Can we recognize and resist?

On Wayward Pontiffs

“Peter has no need of our lies or flattery. Those who blindly and indiscriminately
defend every decision of the Supreme Pontiff are the very ones who do most to
undermine the authority of the Holy See - they destroy instead of strengthening
its foundations," Bishop Melchior Cano O.P., a theologian of the Council of Trent.

Can We Recognize and Resist?

By Robert J. Siscoe
“Our ultimate purpose is that of Voltaire and the French Revolution: that is, the total annihilation of Catholicism and even of the Christian idea (…) In a hundred years time… the bishops and priests will think they are marching behind the banner of the keys of Peter when in fact they will be following our [Masonic] flag… the reforms will have to be brought about in the name of obedience”. (Alta Vendita)


Archbishop Lefebvre famously said Satan's masterstroke in our day “is to have succeeded in sowing disobedience to all of Tradition in the name of obedience.” Indeed, over the past 50 years the entire “face” of the Church (what is seen) has been transformed in the name of obedience. Like our Lord during His Passion, the Church today is no longer recognizable, except in those places where Tradition has been maintained. A new religion has emerged within the walls of Holy Mother Church, which has supplanted, and all but eradicated, the “old religion”.
This has been accomplished, not only by a corruption of the liturgy, as found in the New Mass (the vehicle of the New Religion), but also by discouraging those aspects of Catholicism that are contrary to the New Religion (Masonry), while encouraging only those aspects of the Faith that can be reconciled with the humanistic teachings of the Masonic sect. Hence, helping the poor and needy, and speaking of the infinite mercy of God (certainly aspects of the Faith), are quite acceptable in the modern Church, while speaking about the frightful justice of God, politically incorrect dogmas such as hell, or No Salvation Outside the Church, are discouraged if not outright forbidden. Overtime, this tactic has transformed much of the Church into a humanistic organization, perfectly compatible with Masonry, and utterly devoid of the supernatural.
Hold to Tradition

In St. Paul’s second letter to the Thessalonians, he discusses the great apostasy that will precede the rise of the antichrist. He notes that during this time men will lack love for the truth, which God will punish by sending them “the operation of error…that all may be judged who have not believed the truth.” He then admonishes the Thessalonians, “stand fast, and hold to the traditions which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle”, thereby showing that adherence to tradition is the antidote that will protect them from being led astray during the time of apostasy.

Four Centuries later, St. Vincent of Lerins asked what Catholics should do if the entire Church was infected by a “novel contagion”. He explained that, at such a time, the safe path is to cleave to tradition. He wrote:
"What then will the Catholic Christian do, if a small part of the Church has cut itself off from the communion of the universal Faith? The answer is sure. He will prefer the healthiness of the whole body to the morbid and corrupt limb.

"But what if some novel contagions try to infect the whole Church, and not merely a tiny part of it? Then he will take care to cleave to antiquity (tradition), which can never be led astray by any lying novelty.”

In explaining this point further, St. Vincent said we must “take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all”, and then added:
“We shall hold to this rule if we follow universality, antiquity, and consent. We shall follow universality if we acknowledge that one Faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is clear that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent, if in antiquity itself, we keep following the definitions and opinions of all, or certainly nearly all, Bishops and Doctors alike.” (1)

Tradition (with a big T) includes both speculative and practical doctrines (2). Antiquity and consent include principles of practical behavior to help guide us in normal and extraordinary circumstances, as well as the writings of the Saints, Doctors, and Church approved theologians who not only teach these principles, but apply them to various hypothetical situations in which the faithful may find themselves. If we find ourselves faced with an extraordinary situation, such as popes and bishops teaching strange, novel, or apparently heretical doctrines, we can turn with confidence to antiquity (tradition), not only to know what to believe, but also how to judge correctly, and how to behave.

Adherence to tradition, understood in both the strict and broad sense of the term, is always the certain path to follow, while novelty has always been the mark of heretics. In his encyclical against Modernism, Pope St. Pius X said, “for Catholics nothing will remove the authority of the second Council of Nicea, where it condemns those 'who dare, after the impious fashion of heretics, to deride the ecclesiastical traditions, and to invent novelties of any kind’.”(Pascendi)

The Seventh Ecumenical Council states, “let everything that conflicts with ecclesiastical tradition and teaching, and that which has been innovated and done contrary to the examples outlined by the Saints and venerable Fathers, or that shall hereafter at any time be done in such fashion, be anathema.”

If we turn to tradition to guide us through the current crisis, we will be on the safe path. If we depart from tradition and embrace novelty, as heretics are want to do, we are sure to fall into error in one direction or another. Therefore, when faced with wayward prelates teaching strange and novel doctrines that undermine the Faith, we need only turn to tradition (antiquity and consent) to know how to respond.
Obedience

What is the obligation of Catholics during the unprecedented ecclesiastical crisis in which we find ourselves? Are we required to simply obey in all things, even when such obedience endangers our faith, and is being used by the enemies within to “fundamentally transform” the Church? Or can we resist evil or destructive commands while continuing to recognize those in positions of authority, thereby preserving the visibility of the Church?

