30 June 2023

Happy Dominion Day! God Save the King!

Well, it's after 00.00 
NDT in Newfoundland, so it's Dominion Day in Canada! For the youngsters among you who don't remember the real name, Happy Canada Day! Here's some music to celebrate the 156th birthday of the True North, Strong and Free!

First the Royal Anthem, in honour of His Majesty Charles III, King of Canada.

O, Canada, in English, with the original lyrics, 'In all Thy sons command', not the bastardised ones Daddy's Little Boy wants people to sing.

O, Canada in French, with lyrics in French and English. I'm surprised Justin 'Bieber' Trudeau hasn't tried to Islamicise the lyrics to this version. 

And, The Maple Leaf Forever, the 'unofficial national anthem' for decades before O, Canada was adopted.

Not music, but the 'I Am Canadian' rant from the Molson's beer commercial. A classic!

And no Dominion/Canada Day would be complete without a mention of THE Canadian, Stompin' Tom Connors. Here is the last letter he wrote to his fans, just before his death.

Charles Thomas "Stompin' Tom" ConnorsOC (February 9, 1936 – March 6, 2013) 

Hello friends, I want all my fans, past, present, or future, to know that without you, there would have not been any Stompin' Tom.

It was a long hard bumpy road, but this great country kept me inspired with its beauty, character, and spirit, driving me to keep marching on and devoted to sing about its people and places that make Canada the greatest country in the world.

I must now pass the torch, to all of you, to help keep the Maple Leaf flying high, and be the Patriot Canada needs now and in the future.

I humbly thank you all, one last time, for allowing me in your homes, I hope I continue to bring a little bit of cheer into your lives from the work I have done.


Canada Day, Up Canada Way.
by Stompin' Tom Connors

Take Me Back to Old Alberta
I wasn't born in Alberta, but as I say, I'm a Kansan by birth, and an Albertan by choice.

Blue Berets, honouring Canada's
Peace Keepers

Believe in Your Country

So Long, Stompin' Tom
A song written by Mike Plume, a fan of Stompin' Tom's, on hearing of his death.

Catholic LGBTQ Voices ‘Prophetic,’ According to Santa Fe Archbishop

Another of John Paul II's egregious mistakes in picking Bishops has gone over completely to the dark side in support of perversion.

From The American Spectator

By Elizabeth Crawford

America Magazine hosts an event at odds with the church’s teaching.

Archbishop John C. Wester of the Sante Fe diocese called the voices of LGBTQ Catholics “prophetic” at Outreach 2023, an LGBTQ Catholic ministry conference hosted by America Magazine.

The conference “gathers LGBTQ lay people, clergy, scholars, artists, educators, students, and family members to build community, share best practices and worship together,” according to Outreach’s website. The conference topics ranged from “The Catholic Lesbian Experience” to “LGBTQ Clergy and Religious.” (READ MORE: My Religion is Not Your Costume)

America Magazine, a Jesuit publication, has often flirted with heretical positions, though it has shied away from outright contradicting Church teaching. However, at this conference, its staff did not mince words.

While introducing one of the keynote speakers at the event, editor-at-large and Jesuit priest James Martin spoke of Outreach’s role in collaborating with other LGBTQ organizations, such as Dignity USA and New Ways Ministries.

“Outreach tries to amplify voices and bring people together,” Martin said.

Marianne Duddy-Burke, executive director of Dignity USA, said that Dignity helped “integrate” her sexual orientation with her faith after her Newman center — a ministry for college Catholics — deemed her “unfit” for leadership because of her lesbian sexual orientation.

Dignity USA asserts that “gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, queer, and intersex persons can express their sexuality and gender identities and expressions in a manner that is consonant with Christ’s teaching.”

“Dignity has held positions different from the institutional teachings of the Church,” Duddy-Burke said. “And that’s true today.”

The Catholic Church’s position on homosexuality maintains that homosexual acts are “intrinsically disordered” and that those with “homosexual tendencies” should seek to live a life of chastity in conformity with the will of God.

“[Homosexual acts] are contrary to the natural law,” the Catechism of the Catholic Church states. “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.”

However, as Duddy-Burke related the history of Dignity USA and the response of its younger members, she defended the group’s position, despite its violation of the Church’s teaching.

“They responded generously, articulately, and with a palpable love for their faith and community,” Duddy-Burke said. “It is impossible for me to describe their contributions as anything other than scripture.”

Duddy-Burke highlighted one of the organization’s prominent early members, Bob Fournier, as an example of boldness. Fournier would later publish an article with Dignity hinting at a homosexual relationship between Jesus and John, the beloved disciple.

