by Rev. Fr. Martin Stepanich, OFM
Editor’s commentary: The following article was written by Fr. Martin Stepanich, OFM, and printed in the March 2009 issue of The Four Marks under the title of “Attendance at ‘Una Cum Benedicto’ Tridentine Latin Masses.” Fr. Martin was a faithful Franciscan priest who staunchly resisted the doctrinal and liturgical errors resulting from Vatican II. After his ordination in 1941, Fr. Martin was assigned for further studies by his superiors, eventually receiving a doctorate in sacred theology from Catholic University, Washington DC, in 1948.
Fr. Martin was a friend and supporter of The Reign of Mary magazine, making several contributions some years ago. Since he gave me permission to print any of his articles, I have decided to reprint this important article [in this issue of The Reign of Mary, #189], especially since the question of the lawfulness of attending such Masses seems to recur from time to time. Although Fr. Martin refers to Mass “una cum Benedicto” (since Benedict XVI was the false pope at the time of his writing); nevertheless, mutatis mutandis, the same principles apply today.
Fr. Martin passed away on November 18, 2012, at the age of 97. During the long and fruitful course of his priesthood he had offered the Tridentine Latin Mass more than 25,000 times. Although he has departed from this life, Fr. Martin’s words of wisdom continue to guide us today. May he rest in peace. (Fr. Benedict Hughes, CMRI)
Was the submission of those opposed to the dogma [of Papal Infallibility] sincere? That is known to God alone, Who penetrates to its very depth the heart of man. But what is certain is that, no longer able to deny the infallibility of the pope without leaving the Church for formal heresy, the liberals set to work to render it ineffective. How? By limiting its scope as far as they could: “Certainly, the pope is infallible. The Church has defined that. But wait, the pope is not infallible every time he opens his mouth…” And under the pretext of specifying the terms of the definition in order to defend the dogma more effectively, they did so much and so well — for the children of this world are wiser in their generation than the children of light — that the children of light ended by being convinced that the pope only made use of his privilege very exceptionally — once or twice a century, said Ducaud-Bourget from the pulpit of St.-Nicholas-du-Chardonnet, Paris, and in his review.
Is there any truth in this? We have recalled above that in the Church founded by Him, Jesus Christ has instituted a Magisterium whose principal function is to teach. This Magisterium, the pope and the bishops united to him, is assisted by Christ to teach exclusively what Christ has revealed. Theologians, often very helpful to the Magisterium, do not belong to the teaching Church. One of their major roles is to clarify the terms or texts of the Magisterium which might have appeared to be or actually were obscure. But they are not to obscure clear texts.
When, then, is the Roman Pontiff infallible? The text of Pastor Aeternus is very clear. That should not surprise us. As Pope Pius VI recalled in his Bull Auctorem Fidei which condemns the Synod of Pistoia, the chief glory of the Council consists precisely in teaching the truth with clarity by excluding all danger of error. So let us read this text, underlining the obvious meaning of the words of the definition that certain sorrowful spirits have been pleased to confuse and obscure.
In order to enjoy in full his privilege of infallibility, the Council said that the pope must speak ex cathedra. What is the meaning of this term? The word cathedra designates the chair, the seat of the master — of one who teaches. The expression ex cathedra, then, designates the office of the master, one who teaches with authority. Whoever is the holder of a chair teaches authoritatively the subject with which he is charged. The pope, the successor of Peter in the city of Rome, his cathedra, speaks ex cathedra when he fulfills his office as Teacher of teachers, Doctor of doctors, and is within his proper sphere — that is, teaching all that Christ revealed. Let me draw your attention to the fact that it is in that sense that it was carefully explained by the Council. When he speaks ex cathedra — that is, specifies the Council, when (and it enumerates the four conditions that designate the teaching of ex cathedra) first, in discharge of the office of Pastor and Teacher of all Christians; second, by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines; third, a doctrine concerning faith or morals; fourth, to be held by the universal Church. These, then, are the four conditions required by the Council, for the pope fully to possess infallibility. Let us come back to each of them. It is both necessary and sufficient.
