Catholic, Apostolic & Roman

December 2017

The second and concluding part of our major CO critique of the Vatican-sanctioned attack on Catholic and Evangelical Americans, which appeared in the Jesuit periodical Civilta Cattolica of 13 July 2017. At once vitriolic, cliché-ridden, hypocritical and wildly spurious, the article was co-authored by two arch-liberal Bergoglianistas: Fr. Antonio Spadero S.J., editor of Civilta Cattolica, and Marcelo Figueroa, a Protestant appointed by Francis to edit the Argentine edition of the Vatican's l'Osservatore Romano.

We're All Integrists Now

CHRISTOPHER GAWLEY

- Part II -

 

Proving that they are equal opportunity offenders, the Spadaro-Figueroa article moves next to condemn the American Catholics who make political common cause with Evangelicals.

Filthy Papists

Here is how conservative Catholic Americans are described:

They are defined as value voters as far as attracting electoral mass support is concerned … This meeting [between conservative Catholics and Evangelicals] over shared objectives happens around such themes as abortion, same-sex marriage, religious education in schools and other matters generally considered moral or tied to values.

Much in the same way that the authors used Rushdoony for shock purposes, the article spills an inordinate amount of ink on Church Militant, which is a small Catholic digital ministry headed by Michael Voris in Michigan. Voris is chosen precisely because he has made his name by being provocative and impolitic. His ministry is more prophetic than didactic — he relentlessly calls the American Church’s hierarchy to account for its soft endorsement of a variety of heresies and social evils. The authors complain that Church Militant "is openly in favour of a political ultra-conservatism and uses Christian symbols to impose itself. This abuse is called ‘authentic Christianity’." 

The support by Voris and Church Militant of Donald J. Trump against Hillary Clinton is trumpeted in the most nefarious terms: Voris, and other Integralists, wish to see Trump become a new Constantine in charge of a purified and religiously dominated state. But anyone with the most rudimentary familiarity with Evangelical thought would know that Evangelicals would not want to make common cause with Catholics in pursuit of a Constantinian restoration — a Roman Emperor who most Evangelicals see as a major villain in Christian history. The analogy is so absurd that it feels silly to write it out. Again, as if wholly oblivious to Ockham’s Razor (i.e., the simplest explanation is usually the correct one), the authors adopt the most extraordinary explanation of why faithful Catholics like Voris rejected Hillary Clinton’s candidacy in favour of Donald Trump — instead of the self-evident fact that she was a hardened and corrupt political insider who was perhaps the most abortion-loving candidate in the history of the Republic, and ran on the incumbent Party’s record of economic malaise and quasi-socialism. 

Setting aside Michael Voris, who are these horrible Catholics and what did they do exactly to earn the otherworldly disdain of the authors? Is it now a sin in the Catholic Church to support candidates publicly committed to outlawing abortion, upholding authentic marriage and otherwise supporting policies and programmes that provide for the moral virtue of the citizenry of the Republic? In fact, aren’t we as Catholic duty-bound to do exactly that?

It is very interesting that the tactic used by the authors is to ignore the political stances that animate most conservative Catholics — and focus instead on the ghosts of Constantine and the Roman Empire. Again, the Vatican approved this article?

But if we consider the political contributions of conservative Catholics in the United States, we see that the positions they take and the vision that they have for the American Republic is consistent with the mainstream of Catholic thought. For example, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) states, regarding the political community and the Church, that:

Every [political] institution is inspired, at least implicitly, by a vision of man and his destiny, from which it derives the point of reference for its judgment, its hierarchy of values, its line of conduct. Most societies have formed their institutions in the recognition of a certain pre-eminence of man over things. Only the divinely revealed religion has clearly recognised man's origin and destiny in God, the Creator and Redeemer. The Church invites political authorities to measure their judgments and decisions against this inspired truth about God and man. Societies not recognising this vision or rejecting it in the name of their independence from God are brought to seek their criteria and goal in themselves or to borrow them from some ideology. Since they do not admit that one can defend an objective criterion of good and evil, they arrogate to themselves an explicit or implicit totalitarian power over man and his destiny, as history shows. (CCC 2244, emphasis added).

