thinking with the church

8/12/2019 Thinking With the Church

1/16

Is Accepting the Novelties of Vatican II

Thinking with the Church?

ByProfessor Dr Brian M. McCall

On September 14, 2011, Cardinal William Levada, prefect of the Congregation for th

Doctrine of the Faith, presented Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the

Society of St. Pius X, with a doctrinal preamble that would become the heart of a

stormy year of contacts between the Roman authorities and the SSPX. Over a year

later, the Vatican seems bound and determined to win some compromise in the

position of the Society, which is the position of Archbishop Lefebvre, regarding part

of Vatican II which appear in direct contradiction to previously defined dogmas. The

Vatican seems to have vacillated between threats of persecution (excommunication)

and conciliation. Throughout the process, the precise position of the Vatican toward

the texts of the Council has been evasive and ambiguous. Can the Council be

criticized? What does it mean to accept the Council? The Vatican communiqu

announcing the presentation of the doctrinal preamble contains an interesting phrase

that might help us to understand the confused nature of the Vaticans position and the

proper Catholic attitude towards Concilar novelty. The Vatican communiqu reads

in part:

[T]he Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith maintains that the

fundamental basis for achieving full reconciliation with the Apostolic See

is the acceptance of the text of the Doctrinal Preamble, which was handed

St. Michael the Archangel Church

of the Society of St Pius X

900 Hor seblock Rd Fa rmingville NY 11738 Ph 631 736 6515

Web www.sspx.org

Issues of the Day no. 1


2/16

over during a meeting on 14 September 2011. The Preamble defines

certain doctrinal principles and criteria for the interpretation Catholic

doctrine, which are necessary to ensure faithfulness to the Church

Magisterium and 'sentire cum Ecclesia'.

The Latin phrase sentire cum Ecclesia means to think with the Church.

This phrase is often used by Conservative Catholics to demand unquestioning

obedience to those presently holding ecclesiastical offices. In their meaning of

the term to think with the Church means to think with the minds of the holders

of ecclesiastical office. If John Paul II disapproves of altar girlor as one

English friend refers to them serviettesaltar girls are bad. If John Paul II then

approves of altar girls well we have to think with the Church and approve of

them as well. Thinking with the Church means keeping up to date with the

latest changes of mind of the current office holders. So if Benedict XVI thinksall of Vatican II is traditional and in harmony with prior teaching well then we

have to think with Benedict XVI. This understanding of the phrase seems to

permeate much of the reported communications from the Vatican to the Society

this past year. The Society is urged to interpret Vatican II in light of the

teaching of John Paul II and Benedict XVI. Thus, even Vatican II is not a fixed

point of reference. Our thinking must evolve to keep up with the changing

interpretations of the current teaching authorities. Rather than an objectivecontinuity of Truth in Church thinking, sentire cum ecclesia requires a

subjective continuity of officeholders.

Yet, this phrase, thinking with the Church is ancient, and possesses a traditional

definition. I recently came upon St. Ignatius of Loyolas rules for thinking with

the Church. Almost half a millennium ago St. Ignatius composed eighteen rules

to be observed to foster the true attitude of mind we ought to have to think

with the Church.1

Examining the text of these rules presents a very differentunderstanding of sentire cum ecclesia, one which I am certain the Society of

St. Pus X and all Catholics committed to Tradition would happily accept and

sign. Yet, when we review these rules in detail we will find that it is those

attached to Tradition and not those attached to the letter and spirit of Vatican II

that are thinking with the Church.

1All quotations from the rules are taken from Christian Warfare, p. 448-451.


3/16

First Rule: We must put aside all judgment of our own and keep the mind

ever ready and prompt to obey in all things the true Spouse of Christ, Our

Lord, Our Holy Mother, the hierarchical Church.

First, we must adhere to traditional doctrine not because of any judgment of our ownbut because of the judgment of the Church over the course of centuries. It is not

because we personally judge the traditional doctrine to be more pleasing or acceptabl(in fact much of it is hard to live by) but simply because it is the traditional doctrinethat we adhere to it. What did Vatican II want to do? It wanted to update doctrine to

be more pleasing to modern man. Archbishop Muller,newly appointed head of theCDF, has declared that we must: always be associated with the intellectualdevelopments of the time, the sociological changes, the thinking of people.