First, that the pope speaks as pope in his capacity as Doctor of doctors in discharge of the office and teacher of all Christians, thereby excluding the man as a private doctor.
Second, that he defines — this word has been enshrouded in great mystery in the expression ex cathedra. Nevertheless, the meaning of the word define is normal: to define is to delimit; to say what something is in order to distinguish it from what it is not, and to say this with authority. One defines, for example, areas within a field: this one is Peter’s; that one belongs to Paul. One defines the meaning of a word when one declares that it means this; it does not mean that. And when there is no one to say with authority what it is, one may only put forward an opinion. For the pope to speak ex cathedra he must define — that is to say, teach, speak with authority. To do this there is no need for him to raise his voice, or to brandish the thunderbolts of excommunication or anathema. It is necessary and it is sufficient — allow me to repeat this — that he speak as a teacher with authority while affirming; Est, est, non, non; yea, yea, no, no; that which is over and above these is of evil.
Third, a doctrine regarding faith or morals. The pope is only charged with teaching what Christ has told him to go and teach “…all that I have commanded you.” Within this formula is included all that must be believed (faith) and all that must be done (morals) in order to be saved. Thus, the pope is not infallible if he speaks concerning a subject for which he has not received the mission, as, for example, architecture, medicine, politics, finances, etc.
Fourth, to be held by the universal Church. Two things are here to be emphasized: first, the pope must speak with intent to be heard, with intent to be taken seriously. It must not be mere dialogue, but teaching. There again, it is not at all necessary that his teachings be linked with sanctions. It is sufficient that those who have the use of reason understand that the pope is speaking, that they may pay attention to him — that he is teaching so that they may put into practice what he says. Second, that the teaching he gives be not limited to only one part of the Church; it must concern the whole Church. The pope can address one person directly, as for example Pope Leo XIII writing to Cardinal Gibbons on January 22, 1898, to condemn Americanism, or to a group of people, such as Pope Pius XII addressing Italian midwives on October 20, 1951, to treat of conjugal morality. But in each of these examples, it is evident from their objects that the teaching given applies to all. Through the medium of these particular people, these popes are speaking to the entire Church.
When is the pope infallible? What infallibility does he possess? Here again the Council has taken care to be precise: “possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed.” Thus, what the Council defined in the preceding session concerning the Church is equally true for the Roman Pontiff. What had it defined concerning the Church? “Further, all those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic Faith which are contained in the word of God, written or handed down in which the Church either by her solemn judgments or by her ordinary and universal teaching Magisterium, proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed.”
Let me draw your attention to this. I’m not saying that it follows from the conciliar texts; I’m saying that these texts from the Council clearly state that the pope is infallible when the four conditions specified by Pastor Aeternus are fulfilled. It also states that the form of his teaching is of no importance. Whether he teaches in the solemn form or the ordinary form of each day, the pope is infallible when he teaches ex cathedra — that is, once more, when the four conditions are met.
The pope and the bishops in union with the pope are the voice of the Church. This voice is used in order to teach each day. Listen to Pope Pius XI stating it with his authority:
“The teaching authority of the Church in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that the revealed doctrines might remain forever intact and might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men.”
This authority is indeed daily exercised through the Roman Pontiff and the bishops who are in communion with him. Some of you, then, may wonder what is the difference between ordinary and extraordinary teaching. This is explained by Pope Pius XI in the same encyclical:
“But it (the Magisterium) has the further office of defining some truth with solemn decree whenever it is opportune and whenever this is necessary, either to oppose the errors or the attacks of heretics, or again, to impress the minds of the faithful with a clearer and more detailed explanation of the articles of sacred doctrine. But in the use of this extraordinary teaching authority, no fresh invention is introduced. Nothing new is ever added to the number of those truths which are at least implicitly contained with the deposit of revelation divinely committed to the Church. But truths which to some, perhaps, may still seem obscure are rendered clear, or a truth which some may have called into question is declared to be of faith.”
