Traditional Catholic Publishers

Feast of St. Nicholas, Bishop and Confessor

Benziger, Desclee, Dessain, Mame, Pustet -- such names belonged to the great Catholic publishers of the earlier half of the twentieth century.  Following the creation of the Conciliar Church in the 1960s and the propagation of its new perverse doctrines, the aforementioned publishing houses mostly failed or faded into shadows of their former selves.  But in response to the Conciliar revolution, Catholics especially in the English-speaking world endeavored to found new publishing houses.  The following is a short list of such publishers, their affiliation (if known), and notable titles they produce:

-The Aquinas Institute
Notable titles:  Summa Theologiae, Commentaries

-Baronius Press (Conciliar Church's "Conservative" Ratzingerians)
Notable titles:  1962 hand missal, 1961 Latin-English breviary, DRC bibles

-Loreto Publications
Notable titles:  Blessed Sacrament Prayerbook, Commentary of Cornelius a Lapide, DRC bibles

-Maximus Scriptorius Publications
Notable titles:  Smith's Latin-English Dictionary, pre-Challoner Douay-Rheims photo-reproduction

-Nova et Vetera (Conciliar Church's FSSP trap)
Notable titles:  1962 altar missal, 1961 Latin breviary, 1962 lectionary

-Preserving Christian Publications
Notable titles:  The Roman Ritual, St. Robert Bellarmine's Commentary on the Psalms

-Refuge of Sinners Publishing
Notable titles:  Parente's Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology, Tanquerey's The Spiritual Life

-Romanitas Press
Notable titles:  Candles in the Roman Rite, The Liturgical Altar

 -Tradibooks (Sedevacantist)
Notable titles:  The Relations of the Church to Society, Commonitorium Against Heresies

[List to be updated as necessary.]

As Christmas fast approaches, please consider buying directly from the above Catholic publishers via their websites.  But especially consider donating to the Opera Omnia project of The Aquinas Institute, which aims to reprint in totally re-typeset Latin and English the complete works of St. Thomas Aquinas, the Angelic Doctor.  It very well may be the most important publishing event of the whole Traditional Catholic Publishing era.  Doubt it?  Easily verifiable, as single volumes start at $35.66 on Amazon.com.

From Menzingen: A New Interview with Bishop Fellay

Vigil of the Feast of St. Nicholas

 

Article published by DICI, our comments below.

N.B. Due to the length of the interview, it is not transcribed in this post.

Fellay begins the interview with the obligatory shout out to “Pope Emeritus” Ratzinger by mentioning the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum and the positive effect it had on the Franciscan Immaculata.  He slyly intimates that this same Motu Proprio caused them to pose certain questions about the council.  This is probably objectively true, since the Old Mass inspires such awe in any half aware person that they can't possibly fathom it being the product of the same Church that gave us the Novus Ordo (hint: it wasn't!).  Nevertheless, understanding that Ratzinger's SP was a political maneuver in the spirit of the “hermeneutic of continuity” to integrate the TLM into the VII religion, we know that it was certainly not intended to sow dissent against the Council, quite the contrary.

Fellay then pits Francis against his buddy Ratzinger when he claims that Francis' action against the Immaculata in restricting their use of the TLM is “directly contrary to the Motu Proprio, which spoke about a right [to celebrate the TLM].”  Is this how far the leader of the largest traditional group in the world has sunk?  Citing conciliar documents to enforce the TLM as a right?  Quo Primum, anyone?  The traditional faith is not promoted by conciliar documents, and these are dark times when the SG of the SSPX attempts to do so.