“Since we have no evidence of a close friendship with any woman in Christ’s life, there are some who claim that his recognized deep friendship with John was a homosexual relationship,” Fournier wrote. “These people, of course, see nothing wrong with homosexuality. Their claim is an effort to show the full human nature of Christ and the full use of human love.”

At the conference’s closing, Fr. Martin gave a homily claiming that “every single person here, in this church, has at some point realized that God is inviting him, her, or them into a relationship with God.”

Another controversial attendee — religious sister Jeannine Gramick of New Ways Ministries — recently penned a letter in support of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, a group of drag queens impersonating nuns. The LA Dodgers had invited the group to perform at their annual Pride Event.

“While I am uncomfortable with the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence using the nuns’ old garb to draw attention to bigotry, whether Catholic or not, there is a hierarchy of values in this situation,” Gramick wrote. “The choice of clothing, even if offensive to some, can never trump the works of mercy.”

The Synodal Sludge

'The text of the new Instrumentum Laboris is turgid and the verbiage is swollen with sociological terminology and bureaucratic bloviation. That’s apparently the “synodal style”.'

From Catholic World Report

By Carl E. Olson

The text of the new Instrumentum Laboris is turgid and the verbiage is swollen with sociological terminology and bureaucratic bloviation. That’s apparently the “synodal style”.

Earlier this week, the Vatican issued the Instrumentum Laboris—the working document—for the October 2023 Synod. The 27,000 word document is divided in two basic parts: a section of dense descriptions and often repetitive directives, and a section of leading and often skewed questions.

First, the good news: if you enjoy the adjective “synodal,” you’ll be thrilled to read about the “Synodal church” (116x), the “synodal process” (33x), the “synodal life,” the “synodal experience,” the “synodal way,” the “synodal path,” the “synodal perspective,” the “synodal dynamic,” the “synodal orientation,” the “synodal journey,” the “synodal style,” “synodal action,” “synodal key,” “synodal framework,” “synodal manner,” “synodal spirituality,” and, well, you get the synodal drift.

Furthermore, whether you knew it or not, you are a part of the synodal-fest. Cardinal Mario Grech, the secretary general for the Synod of Bishops, says the Instrumentum Laboris (IL) “is a text in which no one’s voice is missing” and that it “is not a document of the Holy See … but of the whole Church. It is not a document written on the desk. It is a document in which everyone is a co-author, each for the part he is called to play in the Church, in docility to the Spirit.”

The synod, Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich, relator of the Synod on Synodality, assured synodal listeners, does “not speak about the Church’s teaching — that is not our task and not our mission — we just welcome everybody who wants to walk with us.”

Consider me skeptical. In the spirit of things, let’s call it synodal skepticism.

As expected, the IL has many, or even most, of the characteristics found in the Working Document for the Continental Stage (DCS), the October 2022 document from which this new document draws its breath and being. I’ve already written at length about the DCS, describing it as “the most incoherent document ever sent out from Rome.” (I won’t bother revisiting that analysis here, but it is worth reading if you missed it the first time around.)

The writing is turgid and the verbiage is swollen with sociological terminology and bureaucratic bloviation. And so there are many mentions of “walking together” and “process(es)” and “experience,” along with constant references to “institutions,” “structures,” “method(s),” and “procedures,” to the point that you sometimes wonder those if who successfully read the entire text will be awarded a certificate in business management or technocrat-speak.

I nearly forgot “space(s)”. For example: “Rooted in this awareness is the desire for a Church that is also increasingly synodal in its institutions, structures and procedures, so as to constitute a space in which common baptismal dignity and co-responsibility for mission are not only affirmed, but exercised, and practised.”

And, in the question section:

How can we create spaces where those who feel hurt by the Church and unwelcomed by the community feel recognised, received, free to ask questions and not judged? In the light of the Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia, what concrete steps are needed to welcome those who feel excluded from the Church because of their status or sexuality (for example, remarried divorcees, people in polygamous marriages, LGBTQ+ people, etc.)?

No one is surprised by the laundry list of those “who feel excluded,” as this has been a constant theme for over ten years now. Of course, no one is actually excluded from the Church, as all are truly welcomed. But there are definite criteria involved in embracing Christ, entering His Church, and following His commandments. Not that “commandments” are ever mentioned. And the few mentions of “conversion” almost all refer, in vague terms, to institutional or “synodal conversion.”

Further, as noted by some who are likely not nearly as rigid and neo-Pelagian as myself, the text never mentions mothers, fathers, children, or human families (there are a couple of welcome references to the “family of God”). There are, for instance, two references to “polyamorous marriage,” but none to real, Catholic marriages. Perhaps because the latter are thriving and face no challenges?