Moreover, "[i]t is a part of the Church's mission ‘to pass moral judgments even in matters related to politics, whenever the fundamental rights of man or the salvation of souls requires it. The means, the only means, she may use are those which are in accord with the Gospel and the welfare of all men according to the diversity of times and circumstances’." (CCC 2246). Thus, the faithful Catholic has both the right and the duty to seek that the institutions of his society conform to the divinely revealed religion (i.e., the Catholic Church) and measure the judgments and decisions of that society with reference to the same.

Applying that standard of political participation, it is hard to see how conservative Catholics are worthy of the vicious condemnation by the Spadaro-Figueroa article — even if they have made common cause with Evangelicals who share the similar political views. For example, conservative Catholics have resisted the radical redefinition of marriage to include homosexuals. The resistance to this social novelty — the implications of which upon the family and society are grave — fits squarely within the orthodoxy of Catholic teaching. Indeed, the authors ignore that the Catholic Church teaches that:

Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. (CCC 2357)

Similarly, Catholics are duty-bound to fight for legal protection of the unborn person’s right to life. Regarding abortion and artificial contraception, the Catholic Church teaches that,
"[f]rom its conception, the child has the right to life. Direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, is a ‘criminal’ practice, gravely contrary to the moral law. The Church imposes the canonical penalty of excommunication for this crime against human life." (CCC 2322).

Instead of addressing the obvious reason why faithful Catholics have become so-called "value voters" in an age of increasing secularity and hostility to faith and traditional morality, the authors posit instead (in addition to alleged longings for Emperor Constantine) that faithful Catholics (along with their Evangelical cohorts) have a:

“xenophobic and Islamophobic vision that wants walls and purifying deportations. The word “ecumenism” transforms into a paradox, into an “ecumenism of hate.” Intolerance is a celestial mark of purism. Reductionism is the exegetical methodology. Ultra-literalism is its hermeneutical key.

Who are these writers? From what planet did they arrive from and proffer such observations so detached from reality to make one seriously consider whether they are mentally ill? We reach the crux of the authors’ complaint regarding conservative Catholics and Evangelicals – they voted for Trump.  By doing so, they must be (i) "xenophobic"; (ii) "Islamophobic"; (iii) in favour of border "walls" and (iv) "purifying deportations." These necessary views are, according to the authors, manifestations of "hate" and marks of "intolerance" and "purism."

Each of these charges deserves a response but at the outset I must confess: am I alone in seeing this list as a meaningless and glib litany of liberal jargon?

Is it now heretical for Catholics to support a border "wall" to prevent unlawful immigration, which is the right of any nation that calls itself such?

Have the authors even considered that a porous border invites a migrant crisis like what we have seen on the Southern border of the United States for the last ten years?

Are they ignorant that our unguarded border invited poor and desperate Latin American families to send their unaccompanied children on a difficult and wildly dangerous road in hope of crossing that border?

An argument can be made that a strong and effective border prevents precisely the breakdown of the rule of law, allows for orderly and lawful immigration, and protects that nation from criminal or even terroristic individuals who seek to evade the vetting that every state has the right to impose upon foreigners seeking entry. There is not a single theological reason why Catholics are disqualified as such for supporting and protecting the borders of their country. I respect the right of the authors to imagine a "world without borders" and the socialist panacea it encompasses, in which we all sing in unison Strawberry Fields Forever. It does not, however, make me or my faithful Catholic brethren hateful or xenophobic for viewing the authors’ vision of a globalist paradise as both naïve and dangerous. Nor does it make them better Christians for believing the same.

Nor does supporting application of the State’s law to deport aliens who either illegally enter the country or overstay their visas. It is far from a "purifying" process — it is the vindication of law over lawlessness. Either we are a nation of laws or we are not — the snarky "purifying" modifier is tossed out to suggest, not so subtly either, that those citizens who want illegal aliens returned to their countries of origin are "racist" or "White supremacist."

