One might think, either through ignorance or false humility, that because we are not the pope (or at least a bishop), we should not “set ourselves up in judgment” regarding whether the conciliar hierarchy is teaching the truth or not, or whether the conciliar hierarchy’s teachings are consistent with the traditional teaching of the Church.  One might wrongly think that, failing to believe whatever the current hierarchy tells us, shows a “Protestant mentality”, i.e., deciding for ourselves what to believe. 

This ignorance or false humility is contrary to the consistent teaching of the Church that every Catholic has the duty to discern whether the members of the hierarchy, without exception, are teaching what the Church has always taught.  For example, St. Paul writes to his converts to whom he taught the Faith:

Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a Gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. 

Galatians, 1:8.

And St. Paul emphasizes this point by immediately repeating it:

As we said before, so now I say again: If anyone preach to you a Gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.

Galatians, 1:9.

But the Galatians might have objected, why should we believe your Gospel on your first visit to Galatia and not an eventually different one on your second?  St. Paul immediately gives a first reason:

The Gospel which was preached by me is not according to man.  For neither did I receive it of man, nor did I learn it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Galatians,1:11-12. 

And St Paul confirms this by narrating how little contact he had with those who might have taught him (viz., the other Apostles) before he began preaching.  Galatians, 1:15-19.  The Galatians could verify the facts and St. Paul swears an oath to the Galatians that he is not lying.  Galatians, 1:20. 

He gives a second reason a little later, which is the miracles and experience of the Holy Ghost [Galatians, 3:2-5] that the Galatians themselves had witnessed as the direct result of the preaching of St. Paul’s first visit.

Thus, St. Paul confirms that God taught him the Gospel which he had already taught to the Galatians.  St. Paul tells them that they can, and they must, distinguish it from false doctrine.  Each Catholic has this duty.

Many other Catholic authorities have repeated St. Paul’s teaching.  Here is another one:

When the shepherd turns into a wolf, the first duty of the flock is to defend itself.  As a general rule, doctrine comes from the bishops to the faithful, and it is not for the faithful, who are subjects in the order of Faith, to pass judgment on their superiors.  But every Christian, by virtue of his title to the name Christian, has not only the necessary knowledge of the essentials of the treasure of Revelation, but also the duty of safeguarding them.  The principle is the same, whether it is a matter of belief or conduct, that is, of dogma or morals.  Treachery such as that of Nestorius is rare in the Church; but it can happen that, for one reason or another, pastors remain silent on essential matters of faith.  The true children of Holy Church at such times are those who walk by the light of their baptism, not the cowardly souls who, under the specious pretext of submission to the powers that be, delay their opposition to the enemy in the hope of receiving instructions which are neither necessary nor desirable.

The Liturgical Year, Vol. IV, Dom Guéranger; see the entry for the Feast of St. Cyril of Alexandria, February 9^th (emphasis added).

Here is another authority: St. Vincent Lerins, in his Commonitorium:

What then should a Catholic do if some part of the Church were to separate itself from communion with the universal Faith?  What other choice can he make but to prefer to the gangrenous and corrupted member, the whole of the body that is sound.  And if some new contagion were to try to poison no longer a small part of the Church, but all of the Church at the same time, then he will take the greatest care to attach himself to antiquity which, obviously, can no longer be seduced by any lying novelty.

Emphasis added.  Note that St. Vincent gives this rule to all Catholics, not only to the bishops or doctors of theology.

We do not give more quotes from authority here because the type of person who suffers under this ignorance or false humility is a prisoner unable to free himself by reference to the consistent teaching of Church authority, because his very error is that his mind is too lowly to discern what those authorities say.  Therefore, we present the following argument of reason instead.

Humans can understand the Catholic Faith, though not perfectly as God does.  Our Faith is presented as a series of statements in each of which a predicate is said of a subject.  Even though the faithful Catholic cannot prove by natural reason, this link (i.e., connection) between the subject and predicate, he knows by Faith that the link exists and thus, that the opposite statement must be false.

If one were to (wrongly) say that a Catholic is forbidden to compare current teachings of the hierarchy, with the consistent teaching of the Church of all time, this would mean that a Catholic is forbidden to understand what he is saying (and believing) when he is professing his Faith.  This position would instead substitute a blind obedience which accepts a mere formula of sounds – devoid of meaning – when professing the Faith.  The Catholic Church has never professed such nominalism.  Instead, the Church wants (and requires) Her children to understand the Faith, not merely memorize sounds or words by rote.