As expected, there are dozens of references to women, who are unremittingly portrayed as being excluded, underappreciated, and devalued. “What new ministries,” we read, “could be created to provide the means and opportunities for women’s effective participation in discernment and decision-making bodies?”

And: “Most of the Continental Assemblies and the syntheses of several Episcopal Conferences call for the question of women’s inclusion in the diaconate to be considered. Is it possible to envisage this, and in what way?”

Here’s a question to add to the list: Why does it so often appear that the new and vital synodal Church is obsessed with the concerns of the aging Catholic progressives of the 1970s? And: How can we encourage men to be good fathers, faithful husbands, and loving disciples of Jesus Christ?

There is a great deal about ministry and ministries, including this question: “How does the triple office of the ordained Ministry relate to the Church as a prophetic, priestly and royal People?” It’s as if the pontificate of St. Pope John Paul II never took place and he never addressed this at length and in detail. Of course, John Paul II is hardly referenced and Pope Benedict XVI is never mentioned at all. Perhaps because he never wrote much at all about ecclesiology, ministry, and the role of the laity (that’s a sarcastic remark, in case you missed it).

There are, in my reading, some Trojan Horse sections sprinkled throughout, often rendered with a sort of limp, passive-aggressive quality. Of course, the clever aspect of this document is that it is (we’re told again and again) simply and faithfully sharing what the “People of God”(66 mentions, for those keeping count) have to say, though that is difficult to accept.

Here is one example, quoted at length to provide context and flavor:

Some of the questions that emerged from the consultation of the People of God concern issues on which there is already magisterial and theological teaching to be considered. To give just two examples, we can note the acceptance of remarried divorcees, dealt with in the Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia, or the inculturation of the liturgy, the subject of the Instruction Varietates legitimae (1994) of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. The fact that questions continue to emerge on issues like these should not be hastily dismissed, rather, it calls for discernment, and the Synodal Assembly is a privileged forum for so doing. In particular, the obstacles, real or perceived, that have prevented the steps indicated by previous documents from being realised should be considered and reflections offered on how they can be removed. For example, if the block stems from a general lack of information, then improved communication will be needed. If, on the other hand, the problem stems from the difficulty of grasping the implications of the documents in ordinary situations or an inability of persons to recognise themselves in what is proposed, a synodal journey of effective reception by the People of God could be the appropriate response. Another instance could be the reappearance of a question which emerges as a sign of a changed reality or situations where there is a need for an “overflow” of Grace. This requires further reflection on the Deposit of Faith and the living Tradition of the Church.

Personally, as I’ve written about several times in recent months, I wish we would reflect further and more deeply on the actual Deposit of Faith and the Living Tradition of the Church. (To that point: “catechesis” is mentioned three times and “doctrine” once.) But, what to think about “a changed reality”? And situations needing an “overflow” of Grace? What are we talking about? (“Alex, I’ll take ‘Catholic Moral Teachings’ for $1000.” Did I mention that the document never mentions morality at all?)

This document, like almost all of the synodal documents of the past decade, is shot through with a strong presentism: a constant insinuation that the past has little to offer us; in fact, the sense that we need to embrace change as we raise our wetted fingers into the swirling winds of the zeitgeist. The mind-numbing and incessant references to the “synodal Church” (and the other synodal “stuff”) is a perfect example. Did the Church, prior to 2015—or 2021, or 2023?—have nothing to do with communion, participation, and mission, the “three priority issues for the synodal Church”?

The opening sentence of the IL blithely declares: “The People of God have been on the move since Pope Francis convened the whole Church in Synod in October 2021.” Were they stuck in neutral prior to 2021? Going backward?

One final note: a newspaper claiming to be Catholic recently reported that Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle “suggested that pockets of resistance to Pope Francis’ invitation to synodality within the global Catholic Church is rooted in fear of change and insecurity about Catholic identity.” Tagle says that the “synodal church” is “a church that rediscovers this wonderful gift of the Spirit given to the whole church in Vatican II.”

As someone who happily counts the reading of the Vatican II documents as an important part of my journey into the Catholic Church, I am rather puzzled by the comment. It’s one thing to say that the notion and concept of synodality are related to Vatican II; it’s another thing to say that these various documents proceeding forth from Vatican-based committees in recent months are presenting an accurate and transparent understanding of synodality. The fact is, there is a diversity of understandings, and they do not all get along or correspond well to the historical and theological record.