2 So for

His Excellency thinking with the Church means thinking with the people.

Notice the obedience of mind St. Ignatius requires is not to the current people holdinhierarchical offices but to the true Spouse of Christ. Obedience is directed to thewhole entity, the Church, not merely to a part of that entity at a given point in time.Archbishop Lefebvre expressed the same understanding of obedience in his 1974Declaration when he said:

We hold fast, with all our heart and with all our soul, to Catholic Rome,Guardian of the Catholic faith and of the traditions necessary to preservethis faith, to Eternal Rome, Mistress of wisdom and truth. We hold fast,

with all our heart and with all our soul, to Catholic Rome, Guardian of theCatholic faith and of the traditions necessary to preserve this faith, toEternal Rome, Mistress of wisdom and truth.

Those thinking with the Council rather than the Church continually tie themselves noto the whole Church but to the teaching of some particular pope or to the thinking ofthe people. They require acceptance of the novel teaching of John Paul II onsexuality or the hermeneutic of Benedict XVI of reform in continuity. They prefer thpersonal judgment of these popes over the judgment of the whole Church overcenturies.

Second Rule: We should praise sacramental confession, the yearly reception of

the Most Blessed Sacrament, and praise more highly monthly reception, and stil

more weekly Communion, provided requisite and proper dispositions are

present.

2July 2012 interview with KNA, the German Bishops News Agency.


4/16

Praise for regular sacramental confession and worthy reception of the Most BlessedSacrament are hallmarks of thinking with the Church. But since the Council bothhave been either blatantly attacked or given the cold shoulder and pushed to a cornerof obscurity. Hours when a priest is available in a confessional have given waythroughout the post-Vatican II era to the abuse of group general confessions. Overthe years, I have known quite a few people find their way from the Novus Ordoto a

Traditional chapel not because they were looking for the Traditional Mass but weresimply trying to find a Church offering regularly scheduled confessions. The need fosacramental confession is preached regularly by traditionalist priests but utterlyignored by mostNovus Ordoclergy. A traditional chapel can expect a sermon at leaevery few months praising good frequent confessions. The topic is quietly replacedby sermons assuring everyone that nothing is really a sin in theNovus Ordo. As tothe requisite and proper disposition for receiving Our Lord in Communion, which

practice accords with this sentiment: reducing the fast to a measly one hour or

encouraging observance of the former liturgical law of at least three hours or theMidnight fast? How many bulletins or pulpit announcements inNovus Ordoparisheremind people that one must be free from mortal sin to receive Communion? DoesNancy Pelosi read such a warning when she attends Mass? To the contrary,NovusOrdopriests who refuse Communion to public figures clearly known to be givinggrave public scandal are punished and exiled for defending the honor of the BlessedSacrament. If Pelosi went to a Traditional chapel she would find her consciencereminded.

Third Rule: We ought to praise the frequent hearing of Mass, the singing ofhymns, psalmody and long prayers whether in the Church or outside; likewise,

the hours arranged at fixed times for the whole Divine Office, for every kind of

prayer and for the canonical hours.

Who exhibits this praise of hearing many Masses and fostering the traditionaldevotions and (long) prayers? Has the widespread use of a single concelebrated Masby priests in a religious community encouraged the hearing of many Masses or hasthe retained practice of each priest saying his own Mass? Has the widespreadabandonment of disciplined community life which has devastated convents andmonasteries shown praise for reciting the office in common at the canonical hours? Irefer readers to the article of Hillary White in the October 31 edition of The Remnantdemonstrating how saying prayers in Church is met with harassment and ejection in

Novus Ordochurches in Italy. Who is thinking with the Church according to thisrule?


5/16

Fourth Rule: We must praise highly religious life, virginity, continence; and also

matrimony, but not as highly as any of the foregoing.