It is beyond outrageous that Americans are singled out as the only nation on earth that should be dispossessed of its powers to control its borders and deport those aliens who flout its laws of entry. Moreover, this is not a theological question — it is a political one that reasonable people may disagree about policy and tactics. That the authors use a religious cudgel to hammer those with whom they politically disagree says more about them than it does about those hammered. Quite frankly, Americans owe no duty of explanation to these foreign authors about the way we manage our borders or illegal aliens. It is none of their business.

A Strange Ecumenism Indeed

What really flummoxes the authors is how these deplorable Evangelicals and militant Catholics make common cause in a bizarre form of ecumenism even though they maintain — simultaneously — doctrines that are exclusionary. After all, the fifth column of dissent inside the hierarchy of the Catholic Church has been peddling a modernist form of "ecumenism" for fifty years that amounts to little more than of 'I’m OK, you’re OK, let’s pray' — with virtually nothing to show for it other than apostasy and indifferentism. That the very Catholics who reject this novel abuse of ecumenism dare to engage in constructive dialogue of action with Evangelicals without the empty platitudes that paper over our real differences, is too much to bear. 

The authors write with bewilderment that, "[b]oth Evangelical and Catholic Integralists condemn traditional ecumenism and yet promote an ecumenism of conflict that unites them in the nostalgic dream of a theocratic type of state." For faithful Catholics, the authors’ adjectival use of "traditional" to describe modern "ecumenism" is an Orwellian form of "newspeak." Let us remind ourselves what "traditional" first principles of true ecumenism are in the magisterial words of Pope Pius XI — before the excesses of the last fifty years — and see if we can imagine the authors defending it:

So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it. During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears witness: "The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly." The same holy Martyr with good reason marvelled exceedingly that anyone could believe that "this unity in the Church which arises from a divine foundation, and which is knit together by heavenly sacraments, could be rent and torn asunder by the force of contrary wills." For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one, compacted and fitly joined together, it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head. (Mortalium Animos, #10; Encyclical on Religious Unity, January 6, 1928). 

But even if we look at a more recent albeit less authoritative statement by the Catholic Church on the attributes of appropriate ecumenical outreach, we see that the collaboration between Evangelicals and Catholics is far from strange — it is right, proper and edifying. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (#821) teaches the importance for striving for unity through concrete and spiritual steps:

Certain things are required in order to respond adequately to this call [to Christian unity]:

This Catechetical standard of ecumenical outreach, as applied to the authors’ critique, demonstrates that Catholics do no wrong in making common cause with Evangelicals on important social issues. In fact, they are following the prescription set by Holy Mother Church. Who can reasonably doubt that faithful Catholics seek a renewal of Holy Mother Church? Indeed, they dedicate their lives with great fidelity to Holy Mother Church’s teachings without exception or compromise. They seek holiness, conversion and repent in the confessional box — aware that the scandal of unfaithfulness and immorality drives many away from the true faith.

Through a common witness in important social issues, Evangelicals and faithful Catholics develop good will and a fraternal knowledge of one another that makes friendship possible. Many young priests are being formed in the traditional expression of ecumenism: that posits that the only unity that the Church recognises is the unity of faith, worship and government by which all members of the Mystical Body are united with each other and with their Head, Christ, and His Vicar on earth.

Through community outreach and political action, Evangelicals and faithful Catholics engage in dialogue and meetings that foster a deeper understanding and sow the seeds of eventual reconciliation. Evangelicals and faithful Catholics collaborate in a variety of areas to serve and protect mankind.

Stated simply, faithful Catholics in the United States are seeking to build trust with their Evangelical neighbours to serve and make better their country and, in the most ecumenically sensitive manner, reconcile them with Holy Mother Church. 

The Catechism’s exhortation to prayer in common must be approached with great care and reflection. Communicatio in sacris, the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church, warns the faithful that they may never participate in non-Catholic religious services in such a way that they would be judged to be in communion thereby. Therefore, so-called "ecumenical services" are to be avoided altogether. It is not necessarily considered impossible that a Catholic and a non-Catholic might pray together outside the context of public divine worship; e.g., a Catholic and a non-Catholic might say the "Our Father" together in private in certain circumstances, because is not in fact a sacrum, a sacred rite, at all.  What is clearly licit is for faithful Catholics to pray in common with each other for those outside of Holy Mother Church that they may return to her fold. 