Throughout this interview, it can be very difficult to ascertain just exactly what Fellay's point is.  He seems to be thinking out loud.  For example, he begins this interview with a moderate lauding of Ratzinger, and shortly afterward says that “Obviously, the attitude [of Francis] is not the same [as the attitude of Benedict]. The approach, the definition of the problems that affect the Church is not the same!” This is true to a certain degree as it's apparent that Ratzinger “valued” (however arbitrarily, and if entirely for the wrong reasons) ceremony and tradition, whereas Francis is a true child of VII, and cannot seem to abide that which is not novel; nevertheless, we should not pretend as if these men are cut from different cloths.  They are not, and Fellay even acknowledges this later in the interview when he says 

“We have gone from one pontificate to another, and the Church’s situation has stayed the same. The basic lines remain the same. On the surface there are variations: one might say that these are variations on a well-known theme! The basic assertions: we find them, for example, about the Council [he goes on to mention the different ways the VII popes will explain the Council].” 

Which is it, Bishop Fellay?  Is Bergoglio is radical departure from Ratzinger, or are they both saying the same thing in different ways?

It should be apparent by now (hopefully it was already, dear reader!) that Fellay has fallen quite far from the tree as concerns the great Archbishop Lefebvre.  He says: “Perhaps I should have said [Francis is] a modernist in his actions. Once again, he is not a modernist in the absolute, theoretical sense: a man who develops a whole coherent system; that coherence does not exist.”  OK... what's the old saying? Bishop Fellay speaks louder than actions?  No, that's not it. Hmm... Oh!  Actions speak louder than words, yes.  Has the Church condemned heretics only when they had “coherent systems?  Whatever distinction Fellay hopes to make here is not clear at all, only that he is trying to back step once again from his comments several months ago where he called Francis a “genuine modernist.”

The most difficult thing to stomach is that Fellay is making it abundantly clear that he has no idea what a modernist is (or if he does, he refuses to recognize it)! This is the superior general of the world's largest traditional priestly society, named after the hammer of modernists, and he couldn't pick one out if one whispered in his ear.  For, preceding this weak retraction of the only worthy thing he's publicly said in the last year, he admits:

“It is difficult to arrive at a judgment about his words because a little later on, or almost at the same time, you find words about the faith, about points of faith, about points of morality, which are very clear and condemn sin, the devil; statements that explain very forcefully and very clearly that no one can go to heaven without true contrition for one’s sins, no one can expect mercy from the Good Lord unless one seriously regrets one’s sins.  All these are reminders that we are very happy about, very necessary reminders!  But unfortunately they have already lost a large part of their force because of the contrary statements."

*Ahem*

That is textbook modernism.

“In the writings and addresses they seem not unfrequently to advocate now one doctrine now another so that one would be disposed to regard them as vague and doubtful. But there is a reason for this, and it is to be found in their ideas as to the mutual separation of science and faith. Hence in their books you find some things which might well be expressed by a Catholic, but in the next page you find other things which might have been dictated by a rationalist (Pascendi, no 18).”

Time to smell the coffee, Bishop Fellay.  Your very description of Francis is tantamount to calling him a modernist!

He also makes two claims in particular which trouble us, as concern the teaching role and authority of the pope and the Church.  He speaks of the “muddling” of what is doctrine and what is the pope speaking as a private theologian.   Well, if this “muddling” contains error, we cannot take solace in either instance!  Just because a true pope could never promulgate or approve a harmful or erroneous law, discipline, liturgy, etc. for the Church does not mean that he can express all the heresy that he likes as a “private theologian” when he speaks publicly!   There is some confusion here, probably based on the idea of the pope as a “private theologian” and thinking that errors or heresies in such a capacity are therefore “private,” but this isn't true.  When Francis tells the world that there is no Catholic God, he is not “saved” from the effects of such an heresy simply because he's not making a law or commanding that others believe it.  Along the same lines, Fellay remarks “Faith and morals are the two points that the Church teaches and where infallibility can be invoked.”  To say such a thing would lead us to conclude that the Church, in Her magisterium, can teach error on faith or morals. The Church's magisterium does not “invoke” infallibility, it is infallible.   The Church is a benevolent mother and the Spotless Bride of Christ, and can therefore never feed Her children stones when they ask for bread. The idea that the Church “can” invoke infallibility on faith and morals as concerns the magisterium (is that what Fellay is referring to? Who knows) is preposterous, and eventually turns the deposit of faith into a cafeteria line of options.