“I don’t want to judge people,” says Tagle, “But sometimes I just wish people would calmly, calmly read the documents of Vatican II and get in touch with the teachings of Vatican II rather than rely on some caricatures or biased presentations for what Vatican II stands for.” Agreed. And to this observer, who has read and studied the documents for many years, some of those “people” are heavily involved in producing the DCS and the IL texts.

So, where will all of these lead? Those of us suffering from synodal saturation are quite curious. Time will tell. Rome in October 2023 is going to be a time of notable encounters and processes, without doubt, as the search for clarity within the synodal Church promises to be quite the, um, synodal experience.

The Holy Rosary

Friday, the Sorrowful Mysteries, in Latin with Cardinal Burke.

Royal Saints - St Gontran, King and Confessor

From Fr Alban Butler's Lives of the Saints.

He was son of King Clotaire, and grandson of Clovis I. and St. Clotildis. Being the second son, whilst his brothers Charibert reigned at Paris, and Sigebert in Austrasia, residing at Metz, he was crowned King of Orleans and Burgundy in 561, making Challons on the Saone his capital. When compelled to take up arms against his ambitious brothers and the Lombards, he made no other use of his victories, under the conduct of a brave general called Mommol, than to give peace to his dominions. He protected his nephews against the practices of the wicked dowager queens, Brunehault of Sigebert, and Fredegonde of Chilperic, the firebrands of France. The putting to death the physicians of the queen at her request, on her death-bed, and the divorcing his wife Mercatrude, are crimes laid to his charge, in which the barbarous manners of his nation involved him: but these he effaced by tears of repentance. He governed his kingdom, studying rather to promote the temporal happiness of others than his own, a stranger to the passions of pride, jealousy, and ambition, and making piety the only rule of his policy. The prosperity of his reign, both in peace and war, condemns those who think that human policy cannot be modelled by the maxims of the gospel, whereas nothing can render a government more flourishing. He always treated the pastors of the church with respect and veneration, regarding them as his fathers, and honouring and consulting them as his masters. He was the protector of the oppressed, and the tender parent of his subjects, whom he treated as his children. He poured out his treasures among them with a holy profusion; especially in the time of a pestilence and famine. He gave the greatest attention to the care of the sick. He fasted, prayed, wept, and offered himself to God night and day, as a victim ready to be sacrificed on the altar of his justice, to avert his indignation, which he believed he himself had provoked, and drawn down upon his innocent people. He was a severe punisher of crimes in his officers and others, and, by many wholesome regulations, restrained the barbarous licentiousness of his troops; but no man was more ready to forgive offences against his own person. He contented himself with imprisoning a man who, through the instigation of Queen Fredegonde, had attempted to stab him, and he spared another assassin sent by the same wicked woman, because he had taken shelter in a church. With royal magnificence he built and endowed many churches and monasteries. St. Gregory of Tours relates many miracles performed by him, both before and after his death, to some of which he was an eye-witness. This good king, like another penitent David, having spent his life after his conversion, though on the throne, in the retirement and penance of a recluse, (as St. Hugh of Cluny says of him, exhorting King Philip I. to imitate his example,) died on the 28th of March, in 593, in the sixty-eighth year of his age, having reigned thirty-one and some months. He was buried in the church of St. Marcellus, which he had founded. The Huguenots scattered his ashes in the sixteenth century: only his skull escaped their fury, and is now kept there in a silver case. He is mentioned in the Roman Martyrology. See St. Gregory of Tours, Fredegarius, and Baillet. 1

An Important Document of Anti-Modernism: The Program of the Sodalitium Pianum

We might have been spared a lot if they had been more effective. They investigated Angelo Roncalli, later John XXIII, for his modernism.

From Rorate Cæli

In his prophetic 1907 encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis, Pope St. Pius X warned against the grave danger to the Church represented by the modernist heresy. This “synthesis of all heresies,” which by attacking the objectivity of dogmatic truth effectively denies all doctrine (while claiming to uphold it) was promoted by many persons in the “very bosom and heart” of the Church. St. Pius knew that there were many modernists even in the Court of the Roman Pontiff, and that many high-ranking ecclesiastics, who were not themselves modernists, did not understand the gravity of the modernist problem. In fact, after Pascendi was published, many otherwise loyal bishops and curial officials thought that the Pope was exaggerating the problem. One of the few curial officials who truly understood the problem and fully agreed with the Pope on it was Msgr. Umberto Benigni, a minor official in the Congregation for Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs. Benigni started various initiatives to combat modernism, including the news agency La Corrispondenza di Roma, which gathered information on the modernists, and above all the Sodalitum Pianum, the Pian Sodality. This was a semi-secret organization (secret that is to the outside world, but fully transparent to the Pope and the Secretary of State), which was devoted to foiling the modernist plot. In France it came to be known as the La Sapinière. It was much reviled and calumniated by modernists and semi-modernists, and its memory still suffers from those calumnies. But it was supported by St. Pius X himself (who financed it), as well as by the Cardinals Merry del Val and De Lai. After the death of Pope St. Pius X, Pope Benedict XV, who thought that his predecessor had exaggerated the modernist threat, suppressed the Sodalitium.