Sincere Evangelicals, for their part, do much of the same. While they lack the grace of most sacraments and hold many defective doctrines, Evangelicals of good will have the interests of their faithful Catholic neighbours at heart. Even though they seek to convert us away from Holy Mother Church (God forbid!), they do so from a misguided understanding of Jesus Christ and His One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. I, as a Catholic, take no offense at an Evangelical’s attempt to see me "born again" or reach a "saving knowledge of Jesus Christ" because I know that they mean well.

Indeed, given what Evangelicals believe, the truer offence would be if they ignored me despite believing that they had the key to everlasting life. In this, and perhaps unconventionally, I take seriously our Lord’s words regarding the lukewarm; at least the sincere Evangelical seeks to serve truth vigorously — albeit wrongly. While the Catholic clearly cannot be yoked with the Evangelical while he remains such because there is no authentic unity, we nonetheless should strive to reconcile the Evangelical to Holy Mother Church because of our common baptism and the close filial bonds that entails.

A False Ecumenism Instead

Since our Lord and His Holy Church are singularly unique and exclusive, to be Catholic is necessarily to hold exclusive truth claims. There is but one, true faith.  And we are called as Catholics to an evangelisation in which we bring the Gospel and that One, True Faith to the entirety of the world. Today, especially among modernists, exclusivity is a four-letter word and the notions of true and false faiths are deemed deeply offensive. False ecumenism is scandalous because it essentially says God’s revelation does not matter. Taken to its extreme, and as it relates to non-Christian religions, it denies the uniqueness of Christ himself. Absent are mission and the pressing necessity to bring others into full communion with the Catholic Church. The Great Commission has been replaced with dialogue and joint declarations that do nothing to further meaningful unity.

At the core of false ecumenism is apostasy: a cancerous growth in the body of the Christian. Dogma itself is attacked to solve the problem of disunity when the real culprit is the failure of the non-believer to believe what he ought to believe. At best, it is a disordered concern for the non-believer that ultimately destroys authentic belief by simply levelling the differences in doctrine that separate believer and non-believer in the vain hope of achieving unity at any cost. Especially today, after fifty years of distorted teaching on this subject, there are well-meaning Catholics who simply do not understand that what they conceive of as charity towards the "other" in modern ecumenism is in fact a great offence against the dignity of God. 

At worst, false ecumenism is telltale symptom of a blackened heart that ceased to believe in Christ long ago.  The false ecumenist is both a liar and a spiritual harlot; he presents himself as a Christian but does not believe.

And it isn’t simply a disbelief that animates the false ecumenist – he reviles God and finds fault with Him for not being charitable enough to man. The false ecumenist sets up a false dichotomy between God and man — as if one must choose between love of man or love of God. It isn’t enough for the false ecumenist that our Lord died on the Cross for the salvation of men and opened the gates to heaven: the false ecumenist finds fault that God requires man to take up his cross — that God requires man to believe in order to be saved — and, ultimately, that God requires repentance and renewal from man in this life. The false ecumenist would have done things differently if He were God; he would have simply saved men without regard to their conduct, beliefs or sanctification. Powerless as he is, the false ecumenist hates God for not so arranging the world. He is, in every sense of the metaphor, a wolf preying on the faithful. 

The authors are false ecumenists and revolutionaries bent on the destruction of Holy Mother Church. It is noteworthy that they are rabidly incensed, for example, over support for a national "border wall" yet yawn with respect to the indifference to truth that epitomises the scandal of the modern ecumenical movement. They loathe that a true ecumenism is taking root between faithful Catholics and Evangelicals without religious indifferentism.  That some Catholics maintain their distinctive views without compromise or the banality of kumbaya is insufferable to modernists, in whose view there is only one valid ecumenism: one which seeks to meld competing truth claims into a morass of syncretistic mumbo-jumbo that blasphemes the singularity of our Lord Jesus Christ's role in our salvation and His Holy Church. 