We can certainly resist any command that is objectively evil, and even those that constitute occasions of sin, or represent dangers to the faith. According to Suarez, we should even disobey commands that are contrary to good customs – even if the one commanding is the Pope. Wrote Suarez:
"If [the Pope] gives an order contrary to good customs, he should not be obeyed; if he attempts to do something manifestly opposed to justice and the common good, it will be licit to resist him; if he attacks by force, by force he can be repelled, with a moderation appropriate to a just defense." (3)

In considering the issue of obedience, we should recall that there is a hierarchical order to the virtues. The lower virtues are subordinate to, and meant to serve, the higher. The highest virtues are the theological virtues (faith, hope and charity), which have God for their object. The cardinal virtues (prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance) fall beneath the theological virtues. Obedience is a moral virtue, which is subordinate to (and part of) the cardinal virtue of Justice.

Like all moral virtues, obedience is a balance point – the rational mean - between excess and defect, and as such can be violated in either direction: that is, either by disobeying a just command (defect), or by obeying an unjust command (excess). Unjust laws, which St. Thomas calls “acts of violence, rather than laws” (4) do not bind in conscience, “except perhaps in order to avoid scandal or disturbance.” (Ibid) If the command of one superior conflicts with the command of a higher authority, we must resist the former and obey the latter. Such resistance to a lower authority is not disobedience, but rather obedience to the higher authority. No one is obliged to obey a precept that it is morally impossible for him to fulfill, and if any command is contrary to the natural or divine law, it must be steadfastly resisted. “Authority, be it civil or ecclesiastical, can never oblige a man to commit even a venial sin, for we must obey God rather than man”. (5)

Pope Leo XIII said, “where the power to command is wanting, or where a law is enacted contrary to reason, or to the eternal law, or to some ordinance of God, obedience is unlawful, lest, while obeying man, we become disobedient to God.” (Diuturnum Illud) In another place he explained that “there is no reason why those who so behave themselves should be accused of refusing obedience; for, if the will of rulers is opposed to the will and the laws of God, they themselves exceed the bounds of their own power and pervert justice; nor can their authority then be valid, which, when there is no justice, is null.” (Libertas)

Just as it would be wrong to obey a sinful command, or a command that is “contrary to reason”, so too is it wrong to obey a command that is repugnant to the Faith. This is evident when we consider that the purpose of the lower virtues is to serve, not undermine, the higher. Faith, being a theological virtue, should never be put at risk under the specious pretext of “obedience”.

Now, just as it is sometimes necessary to disobey a positive command (a command to do something), so too is it sometimes necessary to disobey a negative command (a command not to do something), such as when obedience to a negative command would prevent a person from doing what justice and charity demand. If a superior forbad an inferior from paying a bill that he owed in justice (and if the superior did not make other arrangement to have the bill paid), obedience to that command would be unjust, and therefore excessive. For this reason, Pope St. Gregory the Great said:
“Know that evil ought never to be done by way of obedience, though sometimes something good, which is being done, ought to be discontinued out of obedience.” (6)

Notice he doesn’t say that which is good ought always to be discontinued out of obedience, but only sometimes; that is, when it is not contrary to justice to obey.

The notion of “blind obedience” must be properly understood: it does not imply obedience to a command that is sinful. As Pope Benedict XIV observed, the notion of blind obedience is meant to check prudence of the flesh, not prudence of the spirit:
“A superior is not to be obeyed when he commands anything contrary to the divine law, as we read in Gratian…. Neither is a monk to obey his abbot when he commands anything contrary to the rule, according to the well-known letter of St. Bernard to the monk Adam. A blind obedience excludes the prudence of the flesh, not the prudence of the spirit, as shown at length by Suarez.” (7)

Priests who are forbidden by liberal and Modernist bishops to offer the True Mass, when there is no other Mass available, must consider whether obedience to this command is just or excessive. They should also consider that in our day, when the modernist wolves are devouring the flock, the faithful are in desperate need of help.

Refusing obedience to a particular command of a lawful superior does not require that we reject their authority to rule, as such. St. Thomas makes the important distinction between resisting a superior in the exercise of authority, and denying their authority to rule. In his Commentary on the Book of Galatians, he wrote the following about St. Paul resisting St. Peter to his face.
“[T]he Apostle opposed Peter in the exercise of authority, not in his authority of ruling. Therefore from the foregoing we have an example: for prelates, an example of humility, that they not disdain corrections from those who are lower and subject to them; while subjects have an example of zeal and freedom, so they will not fear to correct their prelates, particularly if their crime is public and verges upon danger to the multitude." (8)

In our day, when the Faith is being undermined continuously by ravening wolves in the hierarchy – all the way to the very highest pinnacle of the Church – the faithful are more than justified in resisting them in the exercise of their authority without, however, denying their authority to rule. Those who claim it is not permissible to Recognize and Resist wayward prelates have themselves departed from antiquity and consent, in this respect.
Epikeia