We offer below a translation (by an anonymous writer) of Msgr. Benigni’s Program for the Sodalitium Pianum. Certain expressions have an unfortunate ring to them today, but on the whole it is admirable in its devotion to the integral truth of the Catholic Faith, its loyalty to the Pope and the bishops in union with him, and its clear-sighted opposition to all forms of modernism.
Program of the Sodalitium Pianum

1. We are integral Roman Catholics. As these words indicate, the integral Roman Catholic accepts, integrally, the doctrine, the discipline, and the direction of the Holy See, and all their legitimate consequences for the individual and for society. This is "papist", "clerical", antimodernist, antiliberal, antisectarian. It is thus integrally counter-revolutionary, because it is adversarial not only towards the Jacobin Revolution and sectarian Radicalism, but equally so towards religious and social liberalism. It must thus be absolutely understood that, by our saying "integral Roman Catholic", this should not be understood as modifying, in any way, the authentic and glorious title of Roman Catholic. The word "integral" solely means "integrally Roman Catholic", namely, fully and simply Roman Catholic without any corresponding additions or restrictions (even beyond the intention of the one using it), such as the expressions "liberal Catholic", "social Catholic", and whatever other sort, insofar as these tend in theory or in practice to restrict the application of the law of the Church and the duties of the Catholic in religious or social life.

2. We fight for the principle and for the reality of the Authority, the Tradition, and the religious and social Order in the Catholic meaning of the word and in its logical implications.

3. We consider the spirit and the reality of liberalism and so-called Catholic democratism to be a plague within the human body of the Church, as coming from intellectual and practical Modernism, radical or moderate, with the consequences thereof.

4. Concerning the practical matter of Catholic discipline, we revere and follow the Bishops, appointed by the Holy Spirit to rule the Church of God, under the direction and control of the Vicar of Christ, with whom we will ourselves to remain always, through and in the face of everything.

5. The nature of the Catholic Church teaches us, and her history confirms, that the Holy See is the vital center of Catholicism; for this reason itself, from a certain point of view and particularly in certain circumstances, the temporary attitude of the Holy See is likewise the effect of the religious and social situation. Thus, we fully understand how Rome can at times remain silent and wait, in view of the current situation, for the moment to present itself. In such cases we guard ourselves well against assuming the pretext to remain inactive faced with the damages and dangers of the situation. Having taken into account and safely examined, in each case, the current reality, we act in the best way possible against those damages and dangers, always and everywhere according to the will and desire of the Pope.

6. In our observations and action we put forward, above all, the "Catholic" point of view, namely, the universal, both in terms of time - according to different historical moments - and of space, in every country. We know that in momentary and local contingencies, there is always, at least at the foundation, the secular and cosmopolitan war between the two great organic forces: on one side, the sole Church of God, Roman Catholic, and on the other, her enemies within and without. The enemies without (the Judeo-Masonic sects and those directly allied with them) are in the hands of the central Power of the Sect; those within (modernists, demo-liberals, etc.) serve as conscious or unconscious instruments for the infiltration and divisive decomposition of the Catholic faithful.

7. We fight against the Sect within and without, always and everywhere, in all its forms and with all honest and opportune means. In the sectarian members within and without and their accomplices, we fight only the concrete implementation of the Sect, of its life, actions and plans. This we understand ourselves to do without rancor towards our straying brothers, as also without any weakness and without any equivocation, as a good soldier carries out his work in the field of battle as they war against the enemy standard, their support and their accomplices.

8. We are fully opposed to any attempt to diminish, to render secondary, or to dissimulate systematically against, the Papal claims via the Roman Question, to obstruct the social influence of the Papacy, to bring about domination by laicism; we are in favor of the indefatigable vindication of the Roman Question according to the rights and the directions of the Holy See, and for a similar continuous effort to redirect, to the greatest degree possible, social life under the legitimate and beneficial influence of the Papacy and, in general, the Catholic Church.