Are the highly publicized opinions of many bishops around the world that the Churchshould scrap clerical celibacy examples of obeying this rule? When is the last time aBishops Conference wrote a pastoral letter praising virginity and celibacy? A major

change occurred in the discussion of vocations since Vatican II. Now all vocations arpresented as equal and mere matters of preference including the choiceof novocation, or what they now call the single vocation. Yet among traditional orders,

there remain only three, the priesthood, religious life or marriage with the first twobeing praised as higher vocations while still honoring the dignity of the married stateAccording to this rule then it is the flourishing traditional orders with overflowingvocations who think with the Church and not the empty convents and seminariescelebrating the beauty of all different vocations.

Fifth Rule: We should praise vows of religion, obedience, poverty, chastity andvows to perform other works of supererogation, conducive to perfection.

However, it must be remembered that a vow deals with matters that lead us

closer to evangelical perfection. Hence, whatever tends to withdraw one from

perfection may not be made the object of a vow, for example, a business career,

the married state, and so forth.

Who within the Church calls for perfection, for faithfully living according to the

evangelical counsels? Do those who minimize sin or who suggest there is no one inhell? Do those religious orders that revise and update their rule, leave the cloister tolive in apartments, lay aside the habit of poverty for polyester business suits praisesupererogatory works conducive to perfection? Is it rather the groups scorned by theofficial superiors of these ancient orders who must build new communities adheringto the ancient rules of their founders who praise the call to perfection? Do schoolprograms, like the one I experienced thirty years ago, which treat all choices ofvocation as ambivalent choices depending on what is right for you encourage

religious vows? Who thinks with the Church on this point? Those with full convent

and seminaries who preach the way of perfection clearly think with the Church notthose who treat all jobs and careers as equivalent to vocations.

Sixth Rule: We should show our esteem for the relics of the saints by venerating

them and praying to the saints. We should praise visits to the Station Churches

pilgrimages, indulgences, jubilees, crusade indults, and the lighting of candles in

Churches.


6/16

On yet another account, clearly it is the traditional orders who think with the Churchand not the post-Vatican II authorities. Relics are thrown out or ignored. Two yearsago when I went into the Church of St. Zachary in Venice to pray at the relics of St.Athanasius, I went to the gift shop to try to buy a holy card or statute of St.Athanasius to touch to his reliquary. The gentleman running the store had no ideawho St. Athanasius was or that his relics were enshrined in that very Church. He trie

instead to sell me a poor reproduction of a Botticelli paining. We traditionalists havecollected relics from all over the world which were being thrown out or sold byparishes or religious communities no longer wanting to venerate these great heroes othe Church. Beyond relics, the traditional devotional practices and traditionsmentioned by St. Ignatius, such as indulgences and lighting of votive candles havebeen ignored and discouraged by silence for the past forty years except in traditionalchapels and religious communities. I will not even dwell on the crusadeindult as iis clearly not ecumenical enough for the authorities of today and if mentioned too

much is more likely to elicit a long apology from some bishop for the Church everhaving preached the crusades.

Seventh Rule: We must praise the regulations of the Church with regard to fast

and abstinence, for example in Lent, on Ember Days, Vigils, Fridays, and

Saturdays. We should praise works of penance not only those that are interior

but also those that are exterior.

On this score, the authorities have abolished the Ember Days, Vigils, Friday

abstinence (with the exception of its recent re-establishment in England) and havereduced to an embarrassing minimum the obligation to fast to Ash Wednesday andGood Friday and abstinence to Fridays in Lent. Acts of penance are treated likeembarrassing old relatives to be shunted off to a dark corner of history. Meanwhilethe statutes of the Society of St. Pius X bind her members to observe these traditionapractices of fast and abstinence on the Ember Days, Vigils and throughout Lent.While those attending theNovus Ordoare congratulated on being nice peopletraditional Catholics are exhorted by traditional priests to embrace penitentialpractices in due measure and due season.

Eighth Rule: We should praise not only the building and adornment of churche

but also images and veneration of them, according to the subject they represent.

The last fifty years have seen churches demolished and pillaged. Altar rails, statues,tabernacles, and high altars have been hatched and thrown in dumpsters. Meanwhiletraditionalists have roamed about gathering up the broken fragments and attempted torestore respect for the buildings and images of the Church. While Cardinal Mahoney


7/16

has spent $150 million dollars to build a monstrosity bearing no resemblance to aCatholic Church, exiled and scorned traditional orders have had to break new grownand build Catholic buildings to house images for veneration.