St. Thomas defines law as an ordinance of reason, for the common good, promulgated by one who has care of the community. The purpose of law is to guide man in his actions, so that he will more easily attain the end for which he was created. Due to the Fall, man’s intellect has been darkened and his will weakened. Consequently, man often errs in his judgment (defect of the intellect), and chooses what he ought not (defect of the will). Law is intended to serve as a remedy for these defects. The letter of the law informs the intellect what should be done and what should be avoided, while the sanctions help motivate the will to choose correctly. But, since law is a general ordinance which does not foresee all possible circumstances, it sometimes happens that a law, good in itself, becomes injurious, and therefore contrary to the intention of the lawgiver. In such circumstances, as St. Thomas teaches, “it is good to set aside the letter of the law and to follow the dictates of justice and the common good.” (9)

We have various examples of this in the Scriptures. In the Gospel of Matthew, for example, we find our Lord defending the apostles when, being hungry, they violated the letter of the law by picking corn on the Sabbath. When the Pharisees objected – “thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do on the Sabbath” - our Lord defended them by pointing to David who himself violated the letter of the law out of necessity. (Mt 12:1-4).

This exception to the letter of the law is called Epikeia, or “equity”. Epikeia is a moral virtue, a subjective part of justice (10), and can be exercised toward both positive and negative laws (11). Its purpose is to “defend the common good, the judgment of conscience, the rights of individuals … from oppression by the abuse of power”. (12). Epikeia is good old-fashion common sense applied during extraordinary or unforeseen circumstances. It is a much needed virtue in our day, when the letter of the law is so often used to undermine the faith.

In the current ecclesiastical crisis, one need not scruple when necessity requires that Epikeia be applied. For example, if the only Mass within a reasonable driving distance is celebrated by a liberal priest who regularly preaches heresy from the pulpit, it may be necessary to disobey the general law requiring attendance at Mass, since obedience to the law would constitute a danger to the Faith. In such a case, obedience to the letter of the law would be contrary to the mind of the lawgiver, and therefore the letter of law would not oblige. St. Thomas went so far as to say: “In the time of necessity there is no law”. (13)
Beware of False Prophets

We have seen that obedience to particular commands and to general laws does not always oblige, and refusing to obey a person in the exercise of his authority, does not require a rejection of their authority as such. But what about listening to and following the teaching of prelates who preach strange and novel doctrines? Is it contrary to tradition for the faithful to refuse to listen to such prelates, and/or resist their novel teachings? Quite the contrary.

St. Bellarmine cites divine law (John 10, Mt 7, Gal 1) to show that heretical bishops should not be listened to by the people. He also notes, however, that according to tradition, heretical bishops can only be deposed by the proper authorities. This shows that one can refuse to listen to a heretical bishop without, however, having to maintain that they have fallen from their office. In the following quotation, Bellarmine uses the term “false prophet” to refer to someone who teaches false doctrines, not one who makes predictions that don’t come to pass. He begins by explaining that the faithful can distinguish a true prophet from a false prophet by “watching carefully to see if the one preaching says the contrary of his predecessors”, and then, one paragraph later, he adds:
“We must point out, besides, that the faithful can certainly distinguish a true prophet (teacher) from a false one, by the rule that we have laid down, but for all that, if the pastor is a bishop, they cannot depose him and put another in his place. For Our Lord and the Apostles only lay down that false prophets are not to be listened to by the people, and not that they depose them. And it is certain that the practice of the Church has always been that heretical bishops be deposed by bishop's councils, or by the Sovereign Pontiff.” (14)

If a bishop is found teaching strange, novel, or apparently heretical doctrines, he should not be listened to. Listening to such a one is a danger to the Faith, and therefore an occasion of sin. Since we are required to avoid occasions of sin, we are justified in not listening to bishops who teaching heresy. The same holds true for a Pope who deviates from the Faith by teaching novel or heretical doctrines, which is possible as long as he is not defining a doctrine to be held by the universal Church, since it is only then that the charism of infallibility will prevent him from erring. When not defining a doctrine, popes can, and indeed have, taught error. In such an instance, they can be resisted.

This is explained in the Papal Bull of Paul IV, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, which teaches that a Pope who has deviated from the Faith can be contradicted.
“In assessing Our duty and the situation now prevailing, We have been weighed upon by the thought that a matter of this kind is so grave and so dangerous [to the Faith] that the Roman Pontiff, who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fullness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith.”

Notice, he does not say a former pope (who lost his office due to heresy) can be contradicted if he deviates from the Faith. No, he said “the Roman Pontiff, who is the representative upon earth of God … may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith”. The notion that Catholics cannot recognize yet resist a pope who deviates from the Faith (which is maintained by most Sedevacantists), or that whatever a pope does or says, regardless of how far it deviates from tradition, must be followed blindly and defended (as is maintained by many “conservatives”), is a complete novelty.