9. We are fully opposed to interconfessionalism, neutralism, and religious minimalism in social organization and action, in teaching, and similarly in every individual and collective activity, the which all depend on the moral truth, and thus religious truth, and thus the truth had from the Church; we are in favor of confessionality in all the cases mentioned in the preceding paragraph; and if, in exceptional and transitory cases, the Holy See tolerates some interconfessional unions, we are in favor of conscientious, fastidiously controlled, exceptional tolerance, and in favor of its duration and extension to be as restricted as possible, according to the intentions of the Holy See.

10. We are against openly or implicitly "areligious" syncretism, neutral, amoral, which conduces fatally to the anti-Christian conflict of classes according to the brutal law of the stronger over the weaker; we are against democratism, even when it is described as social-economic, which gives rise with its individualism to social disintegration; we are in favor of Christian harmony among classes, as between individuals, class, and society as a whole; we are for the corporate organization of Christian society according to the principles and traditions of justice and social charity, which are taught and lived out by the Church and by the Catholic world for many centuries, and which, therefore, are perfectly adaptable to every age and truly civil society.

11. We are against pagan nationalism, which arises in response to areligious syncretism (that which by considering nations, as that regarding classes, as collectivities, wherein each one can and should amorally pursue their own interests as outside and against those of others, according to the brutal law of which we have spoken above); and, at the same time, against anti-militarism and utopian pacifism, produced by the Sect with the intended scope of weakening society and lulling it to sleep under the Judeo-Masonic nightmare; we are in favor of sane and moral patriotism, Christian patriotism, of which the history of the Catholic Church has always given splendid examples.

12. We are against feminism, which exaggerates and contorts the rights and duties of women, putting them outside the Christian law; we are against the co-education of the sexes; we are against the sexual initiation of children; we are in favor of the betterment of the material and moral conditions of women, of the youth, of the family according to the Catholic doctrine and tradition.

13. We are against the profoundly anti-Christian doctrine and fact of the Separation of Church and State, as well as that of religion and civic life, science, literature, art; we are in favor of the loyal and cordial union between civic life, science, literature, and art as much with the State as with religion, and thus with the Church.

14. We are against "modernized" philosophical, dogmatic and biblical teaching, which, even when it is not purely modernist, at least renders this teaching equal to a merely archaeological or anatomical teaching, as if it was not concerned with an immortal and life-giving doctrine which all the clergy, without exception, must learn above all for their priestly ministry; we are in favor of ecclesiastical teaching inspired and guided by the glorious tradition of the Scholastics and the Holy Doctors of the Church and the best theologians of the time of the Counter-Reformation, with all the serious assistance provided by the scientific method and documentation.

15. We are against the false mysticism toward individualistic and Enlightenment-esque tendencies; we are in favor of the intense and profound spiritual life, according to the doctrinal and practical teaching of the Saints and of the mystical authors praised by the Church.

16. In general, we are against the exploitation of the clergy and Catholic action on the part of whatever political or social party, and, in particular, against the “social” exaggeration which wishes to inoculate the clergy and Catholic action under the pretext of “exiting the sacristy” in favor of not returning there except rarely, or in secret, or at least with a spirit absorbed by other things; we are in favor of the maintenance of ecclesiastical action and, respectively, of Catholic action, altogether, in an openly religious terrain, above all things, and without “social” exaggerations or the like for what remains.

17. We are against the madness or weakness of so many Catholics, of wanting to appear “conscious and evolved, truly of their time”, and virtuous in the view of the brutal enemy or sanctimonious, but always implacable, ever ready to show off their tolerance, and to blush at, if not to speak badly against, acts of just rigor carried out by the Church or for her, quick to a systematic optimism towards the damages of the adversaries, and reserving their diffidence and hardness for integral Roman Catholics; we are for a just and fitting comportment, but always one which is frank, energetic and tireless in facing the enemy, his violence and his wiles.

18. We are against everything opposed to the doctrine, to the tradition, to the discipline, to the sentiment of integrally Roman Catholicism; we are in favor of whatever conforms with it.

The Great Modernist Heresy

A how-to guide on recognising and avoiding modernism. Here is the  Syllabus of Errors. The Syllabus Condemning the Errors of the Modernists is here.

From Real Clear Catholic

By Shane Schaetzel

Great heresies never really die. Rather, they have a cycle to them. Sometimes they originate from within the Catholic Church, by some rogue priest or bishop, but most of the time they come from outside the Catholic Church. They find their way into the Catholic Church slowly and gradually, little by little, and before long the Catholic Church is overrun by them. The next phase of the cycle is expulsion of the heresy from the Church. This usually begins rather quickly after the infiltration of the heresy. In some cases, particularly early on in Church history, this was handled through ecumenical councils. In more recent centuries, it was done through papal encyclicals. However, the rebuff of these heresies does not guarantee their immediate expulsion from the Church. Historically speaking, the heresy persists for years, and sometimes decades and even centuries, before it is finally expelled from the Catholic Church.