The last part of the interview that concerns us regards Fellay's comments on the TLM and the purpose of the SSPX.  He says that the primary purpose of the SSPX is the Mass. He says “The Mass really is the pump that distributes throughout the Mystical Body the graces merited on the Cross.”  True enough, but it is the faith that informs the Mass! The undermining of the faith by the modernists in the seminaries in the first half of the twentieth century and at VII occurred before the widespread and universal use of the bastard liturgy.  The Mass proceeds from the faith, and the Mass perpetuates the faith.  It is entirely possible to have the Mass without the integral faith, as we see with the indult groups, where men are trained to perform the ceremonies (perhaps even quite beautifully) but with little to no concern as to whether they know the doctrines it expresses, or even whether or not they are properly ordained! The world lost the faith before it lost the mass.

All in all, there is nothing particularly new to us in this interview.  It may simply serve as a reminder that leopards do not change their spots.  Fellay's unwarranted attraction to Ratzinger is still apparent, and we can only imagine the "heartbreak" he's experiencing at now having the thin veil of traditionalism that surrounded the Novus Ordo papacy during Ratzinger's occupation ripped off, stomped on, and then danced on (and maybe had a dreidel spun on it's rags?). The New Church and its pimps are full of disdain and contempt for the Catholic religion. If Fellay were to emulate them in something, instead of it being their double speak and confusing manner, have him direct that same attitude towards their unwelcome and hostile innovations. God help us.

Fr Paul Kramer: Sedevacantist

Vigil of St. Saturninus

 

 Originally found on Archbishop Lefebvre Forums: http://abplefebvreforums.proboards.com/thread/1139/fr-kramer-on-francis?page=1&scrollTo=10487

""Pope" Francis in Evangelii Gaudium n. 247: "We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked". This text is an explicit profession of heresy, directly opposed to the solemn dogmatic definition of Pope Eugenius III and the Ecumenical Council of Florence, and the doctrine taught by the supreme magisterium of Pope Benedict XIV in Ex Quo Primum, set forth repeatedly and explicitly citing the definition of Florence, to wit, that the Mosaic covenant has been "revoked" and "abrogated". I have been saying for years that when a "pope" will officially teach explicit and clear heresy flatly contradicting the infallibly defined dogma of the Catholic faith, then you will know that he is the false pope prophecied in many Church approved prophecies and Marian apparitions. St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Alohonsus Liguori, St. Antoninus and Pope Innocent III all teach that when the pope demonstrates himself to be a manifest heretic, i.e. a plainly manifested public heretic, he ceases to be pope (or, if already was a public heretic he was invalidly elected) because he is not a Catholic -- not a member of the Catholic Church. Bellarmine explains that the Roman Pontiff is the visible head of the Church, and the head is a member. One who is not a member cannot be the head, and therefore the election to the supreme pontificate of a public heretic is canonically null & void. The heresy of Bergoglio in no. 247 is such a clear cut case of manifest, public heresy, expressed in stark, unequivocal terms, that it can be said without doubt that if this proposition of no. 247 is not manifestly heretical, then nothing else can be said to be so. It is morally impossible that one who manifestly displays such clearly expressed contempt for a defined dogma of faith by plainly denying it, can be believed to validly hold the office of Roman Pontiff. St. Francis of Assisi foretold of the uncanonically elected pope who would not be "a true pastor but a destroyer". Bergoglio plainly fits the description."

Fr Kramer's Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/paul.kramer.1023611?fref=ts

TB refrains from any comment at this time, though the effects of this are worth considering.  Will Fr Kramer face alienation from insistent sedeplenists?  Could his new public position on this issue create a ripple effect of sorts for other traditional priests?  Will he soon come to hold the same position on the other conciliar pontiffs?