When Pope Paschal II, under duress, entered into an agreement with the Emperor which permitted lay investiture (which his predecessor, Gregory VII, condemned and forbade), the Archbishop of Vienne, Paschall’s own legate in France, called a council and declared lay investitures to be heretical. At the Council, three men who were later canonized (Bruno of Cologne, Hugh of Grenoble, and Godfrey of Amiens), as well as the future Pope Callistus II, all demanded that Pope Paschal renounce the agreement he made with the Emperor. They informed him that, should he fail to do so, “we will be obliged to withdraw our allegiance from you.. In the end, the Pope admitted he was wrong. “I confess that I failed” declared the repentant Pope, “and ask you to pray to God to pardon me”. (15)

Bishop Melchior Cano O.P., a theologian of the Council of Trent, said indiscriminate loyalty to a pope does not strengthen, but rather undermines his authority:
“Peter has no need of our lies or flattery. Those who blindly and indiscriminately defend every decision of the Supreme Pontiff are the very ones who do most to undermine the authority of the Holy See - they destroy instead of strengthening its foundations". (16)

In the following quotation, St. Thomas explains why it is that we must resist the preaching of a prelate when it is contrary to the Faith. He also explains how the faithful are able to discern these errors. He notes that the habit of faith (the supernatural virtue of faith) gives the faithful an inclination contrary to such errors. This explains how those with the Faith instinctively know when a prelate is teaching errors (even if they don’t know exactly how to refute them), and it also explains why “Catholics” on the Left are utterly blind to such a reality:
“Because, as a man ought to obey a lower power in those things only which are not opposed to the higher power; so even a man ought to adapt himself to the rule in all things according to its mode; on the other hand, a man ought to adapt himself to the secondary rule in those things which are not at variance with the primary rule: because in those matters in which it is at variance, it is not a rule: On that account, one is not to give assent to the preaching of a prelate which is contrary to the faith since in this it is discordant with the primary rule. Nor through ignorance is a subject excused from the whole: since the habit of faith causes an inclination to the contrary, since it teaches necessarily of all things that pertain to salvation.” (17)

The deposit of faith (Tradition) is the primary rule; the teaching of the bishops is the secondary rule. If the secondary rule deviates from the primary rule, the secondary rule must not be followed. And if the secondary rule obscures the primary rule through ambiguous and/or contradictory teachings, prudence dictates that the faithful look to the past, when the secondary rule taught the primary rule with clarity. It is interesting to note that Fr. Culleton, in his book The Prophets and Our Times (1941), stated that the chastisement will be brought about by the Magisterium (the secondary rule) “failing to preach God’s word” (the primary rule).

Our Lord permitted this unprecedented crisis in the Church to erupt during the “information age”. This has both a positive and a negative aspect. It is a positive insofar as the faithful have access to catechisms, the writings of the theologians and the Fathers, the Popes, and Councils – all at their fingertips. If someone really wants to know what the Church teaches today, he can find it. The negative aspect of the modern means of communication is that the scandalous actions and statements of the Pope are broadcast for all the world to see.

The prudent person will use the unprecedented availability of good information to study the faith by reading only the catechisms and encyclicals prior to 1960 (when the crisis erupted), and respond to the negative aspect (knowledge of scandals coming from those in authority) by turning a deaf ear to the novelties emanating from members of the hierarchy – especially those coming from “the very top”, where, according to Cardinal Ciappi, the Third Secret of Fatima predicted that “the great apostasy in the Church will begin.” (18)

There is nothing un-Catholic about paying little or no attention to the currently reigning pope. For the first 1900 years, most Catholics went about their daily lives without being concerned, or even aware, of what was happening in Rome. To demonstrate this, Blessed Juniper Serra, O.F.M, (d. 1784), a missionary priest in California, was so unaware of the goings-on in Rome that he didn’t even know the Pope’s name. In a letter to a confrere in Europe, Fr. Serra asked his friend if he would be so kind as to provide him with the Pope’s name: “when you get an opportunity” wrote Fr. Serra, will you “inform me what the most Holy Father, the reigning Pope, is called, that I may put his name in the Canon of the Mass”. (19)

This shows that Catholics have no duty to bother themselves with the daily or weekly events in Rome – especially during the current crisis, when such events could endanger their faith. On the other hand, since the scandals are being broadcast so widely and doing so much harm, it is necessary for those who are strong in the Faith speak up and publicly resist the novelties that undermine the Faith. In extraordinary times such as these, when the Pope himself speaks with the “voice of a stranger,” (John 10:5) our primary duty is to protect and defend the Faith. In The Liturgical Year, Dom Prosper Guéranger wrote:
“When the shepherd becomes a wolf, the first duty of the flock is to defend itself. (…) The true children of Holy Church, at such times, are those who walk by the light of their Baptism, not the cowardly souls who, under the specious pretext of submission to the powers that be, delay their opposition to the enemy in the hope of receiving instructions [to do so] which are neither necessary nor desirable."
Conclusion