Thus there exists only one Magisterium in the Church with the Roman Pontiff as its mouthpiece when he addresses the universal Church ex cathedra, either in an ordinary or extraordinary manner. The excerpt from Pastor Aeternus finishes with these words: “Such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable.” This means that the authentic teaching of the pope given ex cathedra — whether in the ordinary day-to-day form or in the extraordinary form — always retains its value and cannot be changed. The words of the Council also apply to him concerning the understanding of the teachings of faith which must progress, but simply in its own proper kind — that is to say, in one and the same doctrine, one and the same judgment.
Vatican II and the Present Crisis
The crisis which has disturbed the Church since Vatican II particularly concerns faith and the courage of that faith. Two scenes from the Gospel will clarify this remark. The apostles were crossing the Sea of Tiberias. Jesus was with them but was evidently asleep. A storm arose and grew worse until it seemed that their boat would sink. “Lord, save us, we perish!” With one word Jesus calmed the storm, and He said to them, “Why are you fearful, O ye of little faith?”
In the second scene we see the Apostles again on the Sea of Tiberias, but this time alone. In the night the Master came to them walking upon the sea, troubling the apostles who took Him for an apparition. And immediately Jesus spoke to them saying, “Be of good heart, it is I; fear not.” And Peter making answer said, “Lord, if it be Thou, bid me come to Thee upon the waters.” And He said, “Come.” And Peter going down out of the boat walked upon the water to come to Jesus. But seeing the wind strong, he was afraid and when he began to sink, he cried out, saying, “Lord, save me.” And immediately Jesus stretching forth His hand, took hold of him and said to him, “O thou of little faith, why didst thou doubt?”
In both these cases, their little faith gives rise to fear and this weakens their faith a little more. In each case the apostles doubt Jesus’ power and are afraid of the unleashed elements. Is it their little faith that has weakened their courage or the lack of courage that has weakened their faith? In both cases, Jesus reproaches them, both for their lack of faith and of courage.
From these scenes we learn a lesson in regard to the present crisis. While the storm rages all around and the bark of Peter takes in water from all sides, Our Lord appears asleep and allows Satan to sift His Church as wheat. The remark of Pope Pius XII, already recalled, is of great importance to our times. In the formidable religious struggle in which we are witnesses, if we want to resist, we must — and this is essential — we must pray and strive, even at the cost of much self-denial, to live in obedience to the law of God. If not, we shall be carried away. I will come back to that.
Allow me to remind you, in a few words, of the attitude of Catholics since the beginning of the crisis. The popular proverb says primum est vivere — survival is the first priority. Therefore, faithful Catholics took it upon themselves to preserve the Mass, to assure themselves of the supersubstantial Bread which gives and preserves life. Very soon, for ourselves — but also to answer those who attacked us — it was necessary to justify our actions, and the problem of the pope could not be put aside, since when all is said and done, he was responsible for everything that Paul VI called the auto-destruction of the Church. It was the imposition of the New Mass by dishonest means that made me lose all confidence in Paul VI. Studying his pontifical acts, it then appeared to me that Paul VI was a heretic, a schismatic and an apostate from the Catholic Faith, who by this triple fact had lost the sovereign pontificate.
Theologians throughout the centuries have taken up this question. They may be cast into two groups. The first group, together with Cardinal Cajetan, think that a pope who has fallen into heresy as a private doctor must be deposed (deponendus est). Those of the second group maintained, together with Cardinal Bellarmine, that the pope fallen into heresy as a private doctor is deposed by the very fact of his heresy (depositus est).