We wish Fr. Kramer the best.

Francis: Address to Lutherans

Twenty-Fifth Sunday after Pentecost

Original article found here, TB comments in blue.  Formatting added, italics removed.

I warmly welcome you, the members of the Lutheran World Federation and the representatives of the Lutheran-Catholic Commission on Unity. This meeting follows upon my very cordial and pleasant meeting with you, dear Bishop Younan ("Bishop" Younan is a protestant, and they don't have valid orders), and with the Secretary of the Lutheran World Federation, the Reverend Junge, during the inaugural celebration of my ministry as the Bishop of Rome.

It is with a sense of profound gratitude to our Lord Jesus Christ that I think of the many advances made in relations between Lutherans and Catholics in these past decades (Which advances are those?), not only through theological dialogue (Like this?), but also through fraternal cooperation in a variety of pastoral settings, and above all, in the commitment to progress in spiritual ecumenism (Above all?  Wouldn't the most important thing for someone who rejects the authority of the Church be to submit to it?)

In a certain sense, this last area constitutes the soul of our journey towards full communion, and permits us even now a foretaste of its results, however imperfect (Yes, heresy is delicious.  Mmmm!). In the measure in which we draw closer to our Lord Jesus Christ in humility of spirit (Except that protestants, insofar as they reject the authority of the Church, are not humble in spirit-- in fact, they are incessantly prideful in spirit by invoking private interpretations and "personal relationships" with Jesus Christ over the authority of the Magisterium), we are certain to draw closer to one another (Which is an ultimately meaningless bond if it does not include the bond of faith). And, in the measure in which we ask the Lord for the gift of unity (True unity is a unity of faith, mind you.  A unity between disagreeing faiths is a false unity.  It is as efficacious and meaningful as a unity between oil and water), we are sure that he will take us by the hand and be our guide.

This year, as a result of a now fifty year old theological dialogue and with a view to the commemoration of the five-hundredth anniversary of the Reformation (Oh boy, can you bear the anticipation?), the text of the Lutheran-Catholic Commission on Unity was published, with the significant title: From Conflict to Communion. Lutheran-Catholic Common Commemoration of the Reformation in 2017.

I believe that it is truly important for everyone to confront in dialogue the historical reality of the Reformation, its consequences and the responses it elicited (This is a wonderful idea.  Let's encourage Lutherans to abandon their heretical views on justification, their denial of more than half the sacraments instituted by Christ, their rejection of the Church's teaching authority, their contempt for sacred images and their practical concessions to modern evils like contraception). Catholics and Lutherans can ask forgiveness for the harm they have caused one another (Oh, I guess he meant something else.  Sorry, Marty!) and for their offenses committed in the sight of God (Dear Lord, forgive me for the sins of my ancestors who were martyred for their faith during The Pilgrimage of Grace.  I would go to confession for it but I'm forgiven anyways). Together we can rejoice in the longing for unity which the Lord has awakened in our hearts, and which makes us look with hope to the future (Can't wait for that brave, new world!).

In light of this decades-long journey (Reader, note that this is an allusion to VII, which opened the ecumenical flood-gates for a false union between Catholics and protestants.  Only after VII-- which occurred "decades" ago-- could such a "dialogue" occur) and of the many examples of fraternal communion between Lutherans and Catholics which we have witnessed, and encouraged by faith in the grace given to us (Us?  as in, Catholics and Lutherans?  Does Francis understand that only Catholics can enjoy Sanctifying Grace?) in the Lord Jesus Christ, I am certain that we will continue our journey of dialogue and of communion (obligatory youtube link), addressing fundamental questions as well as differences in the fields of anthropology and ethics. Certainly, there is no lack of difficulties (For a Catholic, there is no difficulty.  A Catholic has the truth, and does not barter with someone who is in error or heresy.  The difficulty is on the part of the Lutheran, who must find a true humility and co-operate with God's graces that will lead him to the True Faith), and none will lack in the future.