Those who hold fast to antiquity and consent, as taught by St. Vincent of Lerins, will be preserved from many errors during the present crisis. They will know that Catholics can recognize the authority of a prelate, while resisting him in the exercise of authority (Galatians 1:8-10). They will know that obedience to particular commands should be refused when the command itself is sinful (Pope Leo XIII), or contrary to good customs (Suarez), and they will know that obedience to general laws can be set aside in extraordinary circumstances (Epikeia, Mt. 12:1-4). By holding to tradition and the teaching of the Magisterium, they will also know that a pope who deviates from the Faith can be contradicted, without having to declare that he has ceased to be Pope. (Pope Paul IV)

To maintain the straight and narrow path during the present crisis, we simply need to follow the teaching of St. Paul by standing fast and holding to tradition (2 Thess. 2:14) which, as St. Vincent of Lerins said, can never be led astray by any lying novelty”.
Notes
1) The Commonitorium of Vincent of Lerins, R. Moxon, (Cambridge Patristic Texts, 1915)
2) cf. Summa I Q1, A4
3) Suarez, De Fide, (Paris: Vivès, 1958), Vol. XII, pg 321
4) Summa I-II Q 96, A 4
5) Handbook of Moral Theology, Rev. Antony Koch, D.D. (B. Herd Book Co, 1918) pg. 166
6) Moralium, lib. V, c. 10 quoted in The Destruction of the Christian Tradition, Coomaraswamy pg 121
7) Treatise of Benedict XIV, Vol III (London: Thomas Richardson and Son, 1882) pg 59-60
8) Super Epistulas S. Pauli, Ad Galatas, 2, 11-14, lec. III, (Taurini/Romae: Marietti, 1953) nn. 83f.
9) Cf. Summa II-II Q 120, A 1 and 2
10) Ibid.
11) Handbook of Moral Theology, Idem. pg 181
12) Moral Theology, McHugh and Callan, (1958), 413
13) Summa I-II, Q 96, A.6
14) De Membris Ecclesiae, Lib. I De Clerics, cap. 7. (Opera Omnia, Paris: Vives, 1870) p 428-429
15) See: The Destruction of the Christian Tradition, Coomaraswamy, pg 125
16) Quoted in Witness to Hope, George. Weigel, pg 15
17) Commento Sent. P. Lombardo, Vol. 6, (Bologna : PDUL - Edizioni Studio Domenicano , 2000) p 198
18) The Fourth Secret of Fatima, Antonio Socci, Pg. 122
19) The Catholic Pioneers of America, Murray (Kilner & Cp., Philadelphia, 1882) pg 324
from the January 2015 edition of Catholic Family News

-
More by Robert Sisceo:Bellarmine and Suarez on The Question of a Heretical Pope

• • •


Subscribe to Catholic Family News:
a traditional Catholic monthly print journal faithful to what the Church has taught
"in the same meaning and in the same explanation" for 2000 years
YOUR SUBSCRIPTIONS TO THE PRINT EDITION MAKE THIS INTERNET/VIDEO APOSTOLATE POSSIBLE!


[click here to subscribe and get a free copy of the December Special Issueon the 150th Anniversary of Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors]

Remember: supposedly the SSPX is "schismatic" while these guys are snugly ensconced in the bosom of the Church

Trom Traditionalists to Neo-Caths: why Catholics prefers pagans

Robert Allen (syndicated columnist)

New York (RAP) August 17, 2014 - Today we have the honor of interviewing Dr. Trevor Rich, Professor of Religious Studies at Catholic University of Auckland, New Zealand, who is here in New York for a religious studies conference. Dr. Rich is a specialist in the Neo-Catholic Studies program at CUA.

Robert Allen: Welcome. Professor, would you please tell us about Neo-Catholic Studies. First of all, what does it mean?

Trevor Rich: Thank you. It's good to be here. Neo-Catholic Studies is a relatively new discipline in the field of Religious Studies. It's principal focus is on a new set of attitudes and new kind of thinking among Catholic conservatives that emerged following the Second Vatican Council.

Robert Allen: "New kind of thinking"? Does this mean that these Catholics would be regarded as deviating from what has gone by the name "Catholic" traditionally? Would they be regarded as "heretics"?

Trevor Rich: Yes, and no. Yes, their thinking would be regarded as novel by the Catholics of, say, the 1920s, but, no, they cannot be called "heretics" insofar as they continue to defer to the authority of the pope and bishops.

Robert Allen: Can you give us an example of the way in which "Neo-Catholics" are novel in their thinking?

Trevor Rich: Certainly. Although they are widely regarded as the "conservatives" in many respects, over the past 60 years they have played the role of enablers for the progressives. They don't realize this, of course. But it's true. They were the fan club of Pope Paul VI when he introduced the new Mass. Get rid of the traditional Latin liturgy? Sure! Replace Gregorian chant with contemporary guitar songs? No problem! Tear down those old sanctuaries? Pull down the old statues? Take out those traditional altars, communion rails, and confession boxes? Why not? Communion in the hand? Altar girls? Lay Eucharistic ministers? Why didn't we think of that before? Sure, why not!

Robert Allen: Why do you think they went along with all these changes so readily?

