Invalid Input

Invalid Input

Search the Remnant Newspaper
With all of the talk of mercy this past year, people would be tempted to think that we are all assured of Heaven; that all that is left to do for us in the Catholic religion is to help make life on earth better. But is this true? Does mercy mean that as long as we are generally "nice" people who believe in social justice causes we are, more or less, assured Heaven? Would it not be unjust for God to send anyone to Hell? After all, sending souls to Hell is not at all in line with the new mercy.

Indeed with the advent of Amoris Laetitia, one wonders if anyone is culpable for any sin they commit. For if one can receive Holy Communion regardless of the objectively sinful state of their life, based on an imperfect purpose of amendment, who can be damned? 

Thankfully for us, the Reverend John Evangelist Zollner has the answer to these questions. With stunning precision only a priest of the past could provide, Fr. Zollner exposes with laser like insight, the false mercy preached by many Catholic prelates and priests today. 

Without further ado, I give you Fr. John Zollner, writing in 1884, from Volume One of a series called "The Pulpit Orator."

Chris Jackson
On Monday, February 22, 1869 His Eminence, Cardinal Paul Cullen, Archbishop of Dublin and Primate of Ireland submitted evidence to a Royal Commission of Inquiry into Primary Education in Ireland. Cardinal Cullen’s tenure as the Archbishop of Dublin is summed up by the catholic encyclopedia as follows:

The condition of the Catholic Church in Ireland, in 1878, in contrast with what it was in 1850, affords abundant proof of the fruitfulness of Cardinal Cullen's zeal and of the beneficent results achieved during his episcopate. Those twenty eight years marked a continuous period of triumphant progress in all matters connected with religion, discipline, education and charity. The eloquent Dominican Father Thomas N. Burke wrote in 1878: "The guiding spirit animating, encouraging and directing the wonderful work of the Irish Catholic Church for the last twenty eight years was Paul, Cardinal Cullen, and history will record the events of his administration as, perhaps, the most wonderful and glorious epoch in the whole ecclesiastical history of Ireland. The result of his labors was the wonderful revival of Catholic devotion and piety which in our day was restored so much of our ancient glory of sanctity to the land once called the 'Island of Saints'". No other Church in Christendom during the same period achieved grander religious results or yielded in richer abundance the choicest fruit of genuine Catholic piety. His remains rest beneath the apse of the Church attached to the diocesan seminary at Clonliffe.
Now that Francis is officially allowing sacrilegious Communion to unrepentant adulterers, sane Catholics are starting to ask questions. Isn’t the pope supposed to be our guardian of orthodoxy? Isn’t he infallible? Isn’t the Church supposed to be indefectible? In that vein, I was fortuitous enough to come across the following article, which discusses possible scenarios regarding an heretical pope. I know that many articles have been written on this subject since Vatican II, mostly pertaining to the sedevacanist issue. However, I have never seen an article quite like this. The kicker? It was written in 1868. Therefore it cannot be accused in any way of being biased. The author speculates on possibilities regarding the pope I have never before seen in a Pre-Vatican II Catholic document. I think it is a fascinating read.
Dear Readers,

I originally had no intention to offer a point by point rebuttal of Michael Voris’ hour-long “Catholi-Schism” video. The video is part of what Voris likes to call his “FBI” or Faith-Based Investigation” series. In reality a more proper acronym would have been “DOA” or “Dead on Arrival.” For the video does nothing more than make a systematic presentation of old arguments against the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) which have all been answered before.
This concludes our reprint of the article, "Reunion or Submission" penned by Arthur Featherstone Marshall in The American Catholic Quarterly Review of 1893.

(Click Here for Part I , here for Part II, here for Part III, here for Part IV

"In America as in England, the gravest of non-Catholics have expressed their ardent desire for conciliation. Schemes have been proposed; congresses have been assembled; bishops and clergy have drawn up “Certain Points of Agreement;” and though such experiments have come to naught, still every earnest-minded man says, “If it be possible, let us strive after reunion." The sole mistake of such admirable wishes or aspirations is in not recognizing that there must be submission. Why wish for so-called reunion, save because truth cannot be divided; and since there can only be one true Church why not submit to it, instead of wasting years in futile talk while millions of Protestants live and die outside the Visible Church, deprived of all the marvelous riches of her spiritual life, as well as of the exquisite enjoyments of her serenity, because they will not submit instead of speculating ; will not obey, instead of inventing a thousand excuses."
This continues our reprint of the article, "Reunion or Submission" penned by Arthur Featherstone Marshall in The American Catholic Quarterly Review of 1893.

(Click Here for Part I , here for Part II, here for Part III)

Which is the Divine Authority?

Such reflections lead us easily to the conclusion that a reunion can mean only a submission; for, not to submit to divine authority would be insane; it would be not only wicked, it would be mad. The one question which every Christian has to ask himself, in searching for the answer to '' What is truth?" is, ''which is the divine authority among many authorities?" If there be no divine authority, there is no duty in believing; for no man can invent the Catholic faith for himself, any more than he can obey his own mind.   On the other hand, if there be a divine authority, all that we have to do is submit to it.   We must not talk about reunion, but about submission. God has not placed a divine authority in this world to make compromises with the" views'' of various sects, but to teach all men the whole truth unto salvation, and to be obeyed with the whole will, the whole heart.
This continues our reprint of the article, "Reunion or Submission" penned by Arthur Featherstone Marshall in The American Catholic Quarterly Review of 1893.

(Click Here for Part I and here for Part II)

Is the Catholic Church Divinely Authoritative?

If non-Catholics have accepted the estimate just now hazarded, that "the claim to possess the divine authority to teach truth" is in itself a strong presumption of that possession; they will have easily passed to the corollary, that “ the disclaimer of divine authority is in itself a strong presumption of not possessing it"; and they will therefore naturally turn to the authority which says, "I can teach,” and will ask, “Prove to me that you are from, heaven and I will obey you." Well might the Catholic Church reply with her Divine Master, "Have I been so long time with, you, and yet hast thou not known me?" But in truth all non-Catholics recognize the truism, that the Catholic Church alone is authoritative. It is because she is authoritative that they quarrel with her, alleging that they prefer their private judgment. The question with any Protestant is not, "Is the Catholic Church authoritative?” but, "Is the Catholic Church divinely authoritative?" This question we should like to try to answer.
Page 1 of 2