Don’t take my word that the authors are dangerous and heretical: Consider these disgraceful words that summarise their flawed theology — "[t]oday, more than ever, power needs to be removed from its faded confessional dress, from its armour, its rusty breastplate" — and compare them to that of our Lord’s Apostle to the Gentiles, Saint Paul:

Put you on the armour of God, that you may be able to stand against the deceits of the devil. For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and power, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places. Therefore take unto you the armour of God, that you may be able to resist in the evil day, and to stand in all things perfect. Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of justice, and your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace: In all things taking the shield of faith, wherewith you may be able to extinguish all the fiery darts of the most wicked one. And take unto you the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit (which is the word of God). [Eph. 6:11-17]

Postscript: We’re All Integralists Now

It is fair to say that virtually all faithful American Catholics were incensed by the Spadaro-Figueroa article. As nasty as it is unfair, it is an attack on our religion and country. For Traditional Catholics, i.e., those Catholics attached to, among the things, the Latin Mass and pre-conciliar theology, the article was only surprising because of the relative transparency of the authors. Traditional Catholics are well versed in the unfaithfulness of modern Churchmen. There isn’t much emanating from Rome that will shock them these days. That said, the infidelity is typically obscured by double-talk and ambiguity. That the authors were so candid in their attack on orthodox Catholics — and non-Traditional faithful Catholics at that — is unusual. It marks a new phase in the war for the Church. Perhaps, because of a seemingly sympathetic Holy Father, the secret apostates feel it is safe now to show themselves, fangs and all. They are crossing the Rubicon and, as it were, settling scores.

Traditional and Progressive Catholics have one similar appreciation for reality — they both acknowledge that the Second Vatican Council marked a revolution in the Church. For the Traditional Catholic, it was a shipwreck that requires a restoration and return to Holy Mother Church before the ravages of the Revolution; for the Progressive, the Revolution is only getting started and has not yet gone far enough. Faithful Vatican II Catholics have sought a middle ground in which they do not dissent in either direction; they have invented a dicohotomy between the heretically Progressive and the reactionary Traditional, positing that the Church of Christ must steer a course in between these two extremes. According to one very perceptive author:

A prime example of this tendency is George Weigel, who has consistently been trumpeting the rise of what he calls "evangelical Catholicism", which he places as a middle road between liberal progressivism and "restorationist" integralism.  Never mind that all authentic Catholicism has always been evangelical! Weigel, taking the distinction between binding and customary traditions much too far, proposes that "What can be changed in the Church must be changed" and sees only a small core of fundamental teachings, aspects which he considers part of the Church's "constitution", which should not be changed. The rest is up for grabs. He mocks the pre-Vatican II doctrinal conservatism of such prelates as Cardinal Ottaviani, whom he uncharitably compares to Obama [Health] Director Kathleen Sebelius. He scoffs at the idea that traditional Catholicism could have anything to offer the modern world, saying that "The challenge also won’t be met by Catholic traditionalists retreating into auto-constructed catacombs."  [unamsanctamcatholicam. com, "The lie of integralism," internal citations omitted]

For want of a better phrase, let’s call these non-Traditional Catholics Weigelian. Against the obvious, they continue to insist that Vatican II ushered in a "new springtime" for the Church. They struggle, however, with the pre-conciliar Church for two reasons.

First, they must wish away the teachings of the Church from time immemorial which, on the surface, are inconsistent with how the Church now behaves or purports to teach. So, for example, they must defend pan-Christian ecumenical worship services that the Church now seems to condone when she previously condemned the same with vigour.

Secondly, in order to keep the legal fiction of uniformity and continuity intact, Weigelian Catholics cannot simply reject everything that came before Vatican II as the Progressives do.  The chief attribute of the Weigelian Catholic, therefore, is the art of cognitive dissonance when it comes to holding two contradictory realities in place at the same time. Namely:

(i) there was no novelty, and

(ii) if there was a novelty, it wasn’t a material change, and

(iii) if there was a material change, the novelty was for the good of the Church, and

(iv) if the material change wasn’t good for the Church, revert to "there was no novelty" — rinse, repeat.