Trevor Rich: It's an odd thing, really. It's as if they had some sort of contemporary version of the ultramontanist tendency.

Robert Allen: You mean, they follow the pope in lock step, defend him to the end?

Trevor Rich: In a way, yes. Even when the pope is caving in to the demands of progressives, like altar girls and communion in the hand.

Robert Allen: What about Catholic traditionalists?

Trevor Rich: Traditionalist Catholics had, and still have, a similar sort of die-hard adherence to the hard-line drawn by the Church before Vatican II between Catholics, on the one side, and Protestants, on the other. Traditional Catholics wouldn't, and still don't, readily fraternize with Protestants except for the sake of trying to convert them.

Robert Allen: It's odd, though, isn't it, that St. Thomas Aquinas, whom the Church celebrated as a "Doctor of the Church" had no problem drawing from even pagan Greek sources, like Aristotle, and using their concepts to clarify Catholic dogma?

Trevor Rich: Precisely. Traditional Catholics preferred Greek pagans to Protestants, you could say. I suppose they thought the Greek pagans were "innocent" in a way, while Protestants, even though they were Christians, were contaminated by an overt rejection of Catholicism, so that the intellectual contributions of the Greek pagans were not suspect in the way that those of Protestants are.

Robert Allen: And you're suggesting there's a parallel with contemporary Neo-Catholics here?

Trevor Rich: Absolutely. You can see it in the Neo-Catholic abhorrence of Catholic traditionalists, especially groups like the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X, also known as the SSPX, to the point that they would prefer modern pagans.

Robert Allen: Neo-Catholics would prefer the company of modern pagans to that of traditionalist Catholics?

Trevor Rich: Yes, indeed. An example comes to mind from the lay apologetics apostolate, Catholic Answers. A Catholic grandmother was concerned about the Common Core curriculum adopted by her grandchildren's Catholic school. The Common Core curriculum includes many elements at odds with Catholic teaching. Basically the Obama administration's vision for what education should be.

Robert Allen: Politically correct ideas about same-sex relations, contraception, abortion, that sort of thing?

Trevor Rich: Exactly. The grandmother went to see the bishop and it was clear he had no intention of stopping the Common Core curriculum. So she wrote to Catholic Answers ...

Robert Allen: The "lay apologetics apostolate," as you put it ...

Trevor Rich: Yes, and she asked them whether it wouldn't be preferable to sent them to a school run by the SSPX where they would get a "solid," traditional Catholic education.

Robert Allen: From what I've heard, in most diocesan Catholic schools, students don't even learn how to pray the Rosary, is that correct?

Trevor Rich: Sad to say, yes. And someone named Michelle Arnold at Catholic Answers wrote a response dated July 1, 2014, which was since deleted from the Internet, in which she told this grandmother that her children be in a far better environment in the diocesan Catholic school, even with the Common Core curriculum, than in the school run by the traditionalist SSPX, because they would at least be in communion with the Church in the diocesan school.

Robert Allen: I see. She said that the grandmother ought to prefer the Common Core curriculum of the diocesan school to the traditionalist Catholic curriculum of the SSPX.

Trevor Rich: Yes.

Robert Allen: So you're saying, in effect, that contemporary Neo-Catholics prefer the contemporary "paganism," as it were, being imposed by the Department of Education under the Obama administration to the traditional Catholicism of the SSPX that has been declared off-limits by Rome.

Trevor Rich: Something like that. The Society [SSPX] has been seeking to regularize its relationship with Rome over the years, but has been increasingly troubled by what looks from their vantage point like a Church in progressive stages of collapse and de facto apostasy.

Robert Allen: But you're saying that the content of their education [that of the SSPX] would be far more Catholic than what the children would receive in the diocesan school with the Common Core curriculum.

Trevor Rich: Without question.

Robert Allen: Well, can you tell us, Professor, what would be your assessment of these tendencies you've observed both among Catholic traditionalists and Neo-Catholics? Why, may we ask, do Catholics prefer pagans?

Trevor Rich: Each group "prefers pagans," to borrow your expression, for different reasons. Traditionalists prefer classical pagans to Protestants because they wish to preserve the classic Aristotelian-Thomist synthesis that has been such a historical bulwark in articulating and safe-guarding Catholic tradition. Neo-Catholics prefer the paganism of anti-Catholic modernity to the Catholicism of traditionalists that has been declared off limits by their bishops.

Robert Allen: What do Neo-Catholics think of Protestants?

Trevor Rich: The irony is that Neo-Catholics embrace Protestants as fellow-Christians. They wouldn't dream calling them "heretics." I would imagine that nearly any "conservative" Catholic today, Karl Keating, Jimmy Akin, Mark Shea, etc., would answer the question posed by that grandmother pretty much like Michelle Arnold did.

Robert Allen: They would have more of a problem with the grandchildren being sent to a traditionalist Catholic school administered by the SSPX than an essentially "paganized" Catholic school?