Ninth Rule: We must praise all the precepts of the Church, remaining always o

the alert to find reasons for their defense, while seeking never to offend against

them.

What have the authorities done with the precepts of the Church? They haveundertaken a two-fold attack by eliminating most talk of them and legislating awaymuch of any of their force. I challenge readers to go to aNovus Ordoparish and takea poll of those coming out of the building and ask them to name even three preceptsof the Church. They have been blotted out of catechetical programs but retained inthose traditional chapels adhering to the Baltimore Catechism of the Catechism of StPius X. Legislatively, the authorities have not treated them with the vigilance and

care urged by St. Ignatius. Rather, they have been eviscerated of much of theircontent. Holy Days of Obligation have been reduced and transferred to Sunday.Days of Fast and Abstinence have been reduced to a handful. The laws of the Churcforbidding solemnizing marriages at forbidden times have been gutted. Dispensationto marry non-Catholics have been handed out like candy on Halloween. About theonly precept still vigorously spoken about in theNovus Ordo is the obligation tocontribute to the support of the Churchafter all the CCHD cannot be deprived of itmulti-million dollar funds! Meanwhile, traditional orders still preach the precepts of

the Church, encourage observance of the old practices of fast and abstinence, andinsist on Catholic marriages except in rare exceptional circumstances.

Having reached the half-way mark through St. Ignatius rules for thinking with theChurch, the score seems to be Traditional societies and orders 9,Novus Ordoauthorities 0. The thinking of the post-Vatican II authorities has been contrary tothese traditional rules for thinking with the Church either by direct opposition anddestruction or by simply ignoring them and making that which ought to be praisedscarce and obscure. Meanwhile rather than being told they need to learn to think wit

the Church, the Society of St. Pius X should be congratulated by the prefect of theCDF for being some of the only people left in the Church still thinking with theChurch.

In part II of this article we will turn to the final nine rules which will include tworegarding obedience to superiors which will require careful consideration.


8/16

Thinking with the Church

Part II

Brian M. McCall

In part I of this article, we examined in detail the first nine rules of St. Ignatius of

Loyola for thinking with the Church. On all accounts those remaining faithful toTradition showed themselves to be thinking with the Church whereas the post-Vatica

II hierarchy has acted in a manner diametrically opposed to every rule. In this part w

will consider the final nine rules St. Ignatius composed to aid us in thinking with the

Church. Living according to rule ten constitutes the challenge for faithful Catholics

of our era. We will thus devote more time to this particular rule.

Tenth Rule: We should be more ready to approve and praise the orders,

recommendations, and way of acting of our superiors than to find fault with them.

Though some of the orders, etc., may not have been praiseworthy, yet to speak agains

them, either when preaching in public or in speaking before the people, would rather

be the cause of murmuring and of scandal than of profit. As a consequence, the

people would become angry with their superiors, whether secular or spiritual. But

while it does harm, in the absence of our superiors to speak evil of them before the

people, it may be profitable to discuss their bad conduct with those who can apply a

remedy.This rule touches on the topic of how we react to the fact of the intermingling of the divine

and human elements of the Church. The Churchs human element explains the existence

throughout time of bad superiors, authorities who issue bad orders, recommendations and

ways of acting. It may be profitable in aiding our understanding of this rule to begin by

distinguishing what it does not say. The rule does not say that we deny reality and declare

bad orders and actions to be good. We should not drape the divine element of the Church

as a blinder to deny reality. St. Ignatius speaks of a spirit, a disposition towards the orders

of superiors not of specific reactions to specific situations. He says we should be more

ready to approve and praise the action of superiors. He does not say we should praise our

superiors wicked actions and pretend they are good. He rather describes the attitude of

spirit we should have. We should want to be able to praise rather than to rebuke. We

should want to see the good in our superiors more than the evil. The final sentence of the

rule demonstrates that the see no evil, hear no evil Neo-Conservative monkeys of the

post-Conciliar era are wrong. What is to be avoided is stirring up the people to rebellion


