Have the gates of hell prevailed?
No indeed. The fact that in every city and every nation of the world traditional Catholics abound is proof to the contrary. And indeed, the Gates of Hell can never prevail, for even if Catholics are reduced to a handful, it is with them that the faith will exist. One does not need the sacraments or even priests to remain Catholic. The Japanese managed to do so for three hundred years with neither. St. Anthony of the Desert lived for years without the administration of a priest. (Of course, it goes without saying that one is obliged to have recourse to the sacraments when and where they are available.) One must remember that Christ said that when he returned, he would only find remnant faithful - but it is that remnant that will stand out against the Gates of Hell. Nor are we tried beyond our strength - for such is a de fide teaching of the Church. There is nothing that has ever prevented us from being Catholic but our own cowardice or ignorance.
God does not ask the impossible. He does ask that we be Catholic and that we live our faith to the fullest degree possible. He doesn't ask that we solve the problem of a traditional bishop. He doesn't ask that we solve the problem of the pope. We must have faith - as Abraham had faith - that all that happens, and that the future of the Church itself, are within His disposition. But for us as individuals there is only one option. And that is to become or remain a fully traditional Catholic, for as God promised us through the mouth of Matthew, 'he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved.'
To the post-Conciliar Church, to its 'popes' and 'the hierarchy in union with them,' and to the 'world' which they have embraced, I say with St. Jerome: 'Whosoever you be who assert new dogmas, I beg you to spare Roman ears, spare that faith which was praised by the mouth of the Apostle. Why, after four hundred years do you try to teach us what we knew till now? Why do you produce doctrines which Peter and Paul did not think fit to proclaim? Up to this day the world has been Christian without your doctrine. I will hold to that faith in my old age in which I was regenerated as a boy.'
(1) Father Lubac is a great admirer of Teilhard de Chardin and was once considered a 'progressive,' but found himself outpaced by the periti at the Council. He made these comments at the International Congress of Theology in Toronto, Canada, in 1967.
(2) A religion can be defined by its Creed, Cult (manner of worship) and governance. I have said little of the latter, for the new Code of Canon Law functions to bring her governance into line with the new doctrinal and liturgical principles.
(3) Many of these were already 'liberalized' by their education, and were uncomfortable in the traditional Church. They welcomed the changes as a 'liberation.'
(4) If one were to ask a group of ten such 'Catholics' what they believed, one would get ten different answers.
(5) With regard to 'governance', one must distinguish divine laws established by Christ, and human laws established by the Church with Christ's authority. Strictly speaking, one cannot object to the changing of human laws, as this has been continuously done throughout the ages. However, one must distinguish between human laws established to protect divine laws, and human laws established to undermine those ordained by God. The new Church changed divine laws in its promulgation of 'Religious Liberty.'
(6) I.e., for something to be de fide, it had to trace its origins back to Christ and the Apostles.
(7) At least with regard to faith and morals.
(8) Some have described this 'freedom of conscience' as 'the freedom not to have a conscience.'
(9) And this despite the economic failures of every socialist regime that has ever existed - some 66 during this century.
(11) Let not the so-called failure of Pius XII be raised. Listen to the statement of Albert Einstein:
'Being a lover of freedom, when the revolution came in Germany, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had already boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth: But no, the universities were immediately silenced. Then I looked to the great editors off the newspapers, whose flaring editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they like the universities were silenced in a few short weeks. Then I looked to the individual writers who, as literary guides of Germany, had written much and often concerning the place of freedom in modern life, but they too were mute. Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for in truth and moral freedom. I am forced then to confess that what I despised I now praise unreservedly' (Hibbert Journal, January 1944 and quoted by Arnold Lunn in Is the Catholic Church Antisocial?)
(12) As J.M. Cameron said:
'The conflict between the regal and the priestly power... no more exists. No one doubts that in a purely legal sense, the State is omnipotent, and that if and when the command of the State is resisted on grounds of conscience or of interest, there is no body of recognized rules to which a cogent appeal can be made.' (Terry Lectures, Yale Univ. Press., 1966).
(13) Witness, the Church's refusal to condemn Communism at Vatican II and her scandalous treatment of Cardinal Mindszenty. The Iranian ambassador to Rome found it incomprehensible that the 'pope' had not condemned the blasphemous movie 'The Last Temptation of Christ.' However, how could he when he believed in Religious Liberty. The proclaiming of Religiouis Liberty is no protection, for what of the religious liberty of others to suppress my beliefs? It is a folly to believe that liberty and equality can co-exist.
(14) The new Church's relations with Communist countries bear witness to this. John Paul II along with every Polish bishop not in jail, has sworn allegiance to this Communist nation which is openly trying to dechristianize the faithful.