Trevor Rich: Right. In fact, the irony runs even deeper. I don't imagine these Neo-Catholics would have any serious problem with those grandchildren being sent to a Methodist or Lutheran school, at least as long as there weren't a better option available, but try proposing the idea of sending them to a traditional Catholic school administered by the SSPX. Their heads would spin. Think about this in relation to how a traditional Catholic would react. Pretty amazing.

Robert Allen: Very interesting indeed. Thank you Professor for your very engaging and illuminating discussion of these issues. I hope we can look forward to the pleasure of seeing you again.

Trevor Rich: Thank you. My pleasure.

Vatican hires lay apologist Dave Armstrong to help Pope Francis explain himself

Dave Armstrong may not be a prodigious self-absorbed promethian neo-pelagian (to borrow Pope Francis' expression), but he is most certainly a prodigious writer. Just to browse his website and list of publications is almost dizzying.

One of the gems you will find among his publications is a title called Pope Francis Explained: A Survey of Myths, Legends, and Catholic Defenses in Harmony with Tradition.

This must be the title that caught the eye of Pope Francis (or one of his Vatican associates), when Armstrong was recently contacted by the Vatican for the express (alleged) purpose of helping the Holy Father present himself in public and manage the problem of media spin.

"It's absolutely astonishing," stated an anonymous Vatican spokesperson, "but this American lay apologist seems to understand the mind of Pope Francis better than the Holy Father does himself."

There's no question the See of St. Peter could use a little help these days, since there are so many conflicting media markets to consider, from the readers of L'Osservatore Romano, ZENIT, Our Sunday Visitor, and National Catholic Reporter, to The Advocate (LGBT) and The Huffington Post.

"It's hard keeping everybody happy," stated the Vatican spokesperson. "We need someone who knows the mind of the Holy Father and can bring clarity to our message."

There was some mention of Armstrong teaming up with another American lay apologist, Mark Shea, who has previously been contacted by the Vatican for similar purposes, although it was not immediately clear what sort of collaboration might be involved.

The rotten truth about Radical Islam

Rumoured: Pope Francis seeks advice from US apologist Mark Shea on October Synod

Robert Allen (syndicated columnist)

Rome (RAP) - Sunday, July 6, 2014. Our Rome press office was contacted by an anonymous Vatican representative today, claiming that Pope Francis has been trying to reach Mark Shea, a Seattle-based US Catholic apologist for "advice."

The staff member of our Rome office who received the anonymous tip was initially dismissive. Upon further enquiry, however, the Rome office decided there was sufficient credibility to pursue the case. "Who's to say what can happen these days?" asked Tim Stuart, the staffer who took the call. "Things are just crazy enough sometimes, they can turn out to be true."

After several minutes of conversation with the Vatican agent, Stuart asked what possible reason the pope could have for seeking the advice of an obscure American apologist.

The unnamed Vatican representative was reported to have replied that the pope was seeking Shea's advice on the upcoming October Synod.

"The Holy Father is seeking the help of Mr. Shea in walking him through various schemas that could form the basis of a magisterially appropriate response to the conflicting voices jockying for a place of influence around the table this October," said Mr. Stuart.

When asked why the services specifically of Shea were being sought, rather than those of, say, Gerhard Ludwig Cardinal Müller, Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican representative reportedly replied that Pope Francis was an avid reader of Shea's blog, and had concluded that the future of the Church lies in the hands of Evangelical converts to the Catholic faith such as Mr. Shea.

"In particular, the pope reportedly cited Shea's 'zealousness' and 'clarity', as well as his more open attitude toward the socialistic mind-set of South Americans and the plight of the vulnerable and oppressed. This appears to be what won him over," declared Stuart.

Also cited was the optimism of Shea's blog title: "Catholic and enjoying it", according to Stuart.

When asked to summarize what he could surmise of the pope's thinking from this admittedly-sketchy hearsay evidence, Stuart suggested that the pope seems to be smitten with the "certitude" of Shea about his own Catholic convictions.

"It seems like he [the pope] finds in Shea someone who is more sure of what he believes to be true Catholic teaching than he may be sure of himself," said Stuart. "It's almost as if he sees Shea as a study in what it means to be authentically Catholic today, someone who 'makes a mess of things' (as the pope encouraged his followers to do) and who also 'enjoys it.' In fact, it could be that the pope shies away from the hard doctrinal stuff and sees Shea as the guy who could do this and yet put a good face on it."

While the report is based on little more than rumour, hearsay, and speculation, and could easily come to nought, in today's media world there is also just as likely a chance that we could be standing on the biggest bombshell case of a pope reaching out from the Sea of Peter to an obscure member of the laity in order to solicit his help in clarifying Church doctrine. The result would be stunning, historical, even earth-shaking.

Clearly this would take the papacy into unmapped territory, and it could also mean some questions about the status of Mr. Shea. One staff member in our Rome office asked whether Shea could become a sort of "Super-Pope." The prospect is unlikely, of course, although some contacts in Seattle have suggested that Shea would welcome such a prospect.