Such was the case with the Arian Heresy, which up until now, had been the greatest heresy the Church has ever had to contend with. It began in the early 4th century, circa AD 315, shortly after the legalization of Christianity in the Roman Empire, and it quickly spread like wildfire. About ten years later, in AD 325, the matter was brought to an ecumenical council of the Catholic Church in the City of Nicea, wherein it was soundly condemned (read the story here). From this council came two great works, the Nicene Creed and the New Testament. Both would see their completion before the end of the century.

That, however, did not get rid of Arianism. The priest who founded the heresy (Arius) was soundly condemned at Nicea, but that didn’t stop him. He and his followers quickly turned to the state to spread their doctrinal poison, since the hierarchy of the Church was no longer available to them. In short order, regional governors were forcing bishops to profess Arianism or face civil penalty (which was quite harsh). This went on, intermittently, for centuries. Arianism continued to spread throughout areas claimed by Christianity, most especially among the Germanic tribes in northern Europe, until the middle 7th century, when it was finally expelled from Christianity entirely. A variation of it was then adopted by Mohammed and became part of Islam, where the heresy has remained ever since. It wouldn’t be seen again in the Christian world until after the Protestant Reformation, where it became primarily a Protestant Christian problem for Protestants to contend with. Today, Arianism exists in the Protestant world almost exclusively, primarily as the Jehovah’s Witnesses (Watchtower), Iglesia ni Cristo, Christadelphians and the Church of God General Conference.

The lesson of all this is that while the Great Arian Heresy was rebuked in ecumenical council rather quickly, it still took a century or two to stabilize the Church from its influence and damage, and a few more centuries to rid the Catholic Church from it in the missionary outreaches of the Church among the Germanic tribes. Big heresies don’t just go away. The biggest ones never go away. The best we can hope for is to rid the Catholic Church of them, which is a process that takes time, resilience and effort.

Moving on to the next great heresy, the one that affects our own time the most, and may possibly rival the tenacity of the Great Arian Heresy. I am speaking of the Great Modernist Heresy now.

It began in the 17th century in the form of The Enlightenment, which came about in response to the Protestant Reformation. As Protestant Reformers pulled much of northern Europe away from the Catholic Church, they quickly found that they could not get along with each other, in addition to their rivalry with the Catholic Church. Their opposition to Catholicism was the only thing they could agree on, but still their rivalries with each other caused a great deal of problems. In response to this, the Masonic Order (Freemasonry) was created, as a way for European Protestants to seek fraternal unity outside of their competing denominations. Within this environment, a new way of thinking emerged, wherein Christian religion was reduced to a more symbolic ideology rather than a dogmatic faith. By the 19th century, this way of thinking had affected many Protestant denominations, especially in the United States, where religious sects abound due to religious freedom in the US Constitution’s Bill of Rights.

Originally called “Liberalism” the name quickly morphed into “Modernism” by the early 20th century. By this time the Modernist Heresy was firmly planted within the Catholic Church. Problems in the United States were addressed specifically under the papal condemnation of “Americanism” in the Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII, Testem benevolentiae nostrae. Both “Liberalism” and “Americanism” were eventually rolled into one heresy — Modernism. It is called this because it’s larger than both, and focuses intently on the modern world as the height of importance over Church teaching and practice. The tenets of Modernism are as follows…


Modernism’s first victim is always Scripture. The “historical-critical method” was introduced to Protestant denominations in the 17th century, which reinterpreted Scripture in a Modernist way. This eventually resulted in backlashes in various forms in the 19th century, followed by the rise of “Fundamentalism” in the early 20th century. These consisted of Protestants who would not conform to the Modernist infiltration of Protestant denominations. Their solution was typical of Protestant methods. They broke away from their parent denominations to form new denominations. Modernism teaches that the Scriptures are not to be taken literally, but in the most symbolic way possible, so as to deny the miracles of Jesus Christ, as well as his claims to divinity. This eventually infiltrated the Catholic Church by the late 19th century, and became the dominant force in Catholicism by the late 20th century, following the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965).


