What happened? How did this country decay? How, in one person’s lifetime, did America descend from being a nation, if not Catholic, at least one which abided by the natural law in most cases, which had a sane and decent culture and way of life, and an abhorrence of socialism and communism?
There are a number of reasons for this, but the main reason lies within its own principles.
Everyone is familiar with Luther’s heretical teaching known as salvation through faith alone. This means that the single act which is necessary for salvation is faith, which for him, and for protestants in general, means trust in God. For Catholics faith means the assent of the intellect, by means of a supernatural virtue infused by God, to the truths revealed by God and proposed as such by the teaching authority of the Roman Catholic Church. Therefore for Luther, and for those who follow him, sins do not count against you in the order of salvation. There is no need to mortify yourself. No need to do penance. Luther said: “Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly…No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day” 
There has been much talk about censorship recently, and the conservative side has taken a strong position against it.
In reality, however, censorship of error is not only good, but necessary. Governments which defended traditional morals and ways of life always used censorship to repress the leftist, socialist, and communist propaganda. This was especially true in the nineteenth century.
As our people know, we reject the use of the new Holy Week rites which were designed by the freemason and archmodernist Annibale Bugnini, and, sadly, approved for use by Pope Pius XII.
We receive a good deal of heat for rejecting rites which were approved by a real pope. The reasons, however, are obvious. The Modernists planned the New Mass from the time of Benedict XV. They worked very gradually and quietly, step by step, spoon-feeding the hierarchy, clergy, and lay people with the implementation of minor but very significant changes.
The Vacancy of the Apostolic See, the non-papacy of Francis, and for that matter of Benedict XVI, John Paul II, John Paul I, Paul VI, and even of John XXIII, is an issue which has divided traditionalists perhaps more than any other over the past forty years.
Of those who have taken the path of resistance to the reforms of Vatican II, the majority profess to be sedeplenists, that is, they hold that Francis is a true Roman Pontiff. They do so usually under the direction of the Society of Saint Pius X. Others, a minority but not an insignificant one, are sedevacantists, that is, they say that Francis is not a true Roman Pontiff, nor are his Vatican II predecessors.
Here and here, I spoke about the statements of Novus Ordo Archbishop Viganò. These were cerebral and succinct condemnations of the Second Vatican Council and of the effluent from that dreadful meeting.
In a recent statement to the Remnant, however, which is a recognize-and resist publication, the Archbishop took the position of what I would call recognize and ignore. He says, essentially, that Vatican II can just be ignored. Its false teachings do not matter since there were no definitions of dogma, and therefore are fallible statements.
You must be logged in to post a comment.