(15) As an editorial in the L'Osservatore Romano (March 3, 1977) stated: 'No one today any longer believes in tradition, but rather in rational progress. Tradition today appears as something that has been bypassed by history. Progress, on the other hand presents itself as an authentic promise inborn in the very soul of man - so much so that no one today can be at home with tradition which represents what has passed, but only in the future with an atmosphere of progress.' Not everyone is so enamored with progress however. As William Morris said at the end of the last century, 'I have no more faith than a grain of mustard seed in the future history of 'civilization,' which I know is doomed to destruction: what a joy it is to think of!' Even a recent editorial of the New York Times states: 'It takes a touching faith in 'progress' - and a certain cultural arrogance - to believe that western science and technology are bound to improve the lot of Third World Peoples. It doesn't work out that way.' The 'Literature of indictment' is full of condemnations of this false 'superstition.' Why is it however such a powerful 'opiate?' Why do those who have placed their faith in the present order of things put so much stress on this concept? The answer is simple. The present state of affairs, as is obvious to any thinking person, is so terrible, and so clearly fraught with danger on every plane, that it is necessary to provide some'hope' for future improvement. Progress has been touted as an aphrodisiac for the discontented masses ever since the Reformation. This along with the falsifying and re-writing of history that presents mediaeval times as 'horrible' - the 'dark ages' convinces modern man that things were far worse in the past and will be far better in the future. (For a more realistic perspective, see William Cobbett, A History of the Protestant Reformation in England and Ireland, Ill.: TAN, 1988.) If modern man were convinced that the present situation was permanent, deprived of the consolations of religion, he would openly revolt and destroy his present masters.
God spoke through Jeremiah: 'You of this generation, take not of the word of the Lord: Have I been a desert to Israel, a land of darkness? Why do my people say 'we have moved on'' (2: 13-17).
(16) It is entirely false to say that the Church is against science as such. Some of the world's greatest scientists have been devout Catholics. Empirical science as a subject is restricted to the realm of measurable facts. Religion is not. It is only when modern science claims to encompass the whole of reality - to be in effect, a religion; or when science is allowed to run amuck without moral restraints - that the Church rightly protests.
(17) The story of SS. Balaram and Josephat are pertinent. Suffering, Illness, Old Age and Death are the lot of man that no Utopian society can remove. Even in Purgatory there is suffering.
(19) Of course many Catholics have accepted evolution despite the fact that scientists consider it a far from proven theory; despite the fact that Scripture tells us all things reproduce 'after their own kind,' despite the fact that Monogenism - that we all descend from Adam and Eve - and Creation ex nihilo are de fide teachings of the Church. Biological evolution violates every scientific and rational principle for it claims that the greater can come from the less. In point of fact, there is absolutely no scientific evidence that can be brought forth in favor of it, and those scientists who do believe in it do so with a 'blind faith.' (For a fuller discussion see: Douglas Dewar, The Transformist Illusion, Tenn: Dehoof, 1957; Evan Shute, Flaws in The Theory of Evolution, Phil: Teamside; and Michael Denton, Evolution: a Theory in Crisis, Essex: Anchor Brendon, 1985.
Mitigated Evolution, or the idea that God works through the evolutionary process, is also absurd. If such is the case then prayer (to change the forces of evolution), charity to our neighbor (interfering with natural selection), and sanctity (a matter of our choice) are absurd.
It is sad to note how frequently avant guard Churchmen are behind in their scientific thinking. Just as they embrace Protestant theologies at a time when the Reformation sects are recognizing their own bankruptcy, so also they embrace scientific theories as fact when they have been all but discredited. John Paul II is a firm believer in Evolution. To quote him directly: 'All the observations concerning the development of life lead to a similar conclusion. The evolution of living things, of which science seeks to determine the stages and to discern the mechanism, presents an internal finality which arouses admiration. this finality which directs beings in a direction for which they are not responsible or in charge, obliges one to suppose a Mind which is its inventor, its Creator' (General Audience, July 10, 1985.) Believe this, and you will believe anything.
The prophet Daniel tells us that Antichrist 'in his estate he shall honor the 'god of forces'; and a god whom his fathers know not shall he honor...' (11:39). What better definition could one give of the 'god of forces' then the current belief in Evolution?
(20) The Baltimore Catechism or that of the Council of Trent.
(21) Quo Primum guarantees the right of a Catholic to say and or attend the traditional Mass, and anyone who denies him this privilege will incur the wrath of SS. Peter and Paul.
(22) The first edition published in 1978 has not been shown to be heretical by a single person. Even prior to this the author carried on an extensive correspondence through Mother Theresa with Cardinal Knox (or his theologian). At the end of this correspondence, which Mother Theresa refused permission for publishing, Cardinal Knox concluded that the author was invincibly ignorant of the Catholic faith, but was unable to tell him on what point of doctrine he was innocent.
(23) He recognizes that baptism is validly administered, as indeed, the valid baptisms of Protestants were always recognized by the Church. But one is never sure about post-Conciliar baptisms, and hence conditional re-baptism is usually necessary. The situation is similar with marriage.