Thus, whereas the Protestants set their own private judgment as the measure and rule of all faith, faithful Catholics set the revealed truth of the Church of all time, as the measure and rule of Faith.  This is infallible Catholic Tradition.  Because the Catholic is allowed (and required) to understand his Faith, the current post-conciliar problem exists because an understanding of the Faith shows plainly that the modern conciliar teachings are the opposite of what Catholics have been required to understand and believe since the earliest times. 

That is, a Catholic who knows his Faith today is merely understanding what the Church has always taught.  By knowing what the Church has always taught and knowing what the post-Vatican II hierarchy teaches, he notices that they are often opposites.  To say that a Catholic is forbidden to notice this opposition is simply to say that Catholics are forbidden to understand, and must simply memorize the sounds of words without understanding that they have any meaning.  In other words, the Church of the past (i.e., the Church of all time), judges the present conciliar hierarchy’s teachings.  Faithful Catholics are doing their duty by noticing this fact.

Further, the very fact that Catholics are taught the distinction between infallible and non-infallible magisterial teachings, is because Catholics are taught that the infallible ones cannot conflict with the Catholic Faith but are part of it, whereas non-infallible magisterial teachings might conflict with the Catholic Faith.  This distinction is a warning to Catholics to accept all of the infallible teachings without possibility of error, but to accept the non-infallible ones only provided that they do not conflict with the consistent teachings of the Catholic Church through the ages.  This distinction also shows that Catholics are required not only to understand their Faith but also to understand when current churchmen contradict infallible Catholic Tradition.

Conclusion

Let us stand against the countless conciliar errors which attack the Catholic Faith!  Let us study our Faith so we can truly understand it and pass it on to the next generation!

Catholic Candle note:  The following article helps to explain how salvation is surely possible for uncompromising Traditional Catholics, who for a time are without the Mass and Sacraments, at least in most places.  One doesn’t have to compromise his principles and overlook liberalism just so that he can have the Sacraments and the Mass (with a compromising priest).

If a person responds to the above question that he has to overlook some liberalism to “secure the sacraments” (at least in most places), then this person is really compromising, along with:

     1.  seven bishops;

     2.  hundreds of priests;

     3.  thousands of gullible followers of the liberal N-SSPX; and 

     4.  other liberal religious communities, (like the Fraternity of St. Peter).

These groups say that those Catholics who are truly uncompromising, are too strict and are wrong.  I ask: Is it, then, also wrong to be too loyal to Our Lord?

Currently, uncompromising Traditional Catholics are without an uncompromising priest or bishop (at least in most places).  God will provide in His own good time for the needs of the loyal soldier in the battle against corrupt conciliar church leaders in Rome and Catholics who are (objectively) compromising.

It’s not easy to live in the catacombs, but there are compensations – like extra graces – as those in the catacombs can attest.  One will also feel grateful and happy that he is doing his part in this great worldwide fight for Christ the King, when so many have abandoned Him.  (“This part” might include speaking often against liberalism, wherever you find it.)

Also, uncompromising Traditional Catholics find they have a closer friendship with Christ and want to do more, e.g., setting a most-needed good example for others to follow in a world that has rejected Christ.

Many clergy who are (objectively) compromising were on the right track but then weakened, I believe, because of pride.[1]  Or perhaps because they lacked the moral courage to resist the liberal direction their N-SSPX leaders (or others) had taken.  Also, the N-SSPX leaders were too concerned about the number of followers they had and were anxious to avoid defections.  This is a critical consideration in order to make a deal with the anti-Catholic conciliar church in Rome.  Rome doesn’t want the mass defection (from the liberal N-SSPX) of persons who would fight against the conciliar church and liberalism in order to return Rome to tradition.

Many lay followers were not concerned about small compromises with liberalism and so they gradually abandoned Archbishop Lefebvre’s stand for tradition.  These followers mistakenly believed that to be saved you must have the Mass and Sacraments without interruption.  It’s easy for a person within a large group to rationalize his defection from tradition and from Christ, by falsely believing God will understand because He knows people need the Mass and Sacraments.  Oh, no He won’t!  He really expects and wants loyalty and sacrifice.

The last fifty-five years show the majority of religious leaders were quick to abandon tradition and succumb to the liberalism of Vatican II, much the same as the apostles abandoned Christ during His Passion.  If one has to choose between the path of being loyal to Our Lord (including uncompromising tradition), and the path of overlooking liberalism in a compromise group in order to receive the Mass and the Sacraments, I know which path really leads to salvation!