Modernism teaches that doctrine evolves to adapt to the modern world, and what existed before is now irrelevant. Thus, old sins are sins no more. Old taboos need not be continued. Modernism asserts that mankind has evolved beyond these old superstitions that preceded the modern world, and the only thing that matters is the modern world. Instead, new sins and new taboos may replace the old ones as needed for integration with the modern world. In the Catholic Church, Pope Benedict XVI called this the “Hermeneutic of Rupture,” and it manifests in the notion that Vatican II (1962-1965) was a super-council that abrogated all Church teaching prior to it, allowing the Church to “start over” with a “clean slate” wherein new teachings, new truths, and a new morality can take shape. This is to “modernize” the Catholic Church and bring it into conformity with the modern world.


Modernism tends to focus on man more than God. Therefore, liturgy need not be as rigorous as what was seen throughout Christian history. Instead, liturgy can focus more on the community than on God. This means old liturgical customs can, and should, change to accommodate a greater focus on socializing. In the Catholic Church, this was finally manifested with the creation of the Novus Ordo (New Order) Missal in 1970, which was the creation of a whole new mass, rather than a mere translation and continuation of the old mass. To be clear, it is possible to celebrate the Novus Ordo Missal of 1970 in a very reverent way, that is close to the Traditional Latin Mass, except for language, prayers and some rubrics. The only problem is almost nobody does it this way. The new mass is often synonymous with the mindset that the focus should be more on the community than on God.

Like the Great Arian Heresy, the expulsion of the Great Modernist Heresy began almost immediately after it first infected the Catholic Church. Pope Pius IX began this process as early as 1864, while it was still called “Liberalism,” by promulgating his Syllabus of Errors. It was Pope Pius X who put the theological nails in the coffin of Modernism in his two powerful encyclicals in 1907, entitled respectively: Lamentabili Sane and Paschendi Dominici Gregis.

After these encyclicals, nothing more need be said. Modernism is condemned. It is not Catholic, and it is not possible for a Catholic to hold on to the tenets of Modernism and remain in the good graces of Holy Mother Church.

Still, that did not stop the Modernists. Failure to enforce the Encyclicals of Pope Pius X, has throughout the 20th century, resulted in a complete infestation of Modernist theologians, bishops and priests in the Catholic Church. The Second Vatican Council (Vatican II) did not affirm Modernism in any way, but it didn’t condemn it either. Furthermore, the Council being primarily pastoral in nature, something that had never happened before, did not attach a note of infallibility to any of its documents. As a result, the Modernists took this to mean the whole Council was infallible! And in modernist fashion began to use it as a pretext to nullify all previous Catholic teachings, customs, and practices. The decades that followed, 1970 to present, saw the most radical changes to Catholic life ever in Church history. While two popes presented some obstacles to the advance of Modernism, they were not able to stop it. Pope Benedict XVI probably did the most in the sense that he created a vehicle (Summorum Pontificum) that allowed for the resurgence of Traditional Catholic communities. Unfortunately, this was short lived, and his successor, Pope Francis, quickly nullified this (Traditionis custodes). However, what Benedict XVI had done, planting the seed of Traditional Catholicism back into the mainstream of the Church, allowed an acceleration of the movement against Modernism to take root, which it did. In France, for example, the ratio is rapidly turning in favor of Traditional Catholics, while the Modernists running the Church there are imploding. It is now estimated that Traditionalists will outnumber Modernists in France well before the middle of the 21st century. The most Pope Francis, and the other Modernists in the Vatican, can do is pump the brakes on the Traditional Catholic resurgence in the Church. They can slow it down a bit, but they can no longer stop it. Slowly but surely, the Great Modernist Heresy is following the pattern of all Great Heresies in the Catholic Church: infiltration to identification, renunciation to rapid expansion and finally expulsion.

When (not if but when) the Modernist Heresy is finally expelled from the Catholic Church, it will not go away entirely. Rather, it will take root in other forms of Christianity. It will likely finish off the Protestants during the remainder of the 21st century, and the Eastern Orthodox are only now starting to be infected by it. In the end, when it can no longer harm Christianity from within, we can expect civil governments to use Modernism as a pretext for persecution of the Christian Faith. We are already seeing the early stages of this unfolding both in Europe and the Anglosphere.

How do we deal with Modernism in our time? Dealing with it takes a comprehensive change in the life of a Catholic…

First, the Catholic must seek good liturgical formation. There are many outlets of Traditional Catholicism where this can take place…

Second, the Catholic will need good catechesis. I recommend Volumes 3 & 4 of the Baltimore Catechism. There is nothing wrong with the other catechisms available on the market. I am recommending the Baltimore Catechism (3 & 4) because of its systematic and time-proven approach.

Third, and lastly, study the Syllabus of Errors by Pope Pius IX, the Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII, Testem benevolentiae nostrae, as well as the two great encyclicals against Modernism by Pope Pius X: Lamentabili Sane and Pascendi Dominici Gregis.