They will continue to require patience, dialogue and mutual understanding. But we must not be afraid! We know well - as Benedict XVI often reminded us - that unity is not primarily the fruit of our labors, but the working of the Holy Spirit, to whom we must open our hearts in faith, so that he will lead us along the paths of reconciliation and communion (Unity of faith is the only unity worth pursuing.  The fraternal unity that is being pursued by Francis and the Conciliar Church is a goal of freemasonry, not a goal of the Catholic Church.  The Catholic Church seeks only to serve Her Divine Groom, Christ Our Lord, Whose wish is to have all men united to Him in His Church by the bond of faith).

Regarding Updates

The Dedication of the Archbasilica of the Holy Savior

 

Hello, readers of TB.  We are dedicated to weekly updates.  Unfortunately, sometimes "life happens" and this goal may be left not achieved.  Please keep us in your prayers as we deal with those things which keep us from updating, though you can "take it to the bank" that more updates will be coming SOON!

In the meantime, you can read this short article on today's feast.

Pax Christi

--TB

Vatican: Happy Diwali!

Vigil of the Feast of All Saints

Diwali (Deepavali, Divali) is an Hindu festival that spans five days, usually falling between the middle of October and the middle of November. During Diwali, each day is dedicated to different Hindu "gods" or "goddesses," and certain traditions are honored in order to please them. Among these include offering a candle and sweets near a Holy Basil tree (or some other “sacred” tree) in order to appease their god of death, receiving oil massages, worshiping the goddess of wealth, and keeping one's household spotless in order to receive a visit from the goddess Lakshmi, who will look especially favorably upon you if you worship a broom (Pramodkumar, Meri Khoj Ek Bharat Ki, pp108-09).

As Diwali is about to commence, the Vatican has issued a statement addressing the Hindu community. Brief comments from TB are provided at the end

N.B.: The primary article is sporadically spaced, sometimes skipping several lines between sentences, other times having two or three words running together with no spaces. These errors were all fixed in transcription, without citing where they appear.

(Begin)

Dear Hindu Friends,

1. In a spirit of friendship, the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue extends to you best wishes and cordial greetings as you celebrate Deepavali on 3 November next. May God, the source of all light and life, illumine your lives and deepen your happiness and peace.

2. In this highly competitive world where increasingly individualistic and materialistic tendencies adversely affect human relationships and often create divisions in families and society as a whole, we wish to share our thoughts on how Christians and Hindus can foster human relationships for the good of all humanity through friendship and solidarity.

3. Relationships are fundamental to human existence. Security and peace in the local, national and international communities are largely determined by the quality of our human interaction. Experience teaches us that, the deeper our human relationships, the more we are able to advance towards cooperation, peace-building, genuine solidarity and harmony. In short, the ability to foster respectful relationships is the measure of authentic human progress and essential for promoting peace and integral development.

4. Such relationships ought to flow naturally from our shared humanity. Indeed, human relationships are at the heart of human existence and its progress and naturally give rise to a sense of solidarity with others. Regardless of our ethnic, cultural, religious and ideological differences, all of us belong to the one human family.

5. Sadly, with the increase of materialism in society and a growing disregard for deeper spiritual and religious values, there now exists a dangerous trend to accord the same value to material things as to human relationships, thereby reducing the human person from a ‘someone’ to a ‘something’ that can be cast aside at will. Furthermore, individualistic tendencies engender a false sense of security and favour what His Holiness Pope Francis has described as ‘a culture of exclusion’, ‘a throwaway culture’ and ‘a globalization of indifference’.