9/16

and revolution, essentially the approach of Martin Luther in St. Ignatius century. Note,

that St. Ignatius says we are not to ignore the evil done by a superior but we may bring it to

the attention of another or higher superior who can address the problem. Maintaining this

spirit of wanting to be able to approve rather than reprove poses many challenges in an age

when virtually all the superiors in the Church have joined in a conspiracy to think against

the Church. This is an important point of interpretation. These rules are meant to be read

in conjunction not as isolated precepts. Thus, St. Ignatius would not expect us to violate th

other seventeen rules so as to follow one rule. We cannot abandon all the other

requirements of thinking with the Church so as to live according to this tenth rule. Yet, we

cannot simply throw out this tenth rule. We must struggle, and this neo-Modernist crisis w

live in makes it a real struggle, to maintain the spirit of filial love and proper obedience

while striving to honor all the other rules.

For traditionalists there are two forms of error in walking this difficult tightrope. The first

is to become overwhelmed by the evil of the superiors in the Church and give way to abitter zeal. Such souls can come to love the denouncing of error more than the Truth.

Even though the unprecedented crisis in the Church requires us to witness our superiors

issue many evil orders and acts, we must not relish in any way this fact nor the necessary

separation of ourselves from such evil. Many blogs and websites associated with

sedevacantism fall into this trap. They live on broadcasting with glee the latest scandal of

the Holy Father and the bishops. Rather than these cyber-sewers of scandal our model for

this delicate balance should be Archbishop Lefebvre. Certainly, he spoke out publicly

when necessary. He always did so in front of his superiors, either by writing to them

directly or in a public manner. He did not privately stir up ill feelings among people. He

also always spoke in a manner maintaining the desire to approve rather than being forced t

reprove. He always expressed his great sadness for the necessity of what must be done and

a longing to return to a time when the vast crisis would not require his extraordinary

actions. A few years ago, Father Arnaud Rostand, U.S. district superior, wrote to the

members of the chapel where I attend Mass to explain the sentiment of the Society of St.

Pius X on this matter. His words are a succinct and beautiful reiteration of this importantnecessary Catholic attitude as directed toward the Holy Father bequeathed by Archbishop

Lefebvre:

The Society of St. Pius X professes filial devotion and loyalty to Pope Benedict

XVI, the successor of St. Peter and the Vicar of Christ. The Societys priests

pray for the Holy Father and their local diocesan bishop at every Mass they

celebrate. We pray for the Pope but refuse to follow him in his errors on


10/16

religious freedom, ecumenism, socialism, and the application of reforms

destructive for the Church. Our seeming disobedience is in fact true obedience

to the Church and the pope as successor of Peter in the measure that he

continues to maintain holy Tradition. . . All the members of the Society have

one desire to be submitted in filial obedience to a Rome returned to Tradition.

(Declaration of the SSPXs first General Chapter 1982).

We should prefer not to be in the crisis rather than relishing it.

The second error that traditionalists can fall into has been on full display the past few

months. The need to avoid blindly following authority in the destruction of the Church can

never turn into the wholesale rejection of authority in general and the abandonment of

Traditional superiors on merely prudential grounds. Unfortunately a few members of the

Society, including His Excellency, Bishop Williamson, appear to have flirted with this

danger these past few months in their scurrilous attacks on the superior of the Society, HisExcellency, Bishop Fellay. Through recorded sermons and conferences that have spread

like viruses over the internet, a few members of the Society have attempted to stir up

rebellion and revolution against Bishop Fellay (including calls for an Estates General type

act of the General Chapter to overthrow him) on the basis of mere rumor and speculation

about a deal with Modernist Rome that has been shown to exist only in their own

imaginations. Sadly their rebellion has bordered on a renunciation of all authority as such

recommending that hierarchical orders and societies should be abandoned leaving

independent priests, perhaps loosely confederated, as the only option available forTradition. Although we are forced into difficult positions with our diocesan and Vatican

superiors forcing us to choose between blind obedience to destruction and thinking with th

Church, we must hold fast to the spirit of the Church which is built on the principle that

authority and hierarchy are goods. When we are blessed to have a Traditional superior we

should persevere in that filial devotion that we should want to be able to express to all

superiors. The Tenth Rule deserves much contemplation as it can present a path the devil

can use to deceive even the elect.