I have chosen the opinion of St. Robert Bellarmine for two reasons as simple as they are convincing. First, because coming after Cajetan, Bellarmine had refuted him, fearing the dangers that his opinion presented for the faith of the simple faithful who were left in submission to a heretical pope and for the Church who found herself in inextricable danger, since there is no higher authority than the pope that could depose him. Second, because the opinion of St. Robert Bellarmine, pontiff and illustrious Doctor, afforded a reliability that that of Cajetan did not: the assurance that the Church had given regarding his works by canonizing him and proclaiming him Doctor of the Church. Even though it appeared surer, the opinion of Bellarmine was, however, only an opinion and, as the Church had never condemned the opinion of Cajetan, it was not for us to impose the one that we had chosen.
The opinion of St. Robert Bellarmine was preferred by us, but nothing more. Most of those named traditionalists adopted Cajetan’s opinion for it enabled them, at least so they tried to convince themselves, to recognize as pope the heretical occupant of the Holy See until he should be deposed, and at the same time to resist him in all that did not seem to them to be Catholic. All our efforts to show them the inconsistency of their heretical and schismatic behavior with regard to doctrine, were regarded by them as a desire for power so as to impose our chosen opinion. Having nothing to reply, they contented themselves by repeating, “He always wants to be right.”
But the foolish things of this world hath God chosen that He may confound the wise. And thus we were given the grace to discover the error which we were committing in presenting as an open opinion that which, in fact, was a truth of faith. We were in error, but we were there in good faith. Our error proceeded from our attachment to the Papacy and to the dogma of infallibility. Like all Catholics we knew that the pope when teaching ex cathedra cannot teach error. By virtue of his office he cannot mislead or be misled. He is infallible.
And so when we had to submit to the evidence and recognize that Paul VI had fallen into heresy, we understood — and it could not be otherwise — that it could be only as a private doctor that he had fallen into heresy. We were following what theologians said concerning this, that for years we had not realized that though the pope can only fall into heresy as a private doctor, he may manifest his heresy in one of two ways, either privately or officially. Since only formal heresy puts a man out of the Church, a pope who falls into heresy as a private doctor and manifests his heresy in conversation or a private document, is entitled to the same presumption of good faith as everyone else. We must make the customary representations to him. Once warned of his error, his reaction to the representations will manifest his good faith if he corrects himself (as did St. Peter and Pope Paschal II) or his obstinacy in error — that is to say, his formal heresy. Only then, in the case of formal heresy, may we speak of his forfeiture.
But if the pope having fallen into heresy as a private doctor manifests this in an ex cathedra teaching, then not only may we not suppose his good faith but we must not. The reason for this is easy to understand. If supposing the impossible, the pope could be in good faith while teaching error ex cathedra, it would have to be concluded that the responsibility for this error taught ex cathedra must be attributed to Christ, Who had not kept His promise of assistance. Is there any need to say that such an hypothesis would be not only ridiculous but also blasphemous? Faith forbids me to make it. And thus, if by some misfortune, the pope were to teach error ex cathedra, we would have to conclude that from the moment he began to teach such error, he would thereby manifest that he was already truly a formal heretic and was no longer pope — if indeed he had ever been pope.
Has this misfortune happened? That is something I have yet to establish. Before that, I would like to give one last explanation in order to avoid all unnecessary discussion later on. The Council was, we are told, a pastoral council, which did not wish to engage its infallibility, and, in fact, time and again during its sessions, Fathers put forward questions so as to know with what theological mark certain teachings were being presented. Each time Monsignor Felici, Secretary General of the Council, reassured them, if not to say misled them, in reminding them that Vatican II was a pastoral council. Let us listen to Paul VI speaking officially:
“Certain people ask, what is the authority, what is the theological qualification, that the council has intended to attribute to its teachings, given that it declined to put forward solemn dogmatic definitions engaging the infallible Magisterium of the Church? Whoever refers to the conciliar declaration on the 6th of March, 1964, repeated on the 16th of November, 1964, knows what the answer is. Given the pastoral character of the council, it has avoided proclaiming in the extraordinary way dogmas having the mark of infallibility. However, [added the sly old fox] the Council has attributed to its teachings the authority of the ordinary supreme magisterium, which is so manifestly authentic that it must be welcomed by all the faithful according to the norms issued by the Council, taking into account the nature and purpose of each document.”