6. The promotion of a ‘culture of relationship’ and ‘a culture of solidarity’ is thus imperative for all peoples, and calls for the fostering of relationships based on friendship and mutual respect for the benefit of the entire human family. This requires a common recognition and promotion of the intrinsic dignity of the human person. It is evident then that friendship and solidarity are closely related. In the end, a “culture of solidarity means seeing others not as rivals or statistics,but brothers and sisters” (Pope Francis, Visit to the Community of Varginha (Manguinhos), Rio de Janeiro, 25 July 2013).

7. Finally, we wish to state our conviction that a culture of solidarity can only be achieved as “the fruit of a concerted effort on the part of all, in service of the common good” (Pope Francis, Meeting with Brazil’s Leaders of Society, Rio de Janeiro, 27 July 2013) Sustained by the teachings of our respective religions and aware of the importance of building genuine relationships, may we, Hindus and Christians, work individually and collectively, with all religious traditions and people of good will, to foster and strengthen the human family through friendship and solidarity (TB: Oh really?  Pius XI disagrees: "When once men recognize, both in private and in public life, that Christ is King, society will at last receive the great blessings of real liberty, well-ordered discipline, peace and harmony [Quas Primas]."). We wish you a happy celebration of Deepavali!

Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran

President Pontifical Council for Inter-religious Dialogue

Father Miguel Ángel Ayuso Guixot, MCCJ

Secretary 

Vatican News

(End)

What can be said? This letter drips with masonic sentimentality, appealing to the bond of human fraternity to help foster relationships between cultures, nations and religions, completely irrespective of any objective truth -- not to mention the complete and utter disregard for the urgency of conversion on the part of the pagans.
 

Of course, it is the height of scandal for anyone who purports to represent the Catholic Church and to be sent by Her to wish a pagan people well during their celebration of a pagan feast, devoted to superstitious customs directed towards false gods which are in fact demons:  "But the things that the heathen do immolate, to devils they do immolate, and not to God.  And I will not have you become fellows of devils" (I Cor. X: 20).

Conciliar Church: Arian Pope?

Feast of Ss. Simon and Jude, Apostles

Earlier today, the pope of the Conciliar Church was quoted by Vatican Radio as stating that Christ prays and intercede for us; the man was quoted directly as saying (in translation) "It is to [Christ] we must entrust our problems, our life and many other things so that He may take them to the Father" (see full article here).

Taken together with Francis' previous sentiment that "[ . . . ] I believe in God. Not in a catholic God; a catholic God does not exist; God exists. And I believe in Jesus Christ, his incarnation. Jesus is my master/teacher and pastor, but God, the Father, Abba, is the light and the Creator" (see original Italian text and the quoted English translation here).

Trads must consider:  is the pope of the Conciliar Church an Arian?

For those who require a refresher on this heresy from the time of the early Church, the Catholic Encyclopedia defines Arianism as follows:

"Such is the genuine doctrine of Arius.  Using Greek terms, it denies that the Son is of one essence, nature, or substance with God; He is not consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father, and therefore not like Him, or equal in dignity, or co-eternal, or within the real sphere of Deity.  The Logos which St. John exalts is an attribute, Reason, belonging to the Divine nature, not a person distinct from another, and therefore is a Son merely in figure of speech.  These consequences follow upon the principle which Arius maintains in his letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, that the Son 'is no part of the Ingenerate'" (see full article here).

To reflect on the past fifty years of Conciliar revolution, how far the fall for that counterfeit faith:  first the Sacred Liturgy and other sacraments are suppressed and replaced by protestantized services, and Catholic countries are instructed to strike out the name of Christ from their constitutions; then, false sects are invited to practice their blasphemous rituals in Catholic churches in Assissi in the mid-1980s; the nouvelle theologie and its rotten fruits are identified to be in harmony with Catholic Tradition by way of Ratzingerian hermeneutics; finally, the duped flocks of the Conciliar Church are told by their pope that the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity is distinct from God as creator, and that the Son intercedes for them by praying to God the Father.  How can anyone look at these past fifty years in anything besides angry, revolted amazement?