Eleventh Rule: We should praise both positive Theology and that of the Scholastics.

is characteristic of the positive doctors . . . to arouse the affections so that we are

moved to love and serve God, our Lord, in all things. On the other hand it is more

characteristic of the scholastic doctors . . . to define and state clearly, according to the

needs of our times, the doctrines that are necessary for eternal salvation, and that

more efficaciously help to refute all errors and expose all fallacies. . . .


11/16

This rule encapsulates the wholeness of Tradition. It holds together the entire richness of

the Church without pitting one era or against another. Our attitude must be exemplified

both by Faith and Charity. The adherents of Vatican II, seek to reduce the Churchs

Tradition to the arousal of affections, thinking, falsely, that by ignoring precisely defined

doctrine they will win more followers of Christ through love without precise Faith. Such a

approach reduces Tradition to an anemic love, one without the necessary element of Truth

The thinking of the Church is that error must be refuted and fallacies exposed by precision

in doctrine while at the same time inspiring all to the love and service of God. While the

Vatican II proponents expel scholastic theology from diocesan seminaries and replace it

with the ambiguity of neo-Modernist love doctrines like those of Congar and Balthasar,

Traditional seminaries maintain this important balance instructing in both St. Augustine

(positive theology) and St. Thomas (Scholasticism). Meanwhile the Ecclesia Dei

Commission pressures the Institute of the Good Shepherd to dilute this balance and teach

the Vatican II theologians in their seminary. Who is thinking with the Church here? It isthose who maintain this Traditional theology in all its breadth, beauty, precision and

charity.

Twelfth Rule: We must be on our guard against making comparisons between those

who are still living and the saints who have gone before us, for no small error is

committed if we say: This man is wiser than St. Augustine, He is another St.

Francis or even greater, He is equal to St. Paul in goodness and sanctity,and so on

This rule warns against demagoguery. We must avoid the hubris of thinking our agesuperior to all that have gone before, that we are somehow greater, more enlightened than

those who have gone before us in the Faith. This is precisely the attitude of Vatican II in i

texts such as Gaudium et Spes and the post-Conciliar worship of figures like John Paul II

(called the Great during his lifetime). John Paul II declared he could do something St.

Thomas could not. Thanks to the Gnostic insights of Vatican II which it was his mission t

unpack, he squared the circle of reconciling St. Thomas and Modernists such as Balthasar

and de Lubac. Gaudium et Spes waxes lyrical about the glories of modern man who has

come into his own. The penitential road of the great saints is cast aside for the ease and

laxity of a more enlightened generation. This entire spirit of Vatican II and the post-

Conciliar pop star like World Youth days run completely counter to this rule. Meanwhile,

Traditionalists look to the great Saints as great, as the sure guides to salvation.

Thirteenth Rule: If we wish to proceed securely in all things, we must hold fast to the

following principle: What seems to me white, I will believe black if the hierarchical

Church so defines. For I must be convinced that in Christ , Our Lord, the


12/16

Bridegroom, and in His spouse the Church, only one spirit holds sway, which governs

and rules for the salvation of souls. For it is by the same Spirit and Lord who gave th

Ten Commandments that our holy Mother Church is ruled and governed.

As with the tenth rule this rule must be read carefully. It expresses the attitude of Faith

which is a belief on the authority of God not simply on my own knowledge. As St.

Augustine said, I believe that I might understand. We must believe the truths of the Faiteven when we cannot fully understand them. Yet, the rule does not say we believe to be

black whatever a pope or bishop says to be black. It says we have this belief with respect t

what the hierarchical Church has defined. This is Tradition. We must believe what th

Church over time has always and everywhere taught no matter what the cost. We must no

confuse this principle to mean we must believe every word written by a Council or uttered

by a pope even when they contradict the defined dogma of the Church. I am aware of one

neo-Conservative Catholic exhibiting the typical distortion of this rule to the point of

absurdity. This man declared that if the Pope said that God did not exist then God didntexist. St. Ignatius would I believe get a laugh at such an absurd understanding of his rule.

