Return to The Reign of Mary No. 122
The Reign of Mary
Vol. XXXVII, No. 122: Letter from the Editor
February 22, 2006
St. Peter’s Chair at Antioch
Dear Readers,
Praised be Jesus and Mary!
This will be my last issue as editor of The Reign of Mary. Circumstances have proved impossible for me to produce this quarterly on a regular basis, so I’m handing over the duties to my fellow priests Frs. Francisco and Dominic Radecki, CMRI. Many of you have read their books What Has Happened to the Catholic Church and Tumultuous Times, and so you know they are well versed in the printed word and will do a good job. I strongly believe in the necessity and usefulness of this magazine, and I intend to contribute an article now and then as I am able.
Our feature article is, courtesy of Fr. Anthony Cekada, “Sedevacantism and Mr. Ferrara’s Cardboard Pope.” It was a necessary response to Mr. Christopher Ferrara’s unwarranted attacks on the sedevacantist position (“Resisting the Sedevacantist Enterprise”). Mr. Ferrara had made it his business to cast many aspersions on this solid theological opinion, and so he met his comeuppance by Fr. Cekada’s refutation last August (there are subsequent responses, too — “Resisting the Pope, Sedevacantism, and Frankenchurch” and “Frankenchurch — a Letter to the Editor” [of The Remnant, where Mr. Ferrara’s 5-part diatribe was published]. All three articles are available at www.traditionalmass.org).
Mr. Ferrara’s position of “recognize, but resist” is un-Catholic and dangerous. On a doctrinal and disciplinary level, there can never be such a thing in the Catholic Church. Of course, if a true Pope told one to go steal a thousand dollars, one would necessarily have to disobey his evil command, but it is not theologically possible to resist a true Pope on a constant and near-universal basis because of his promulgation of heretical teachings and evil laws. These areas are protected by his infallibility, which is the infallibility of the Church herself. Hence, if one has to resist in this manner, the one being resisted simply can’t be a true Vicar of Christ.
Mr. Ferrara’s position is dangerous as well. As Fr. Cekada points out, “Who needs to visit the Throne of Peter? You give the final thumbs-up or -down from your easy chair. The pope speaks. You decide…” It is Protestant, in other words, to decide which of the pope’s directives one will follow. Can you imagine, too, what it would be like in the army, or any other organization for that matter, where the members “pick and choose” what they will follow and obey?
Granted, the position of Sedevacantism doesn’t answer the question “How will we ever get a true Pope again?” But, as Bp. Donald Sanborn pointed out years ago, better to be in a position of mystery than in a position of contradiction (“recognize, but resist”). To those who spend sleepless nights worrying about this, I say what an old traditional priest told me years ago: “It’s Christ’s Church, not yours. If He can’t save it, then nobody will.” The point of his comment was that indeed Christ will take care of His Church, and it is not up to any one of us to “save it.” Rather, we should focus on being the best Catholics that we can be, and He, its Divine Founder and Invisible Head, will take care of the rest.
One other article I encourage you to read is “Damning Limbo to Hell” by Bp. Sanborn, available at the same website as indicated above. True to form as a Modernist, Benedict XVI is preparing to deny yet another dogma of the Faith. He plans to officially declare that all little children who die in an unbaptized state go to heaven. This is pure heresy and a denial of the teaching of the Council of Trent, not to mention a denial of Our Lord’s own teaching: “Unless a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven” (John 3:5). The Church interprets this to mean that “Baptism of Desire” is sufficient to save an adult, who through no fault of his own, cannot receive Baptism of Water, but this is not the case for a child lacking the use of reason: he cannot elicit the necessary acts of supernatural faith and charity which accompany Baptism by desire. I find it interesting that Fr. Brian Harrison, the same Novus Ordo theologian who clashed repeatedly with Fr. Cekada over Sedevacantism, wrote an article on this issue and indicated “serious concern” over Benedict XVI’s plan to make this declaration (cf. “Could Limbo Be Abolished?” as found at www.seattlecatholic.com). Among other problems he sees, it will lead parents to neglect baptizing their children for long periods of time, on the heretical assumption that Baptism isn’t really necessary for them anyway. But enough for now of the Novus Ordo religion.
As you will read in the Bishop’s column, I had the singular experience of tutoring the Russian seminarian Alexander Krysov for nearly four months here at Mount St. Michael. Suffice it to say for now that something like this happens once in a “blue moon”! It was intriguing and exciting to learn from him that the traditional Mass had been offered in Moscow, Russia, from 1968 to 1995. How little we knew…. And, praise God, Alexander is preparing to become a priest some day. Then the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass will again be offered on a regular basis in the heart of Russia. If the conversion of Russia is to ever happen, this will most certainly be an important part of it! Keep praying and hoping, that’s for sure.
I hope that you will have a deeply-reflective season of Lent, now just around the corner. As always, it is the spiritual springtime of the Church year, a time to harrow and plow the rocky soil of our souls by prayer, fasting, and good deeds, so that we might rise again to a renewed Catholic life in our Easter celebration. May Our Mother of Sorrows inspire your Lenten observance and grant you an ever-deeper love of Her Divine Son.
Thank you for your prayers, support and input to The Reign of Mary over the years. I assure you of my prayers and gratitude always.
In Jesus and Mary,
Fr. Casimir M. Puskorius, CMRI (Email)