Those who compromise are sure to ask how does one expect salvation without a priest and confession?  Well, with God’s help, where there’s a will there’s a way.  One surely doesn’t have the luxury of giving in to his passions or temptations and then being “excused” by a Saturday afternoon confession.  However, since we are all sinners, and we could possibly fall into grave sin despite extra graces at the time of death, the prospect of dying without (an uncompromising priest for) confession  would be horrifying were it not for the knowledge that a merciful God has provided for this with a perfect Act of Contrition.[2]  This prayer, said sincerely and with God’s help, is literally a God-send.  United with a pledge to go to (an uncompromising priest for) confession when available, this heartfelt prayer restores the dying person to grace at once. 

Uncompromising Traditional Catholics who are currently without an uncompromising priest are given extra graces and spiritual strength to help fight against evil and temptations, as those persons can attest.

We must avoid compromises such as accepting sacraments and sacramentals from a compromising priest or bishop (although we must not judge their interior culpability).  Accepting even one such compromise is the start of gradualism, the seat of liberalism and damnation.  Such situations give apparent approval to the compromising bishop or priest.  It is important to be consistent in all our actions.  If not, one bad concession causes a person to lose his credibility and his ability to set a good example – maybe forever.  

Let’s pray hard, be happy, and confident that we are in the right place by not compromising, and by doing what we can for Christ the King, Who is in charge and will triumph in the end!

One of the most effective tools in the devil’s toolbox is the small compromise.  Not just any type of compromise, but the smallest of compromises – one that can be rationalized as insignificant, unimportant, and certainly nothing to worry about.  It allows one to take comfort in the fact that others are also compromising in the same situation.  There is comfort in numbers.

The devil has been using the smallest compromises since the beginning of time.  How could it be wrong just to eat that certain apple?  They are grown to be eaten; nothing to worry about.  I remember in the 1960s when some of the Church hierarchy was preparing the faithful to accept Vatican II, and they began with small compromises.  They eliminated the Last Gospel and the prayers after a Low Mass, for the conversion of Russia.  These changes were considered inconsequential.  And besides, (so the rationalizing would go), shortening the Mass would allow more people to have more time and to come more often. 

Another example, is changing the Canon by adding St. Joseph’s name.  Who wouldn’t want to honor good St. Joseph?  But small compromises always lead to large compromises, as shown by the slide after VC II. 

It is easy to see how the many small compromises over the years have brought the SSPX priests and laymen to a point of being willing to accept very BIG compromises, such as:

1.    Accepting a “priest” ordained with the questionable Novus Ordo rite of ordination, and “bishops” from the questionable consecration rite.  This is a huge compromise because it ignores the positive doubts in these bastard rites, flowing from a Council responsible for the conciliar destruction of the priesthood and the true Mass.  Such compromise is breathtaking, to say the least!

2.    Having accepted these doubtful sacraments, the SSPX and Bishop Fellay then use more small compromises to further “soften up” the priests and laymen for the next big compromise.  Bishop Fellay is an expert at metering out liberalism at an “acceptable level”.  He appears successful because only a few people are leaving the SSPX.  All those who stay rationalize that the small compromises over the years, are insignificant and unimportant.  (Big mistake!)  The SSPX priests and laymen have come to the point where they are now ready to compromise their salvation by accepting subordination to the practical control of Modernist Rome.  They say it is far too early to leave because they see no change in their parish “community”.[1]

3.    A recent outrageous compromise was Bishop Fellay and the Society participating with Modernist Rome, in the so-called “Year of Mercy” celebrating 50 years of VC II!  That’s on a par with his assuring Rome that “We accept 95% of Vatican II.”  

Do you compromising priests or laymen still believe it is far too early to leave?  If so, is there anything faith-destroying enough to spur you into leaving the Society’s “safe cocoon” (which is really just collective compromise).

One thing we can be sure of is that the saints knew very well the dangers of small compromises leading to big compromises and eternal damnation.  And they acted accordingly.

A sure sign that the devil’s best tool (viz., the small compromise) works, is that priests and laymen still in the SSPX know deep down that something is wrong, but yet take no action as they wait for “instruction.”  (See below.)  As Dom Gueranger declared:

When the shepherd turns into a wolf, the first duty of the flock is to defend itself ….  The true children of Holy Church [in times of crisis…] are not the cowardly souls who, under the specious pretext of submission to the powers that be [i.e., those in charge,] delay their opposition to the enemy in the hope of receiving instructions ….

However, before one compromises, he really does get his conscience’s warning (i.e., instructions) to leave, for the sake of his soul (since God never tempts anyone beyond his strength).  But one can’t hear these inspirations of God, while the devil is shouting in his ear to stay, as did 99% of Catholics after Vatican II.

Compromising fence-sitters:  Have you ever stopped to realize how successful the devil and the Masons have been since VC II, in their efforts to destroy the Catholic Church?  Christ the King needs uncompromising front-line fighters for tradition.

Can He count on you?