The proper understanding of this deep Faith looks to the defined dogma not the people

capable of defining dogma. The object of the disposition of the obedience of Faith is the

matter of the dogmas defined by the Church not the persons holding the offices of pope or

bishop. It is the Traditionalist position that exhibits the real adherence to this rule. This

rule requires the refusals of the errors of Vatican II and its progeny. When the current pop

and bishops say you must believe a natural right to religious liberty is true or you must

believe the Jews are saved through the Old Covenant, we must say no, we believe what

the hierarchical Church has defined on these matters. It is the false teaching of many

bishops today that fails to follow this rule. They say the dogma of the Social Reign of

Christ the King requiring all nations to submit to his rule seems false to me so I reject it in

lieu of religious liberty which seems right. The novelties of Vatican II are in this way not

thinking with the Church.

Fourteenth Rule: Granted that it be very true that no one can be saved withou

being predestined and without having faith and grace, still we must be very

cautious about the way in which we speak about these things and discuss them

with others.

Fifteenth Rule: We should not make it a habit of speaking much of

predestination. If somehow at times it comes to be spoken of, it must be done in

such a way that the people are not led into any error. They are at times minded


13/16

so that they say: Whether I shall be saved or l ost, has already been determined,

and th is cannot be changed whether my actions are good or bad. So they become

indolent and neglect the works that are conducive to the salvation and spiritual

progress of their souls.

These two rules touch on a similar topic and can be discussed together. The

relationship among free will, Gods predestination, faith, and grace has been a

mystery which has led to many heresies. It is a mystery how all of these things work

in harmony to permit the free yet foreknown (in God) salvation of some and

damnation of others. From Pelagius to Calvin, those who emphasize one element of

the balance over the others have fallen into heresy and so the mind of the Church has

been to call for caution. Traditional colleges and seminaries have maintained this

delicate theological balance in the rigor of their curriculum. Yet, the post-Conciliar

institutions and theologians have thrown caution to the wind and have held out thefalse hope of universal salvation either through a neo-Pelagian elevation of free will

to the exclusion of grace (all well intended people can go to heaven) or a neo-

Calvinist elevation of Gods predestination reasoning that since God wills the

salvation of all he will achieve the salvation of all. God can operate outside the

normal means of salvation to achieve His providential plan has been deformed into

God will always find a way to save everyone outside the normal means. Once

again the preservation of Traditional theology remains faithful to thinking with theChurch while the novel theologians throw caution to the wind producing modern

Pelagians and Calvinists. The effects of this promotion of the idea that everyone is

predestined to be saved (see Assisi I, II and III for example) is clearly seen in the

post-Conciliar laxity. People act as if their actions do not matter, good or bad. They

contracept, abort, vote for Obama, violate the sixth and ninth commandment, etc.

because after all it really doesnt matter in the end since w will all be saved. Those

practices needed for salvation and spiritual progress are neglectedfasting, penance

confession, pious devotions, and rigorous catechism instruction. Yet, all these

practices are proclaimed and promoted in Traditional chapels where the prudence

advised by these matters as to this great mystery is observed.

Sixteenth Rule: In the same way, much caution is necessary, lest by much talk

about faith, and much insistence on it, without any distinctions or explanations,


14/16

occasion be given to the people, whether before or after they have faith informed

by charity, to become slothful and lazy in good works.

The entire inter-religious dialogue phenomenon of the post-Conciliar era shows the

effects of violating this rule. The premise of these interminable meetings, get-

togethers, and joint-declarations is to emphasize the common beliefs shared between

the Church and [fill in the Protestant flavor of the event] by speaking about a commo

faith without any distinctions or explanations. The result of all the emphasis on a

common vague faith in Christ is the decline in Mass attendance, confession, fasting,

abstinence, penance, religious vocations, missionary zeal etc. Where do these good

works thrive? They proliferate in traditional communities where faith is emphasized

with all the appropriate distinctions and explanations.