As we have all ready pointed out in our study on the question of faith, Paul VI by this use of ingenious ambiguity, leads us into error from the outset. The meeting of an ecumenical council, Vatican II, which was the twenty-second in history, is that not already an extraordinary means of pontifical teaching? Further playing on this ambiguity, he claims that the Council has at the same time avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary way dogmas having the mark of infallibility, and also that this teaching must be welcomed by all the faithful.
How could there be an obligation for the faithful to welcome a non-infallible teaching — that is, one that might well contain error? In spite of this confusion, and, we may say, using it to protect themselves, many people have been reassured. Since Vatican II — according to Paul VI, an expert on the subject — had not taught the whole Church in an extraordinary way, everything would become possible, even the impossible: a true Catholic pope teaching henceforth from the very height of his chair (in the ordinary way, of course) any heretical doctrine whatever, and this with the assistance of an ecumenical council. What was it in reality? I hope no one will disagree when I point out that in the audience of Wednesday, January 12, 1966, Paul VI, even supposing he was still pope, was not speaking ex cathedra. He was not infallible, and thus, in giving the answer that we have quoted, at the least ambiguous, he could be mistaken — even, if you like, in good faith. So we must refer to the text that he has published as the text of the Council, and the more so as even Paul VI recognized the teaching of Vatican II, at least to all appearances, as covered by the authority of the ordinary supreme magisterium, “which is so manifestly authentic that it must be welcomed by all the faithful according to the norms issued by the Council, taking into account the nature and purpose of each document.”
Let us refer to the texts of Vatican II. Take for instance the declaration Dignitatis Humanae, on Religious Liberty. This declaration has all the characteristics of a solemn judgment of an ecumenical council, the infallibility of which has never been contested. And that no one may doubt that this teaching is invested with the authority of the supreme magisterium or that it must be welcomed by all the faithful, Paul VI concluded his declaration in this way:
“Each and every one of the things set forth in this Declaration has won the consent of the Fathers of this most sacred Council. We too, by the apostolic authority conferred on us by Christ, join with the Venerable Fathers in approving, decreeing, and establishing these things in the Holy Spirit, and we direct that what has thus been enacted in synod be published to God’s glory. Given at Rome at St. Peter’s on the 7th day of December, 1965, I Paul, Bishop of Rome and the Catholic Church.”
This teaching is clearly a teaching of the supreme magisterium. To those who wish to contest our explanation under the pretext that Dignitatis Humanae was not an act of the pope speaking ex cathedra, and that Vatican II refrained from giving solemn dogmatic definitions, we reply thus: Vatican II at the least made use of the official ordinary teaching of the Church. By this fact alone, it must, in any case, be infallible. We must believe on divine and Catholic faith all the truths that are contained in the word of God written or transmitted by tradition, and that the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by her ordinary and universal magisterium proposes as divinely revealed. Let us continue the argument of this text.
According to Vatican II the doctrine of Dignitatis Humanae on Religious Liberty is in conformity with divine revelation — the Church has received it from Christ and the apostles. In saying this, the Council clearly proposes this doctrine as a doctrine divinely revealed by Christ and transmitted through the apostles. Normally, this teaching of Dignitatis Humanae must be infallible, without error, since the faithful must believe it as being of divine and Catholic faith. Now it is a fact that we can in no way deny that this teaching of Dignitatis Humanae is an old error already condemned by the previous infallible magisterium, which affirms, concerning this same religious liberty, that it is contrary to the teaching of the Holy Scriptures, of the Church, and of the Church Fathers. It is a totally false notion, an erroneous opinion most pernicious to the Catholic Church and to the salvation of souls. It is insanity. Now this teaching of Quanta Cura is irreformable. Pope Pius IX in giving it has engaged all his authority. Listen to him:
“Consequently, each and every one of these irregular opinions and doctrines recalled in detail in this letter, we reprove, proscribe and condemn with Our Apostolic Authority, and we will and ordain that all the sons of the Catholic Church regard them as absolutely reproved, proscribed and condemned.”
