fifteen years ago from the United States Navy. In my papers I have stayed close to publicly known facts, and to Catholic doctrinal authorities, especially Pope Pius X. My message has been simple: "See the Great Deceiver in the Papal Chair. It is a sin for Catholics to close their eyes to this truth. Those who deliberately gloss over it are deceiving those they pretend to guide."
I have no organization, solicit no funds more than a few dollars occasionally from readers to pay costs of printing and mailing. I do not try to build up a large mailing list, but rather limit it to those who are earnestly concerned only about keeping the Faith. I have sent money back to people I judged weren't in accord with my convictions. My own position with regard to the present state of the Church is simply this: Our local parish has the Cranmer-Paul VI Novus Ordo, the so-called New Mass, and uses the Vatican II heretical teaching manuals. It is the same with our neighboring parishes, so I do not attend their functions or support them in any way. I remain loyal to the Papacy and to those orthodox bishops, known or unknown, who remain to us. May God in His goodness soon bring them together.
I hold no Jansenist or Montanist notions about the Sacraments and those who administer or receive them. Such cautions as are contained herein are based on the Church's own teaching -- that heretics, schismatics and those who because of irregularities of marriage or separation, or other impediments, may not receive the Sacraments. These remarks are addressed to my regular readers and correspondents who want only to live and die and a simple Catholic. I hope for nothing less for those whom I have criticized.