Seventeenth Rule: Likewise we ought not to speak of grace at such length and at

such emphasis that the poison of doing away with liberty is engendered. Hence,

as far as is possible with the help of God, one may speak of faith and grace that

the Divine Majesty may be praised. But let it not be done in such a way, above

all, not in times which are as dangerous as ours, that works and free will suffer

harm, or that they are considered of no value.

Again the entire Vatican II platform of laxity and a vague universal salvation violates

this rule. The false idea that God does not refuse to make use of elements ofsanctification in false religions (seeLumen Gentium and Unitatis Redintegratio) talk

about Gods grace as if our choices to persist in error do not matter. When Cardinal

Kaspar announced that the Church no longer teaches the need for conversion, this

promotes an idea of grace as able to overcome willed rejection of Christs Church.

The Vatican II love fest with false religions coupled with disciplinary laxity and

toleration of heresy and grave depravity and abuse at the highest levels leads people

to believe that free will really does not matter. John Paul IIs speculation that hell

might be empty merely feeds this de factodenial of free will. The downplaying of

indulgences which are treated like old embarrassing relatives also leads to this

lessening of faith in the truth that our actions matter. In a twist on Luther the lesson

many have drawn from the nice guy approach has been sin and sin boldly because we

are all saved anyway. Meanwhile, Traditional clerics preach the necessity to avoid

mortal sin, that one un-repented mortal sin will condemn a soul to hell. Traditional


15/16

chapels likewise promote indulgences, pilgrimages, retreats, fasting, abstinence,

mortification, works of charity, reinforcing the idea that our willed actions will

determine our eternal destiny.

Eighteenth Rule: Though the zealous service of God, our Lord, out of pure love

should be esteemed above all, we ought also to praise highly the fear of the

Divine Majesty. For not only filial fear but also servile fear is pious and very

holy. When nothing higher or more useful is attained, it is very helpful for risin

from mortal sin, and once this is accomplished, one may easily advance to filial

fear, which is wholly pleasing and agreeable to God, our Lord, since it is

inseparably associated with the love of him.

This final rule presents a final condemnation of the Vatican II ethos. From the new

Mass to the new Catechism to the new Code of Canon Law to the new sappy religiou

images, all has been revised to ignore or avoid praising the fear of the Divine Majesty

God is love, Jesus loves you, although true,have become the nearly exclusive

refrain of pope, bishops and clergy. The New Mass was created to remove the servil

fear of God. Christs body is received standing in the hand as an equal rather than

humbly kneeling and on the tongue. The Traditional Mass is the meanspar

excellence to praise both the love and fear of the Divine Majesty. Its prayers, its

gestures, its very spirit breathe forth both the love and the fear of Gods Divine

Majesty. TheNovus Ordomerely celebrates Gods love of the community gathered

together. Which of the two expresses the thinking of the Church?

To conclude part II we have confirmed the conviction of Vatican II and its progeny a

not thinking with the Church. All the novelties that are hallmarks of the crisis in the

Church, the New Mass, rejection of scholasticism, the new catechism, the disciplinar

laxity, the lack of precision in doctrine, religious liberty, ecumenism, the downplayin

of good works and free will, the abolition of abstinence, fasting, ember days, and

vigils, the demolition of beautiful churches, the despising of relics, the raising to

demagogic status of contemporary popes, the rejection of strict adherence to the

doctrines defined by the hierarchical Church, all of these acts are not consistent with

thinking with the Church. Meanwhile those preserving Tradition love and treasure a

that thinking with the Church holds dear. Yet, we must be on our guard. Our enemy

prowls about looking for an opportunity somewhere. Our need to carefully apply the


16/16

Tenth rule in a time of a crisis of authority can lead to a dangerous rejection of all

authority or bitter zeal that revels in scandal. The past few months have demonstrate

the consequences of not maintaining the balanced attitude of Archbishop Lefebvre,

the loss of one of the four bishops he consecrated and a handful of good priests to the

Society. Let us pray that all priests, religious and faithful attached to Tradition

continue to think with the Church in all things and eagerly await the day when theVatican turns to Tradition and says thank you for remaining faithful to thinking with

the Church when so many in authority lost their minds.

First published by the Remnant Newspaper December 2012

thinking with the church

Documents