Let us take up again where we left off before this explanation of the so-called pastoral character of Vatican II. Has this misfortune of a pope teaching error in the infallible magisterium come to pass? The response is in the affirmative. It is not the result of reasoning but lies in a fact that anyone can recognize if he knows how to read and understand what he reads. It is the discovery of this contradiction that necessarily constitutes a question of faith for all who hold the Catholic Faith. For according to our Catholic Faith, it is impossible that the authentic magisterium of the Church could officially teach error. Faced with this fact, unheard of before Vatican II, faith has only two possibilities. Either, despite appearances to the contrary, there is no contradiction between the two official teachings, or if there really is erroneous teaching, it is because, despite all appearances to the contrary, the author of this erroneous teaching is not the magisterium.
The first explanation is untenable. There is patent contradiction, and to recognize that, let us repeat, it is enough to know how to read and to understand what is written. We are left, then, with the second explanation. Our conclusion is based on the most sure certainty — the certainty of faith — and assures us that the assembly that has given us this false teaching, which took the name of Vatican II and which presented itself as an ecumenical Council of the Church, in reality was no such thing, because, in spite of appearances to the contrary, the pope who presided over it was not the pope. In saying that, are we casting doubt on his election? Not at all. We are simply stating that this man, Paul VI, even if he had really been pope until then, fell secretly as a private doctor into formal heresy, and by this fact lost the sovereign pontificate, supposing he were in possession of it. Being no longer pope, he no longer enjoyed Christ’s promise of assistance. Being no longer assisted, he could teach error to the universal Church. It is a classic doctrine which applies equally to all men, the pope included. But God never abandons us if we do not abandon Him first. Paul VI officially taught error. Having abandoned Christ by his formal heresy, Paul VI was abandoned by Christ.
Allow me to anticipate the familiar objection that is often put forward: In affirming the formal heresy of Paul VI, you are judging his conscience; only a new pope would be able to say with certainty if Paul VI yesterday and John Paul II today are formal heretics. This objection is an absurdity. You will judge that for yourselves. Certainly we are never allowed to judge other people’s consciences. One situation, however, is an exception to this rule, and that is precisely the case of the pope teaching error in the infallible magisterium. In this case, as has already been stated, we not only cannot suppose the good faith of the pope, but we must not. We must recognize his formal heresy. It is theological faith that obliges us to do so. Why? For the simple reason explained above, and which I am going to repeat. If, purely hypothetically, it were possible to excuse the pope from formal heresy in this case — that is to say, if we could suppose his good faith in teaching error in the infallible magisterium — we would have to conclude that the responsibility for this false teaching is attributable to Christ, Who promised to assist His Vicar but Who has, in fact, not assisted him. To this fact, for fact it is, of error being solemnly taught, only one explanation is possible in the realm of faith. That is, allow me to repeat it, that in spite of all contrary appearances, this man whom we had thought of as pope was not pope, and God permitted this to be made clear by his solemnly teaching an error that had been previously condemned by the true magisterium.
Rather than being indignant on recognizing this, see in it the divine goodness. Having become a formal heretic as a private doctor, the pope is no longer pope. But nobody knows that with certainty. His heresy, not having been discovered, he continues to spread evil doctrines that are accepted by most people because they are from the pope, whilst in reality he is pope no longer. Then God, rather than preserving him after his fall, blinded him and permitted that he be clearly unmasked in the eyes of the faithful by solemnly teaching a doctrine that had already been condemned. It is truly the new gospel which St. Paul had warned the Galatians against and which allows them to discover and to anathematize the false teacher.