"I am not an 'obscure American apologist'", Shea is reported to have responded. "I am a very 'big' man in Catholic circles. I could help the pope sort things out." I

Why are Neo-Caths so afraid of being called "Neo-Caths"?

Robert Allen (syndicated columnist)

New York (RAP) June 14, 2014 - A storm of protests by Neo-Catholics who consider being called "Neo-Catholics" the moral equivalent of the N-word led Wikipedia editors to suppress their entry on "Neo-Catholicism" today at 23:25 PM EST. The previous attempt at a similar entry was deleted on February 16th of this year.

We managed to track down one of the original contributors to the Wikipedia entry on "Neo-Catholicism," Daniel Ferrara, and one of the opponents of the article who successfully lobbied for its deletion, Chuck Shea, who both consented to be interviewed in a conference call:

Robert Allen: Welcome gentlemen. Are you both online with us now? Yes? Good.

Mr. Shea, if we could start with you, we understand that you've been pushing for some time to have this Wikipedia entry suppressed. Can you tell us why?

Chuck Shea: Abso-frickin'-lutely. Calling someone a "Neo-Cath" or "Neo-Catholic" is like using the N-word or calling a fag a "fag." It's hate speech.

R.A.: Can you explain why you think so?

C.S.: Damn skippy. When these frickin' Rad-Trads call us "Neo-Caths," they're sayin' that we're not r-e-e-e-e-l Catholics like they think they are. Frickin' bigots! They're sayin' we're second class citizens in the Church, or not citizens at all.

R.A.: Mr. Ferrara, maybe you'd like to step in and explain your side of the debate. Do you find it insulting to be called a "Rad-Trad," and why do you call people like Mr. Shea "Neo-Caths"? What exactly do you man when you say that?

Daniel Ferrara: Yes, of course. Well, I'd rather just be called a "Catholic," but since I believe Catholics adhere to Catholic tradition, and should do so radically, I would say that it's a label we are willing to wear with pride.

We came up with the term "Neo-Catholic" to refer to those Catholics, like Mr. Shea, who, sometimes through no fault of their own, think that dancing the Hokey pokey during the rite of peace or jabbering nonsense like Pentecostals in the middle of Mass are things that Pope Pius XII would have been comfortable with.

R.A.: So you ...

C.S.: [Interrupting] Sonofabitch! You foam-at-the-mouth Rad-Trads are so sneering condescending! You are so frikin' stuck in the stale, stone-cold petrified traditions of the past! Don't you realize that Catholic teaching develops? H-e-l-l-o!!! Have you ever heard of Cardinal Newman??? Duhh!! Can you spell "doctrinal d-e-v-e-l-o-p-m-e-n-t"?

R.A.: Let me see if I understand you gentlemen correctly. So Mr. Shea, you maintain that the changes in the Church and liturgy following the Second Vatican Council are natural "developments" of Church teaching and that they don't represent a break with earlier Catholic traditions, is that right?

C.S.: Damn skippy. Now that garbage about the Hokey Pokey is just a smoke screen.

D.F.: What about your so-called "speaking in tongues" by charismatics?

C.S.: The Charismatic Renewal is part of the New Pentecost and Springtime of the New Evangelization following Vatican II, you idiot. Even Pope Francis has shown this by recently speaking at a Charismatic conference in Rome.

R.A.: Let me now move over to you, then Mr. Ferrara. If I understand your position correctly, what you maintain is that many of the changes embraced by those you call "Neo-Catholics" since Vatican II are not natural "developments" of traditional Catholic teaching, properly speaking, but departures from it in various ways, is that right?

D.F.: That's right. So by going along with everything from babbling incoherently and calling it a "charism," to holding hands during the Our Father and kissing and hugging and flashing peace-signs at their neighbours during the rite of peace, and talking to Protestants as though they're just another "denomination" in the Church, they're breaking with Catholic tradition. It's simply Modernism. They reject Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors and accept the new "Counter-Syllabus" of Vatican II. That's why we call them "Neo-Caths." They think they have the "New and improved" version of Catholicism. They think they're "new-and-improved" Catholics. They use a new Mass. Gathering Hymns, anyone?

C.S.: You think you're so clever, don't you, you blithering stuck-in-the-mud Rad-Trad bigot! What a sorry, depressed live you must lead! What's wrong with "gathering hymns" or any of the things you just mentioned? How dare you call us "Neo-Caths," as thought we've broken with Catholic tradition? That's nothing short of pure defamation!

D.F.: If the shoe fits, wear it.

C.S.: I question the authenticity of your faith. If that shoe fits, wear that, buddy!

R.A.: We're just out of time, gentlemen. On behalf of Road Apples Press, thank you for sharing your thoughts with us today. We hope to ...

C.S.: [Interrupting] If I could just get in a closing word with your audience about my website. Go to the "gear" link at the top of the page, and you can buy T-shirts, coffee mugs, buttons, barbecue aprons and all sorts of cool stuff with slogans like: "I'd Rather be Roasting Self-absorbed Promethean Neo-pelagians"! You would be supporting our ministry by doing so. Thanks for your business. God bless!