For the Weigelian Catholics who have accepted the novelties of the last fifty years — and defended them against Traditional Catholic critiques — this article was devastating. They were made orphans overnight. They have, in their own estimation, been loyal to the magisterium.  Indeed, it is one of the marks of a Weigelian Catholic to lord their loyalty over Traditional Catholics as a matter of spiritual pride. They have seemingly defended every novelty introduced only to have yet more novelties imposed upon them.  They respond in kind with greater feats of mental gymnastics to justify the unjustifiable. Like the frog slowly boiled to death who meekly accepts its death, Weigelian Catholics are being smothered by the incremental changes that have robbed them of the Faith of their Fathers. 

The Spadaro-Figueroa article was a double-blow because Weigelian Catholics, more than anyone else, have invested a great deal in the ecumenical friendship with the Evangelical community — ironically George Weigel styled his theology as Evangelical Catholicism. They have built bridges with these communities precisely because they believed they were practicing authentic ecumenism. And what has their trust in these jackals obtained for them? The very middle ground beneath the feet of Weigelian Catholics was moved and is no more. 

For being as faithful as they can, they are equated with integralists, which is a code-word for not simply a Traditional Catholic — but a schismatic one. That the authors refuse to distinguish Weigelian Catholics from Traditional Catholics must be maddening to them. For their defense of novelty upon novelty against Traditional Catholics, for their excoriation of Traditional Catholicism as disloyal for its reproach of these same novelties, for the disrespect they have shown to the Latin Mass, Weigelian Catholics now should understand that the revolutionaries in Rome see them only, on occasion, as "useful idiots." More to the point, the revolutionaries do not differentiate them from Traditional Catholics, perhaps viewing them as even worse.

Maybe now they will understand that in much the same way as the Bolsheviks (communists) hated both the Mensheviks (socialists) and the Capitalists equally — since both represented opposition to the authentic Revolution — today’s Progressive masters in Rome hate both Weigelian and Traditional Catholics.  If anything, as demonstrated by the many acts of Pope Francis, the Progressives seem to hate Weigelian Catholics more than Traditional Catholics — at least the latter have some self-respect, connection with reality, and fight in them.

Dorothy Day once said that, "[o]ur problems stem from our acceptance of this filthy, rotten system." Well, to apply that quote to our situation, our problems within the Church stem from our acceptance of the filthy, rotten change that has all but destroyed the Catholic Church. While we believe she will not fail, we nonetheless must admit that she is tottering and only God’s divine promise can save her from the damage inflicted by those who should have defended her the most. The Spadaro-Figueroa article should demonstrate to Weigelian Catholics that the time has come to re-evaluate the premises that keeps them aloof from Traditional Catholicism, and the critique writ large of the entirety of the Vatican II project. 

Put differently: we have reached the point of "The Emperor of Vatican II Has No Clothes." Only the most stubborn Weigelian Catholics will deny the obvious truth that the changes in the Church since the Second Vatican Council have wrought terrible and unmitigated harm:

In short, how much data do Weigelian Catholics need in order to see the calamity unfolding beneath their very noses? It is now the time for them to see that the noxious false ecumenism put forward by the Spadaro-Figueroa article is not an isolated problem — it reveals openly that the Second Vatican Council was the Trojan Horse used to attempt the destruction of the Church.

Every Weigelian Catholic should run this Sunday to the nearest Latin Mass and never assist at a Novus Ordo liturgy again unless absolutely required.

Every Weigelian Catholic parent should immediately order the Baltimore Catechism for their children tomorrow.

Every Weigelian Catholic should immediately burn their collection of George Weigel books in reparation for their failed middle way, and never use the term Evangelical Catholic again.  Not another dime should be sent to a Bishop’s appeal until the Faith as it always has been taught is taught once again. 

The faithless authors of the Spadaro-Figueroa article have done Holy Mother Church a great favour; they have exposed for all to see who they really are: enemies of Christ and the True Faith. They have likewise revealed that Catholics who still cling to the Faith are their enemies whether they be traditional or not.

What we need in this fight is orthodoxy and orthopraxy. We need the Church to return to her roots, to throw off the chains of her modernist captives, and to live and breathe with authentic and unadulterated Catholicism. If every Weigelian Catholic in the United States ceased being Weigelian, and became traditional, the entire revolutionary façade in the Church today would come crashing down.

CLICK HERE TO READ PART I


Back to Top

2024 © Christian Order