That is what I wanted to point out to you in speaking to you of the action of Divine Providence in favor of the Church. If Satan has been allowed to sift us as wheat, it is God who has granted this permission. But in permitting this terrible crisis, which in some mysterious way formed part of God’s plan for the punishment of the apostate world, God wished to give to His faithful — that is, those who have the Faith, who hold God’s word as true and certain — a true anchor of salvation to which they could cling so as not to be carried away by the storm. This anchor of salvation is the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff in his ex cathedra teaching. We can never thank our Lord enough for this single grace because, allow me to say to you once again, it is by resting on the dogma of papal infallibility that we can affirm with the assurance of our faith, the greatest assurance there is, that the popes of Vatican II since Paul VI are not and cannot be popes. Their Church is thus not the Church of Christ; it is only an anti-church, a synagogue of Satan.
This necessary conclusion is, I repeat, a matter of faith. It alone clarifies and resolves the problem presented to Catholic consciences by Vatican II and illustrates once again the words of the apostle St. John: “And this is the victory that overcometh the world, our faith.” Yes, it is our faith, our firm adherence to Christ’s word, which assures us that Peter’s faith cannot fail when he is in his role as Peter, when he confirms his brethren. It is faith which assures us that, in spite of all appearances to the contrary, this man whom people thought of as pope, who had all the appearances, in reality in the sight of God and of those of the faithful who see as God sees, he was not and could not be pope.
But some will think, with Archbishop Lefebvre: what you are saying is frightening. Reflect a little. If the pope is not pope, those named cardinal by him are not really cardinals. Who will give us a new pope? Where shall we find him? “O ye of little faith!” said the Master to his apostles, frightened by the tempest. The violence of the winds and the crashing of the waves, the imminent disaster, were these not reasons enough for their fear? No, otherwise Jesus would not have reproached them for their lack of faith nor for their lack of courage. In fact, we are obliged to acknowledge that if the apostles had not doubted their Master’s omnipotence, if they had not accepted the idea that the unleashed elements could escape His Providence, they never would have been overcome by fear. It is beyond all doubt that, because of their little faith, they had begun to doubt His complete control over what was taking place so that they were overcome with fear.
Is that not what is happening once again around us? In the perilous situation in which the bark of Peter is now placed, affecting us all, while the formidable religious struggle shakes the very foundation of the Church, and Jesus seems to be more deeply asleep than on the Sea of Tiberius, what faith must we have to believe that the all-powerful providence of God is in ultimate control of all that is taking place, even when it concerns those happenings which seem to ruin His Church, and which, apparently, at least, cannot be reversed? On the Sea of Tiberius, the apostles were at fault for forgetting that when Jesus was on board with them, they could come to no harm. Is it not the same thing that prevents Bishops Lefebvre and Castro Mayer and those who follow them from doing their duty now? Do they truly believe that Jesus is still governing His Church and that nothing can happen to it without His consent? And Peter, making answer, said, “Lord, if it be Thou, bid me to come to Thee upon the waters.” And He said, “Come.” Peter obeyed. But lifted up by the waves, he began to doubt and went under.
In the storm provoked by Vatican II, is it not the same Master Who has reassured us and Who has called us, ordering us to go towards Him walking on the waves of Vatican II? But there are those, who swept away by the rough waves of the crisis, begin to doubt. “Blessed are those,” they say, “who have never had to face such problems.” Why should those who never had to face such problems be any happier than we? Will not Jesus not remain with us today as He was yesterday and will be until the end of time? Will His Providence not watch over us as much because the world is affected by madness? Has He not the power to calm the present storm with one word if He pleases? Christ, may we point out, did not command Peter to calm the waves, but to go towards Him without fear. He asks nothing more of us but to go towards Him, to commit ourselves to His word, adhering with our whole soul and proclaiming it. Heaven, earth, the tempestuous crisis of Vatican II — all will pass. His word alone will never pass, assuring us that the gates of Hell will never prevail against His Church built upon Peter.