he Catholic Apologetics section of is dedicated to providing our visitors with conventional Catholic Apologetics, including biblical, theological, and historical issues surrounding the Catholic Faith. Each topic-page is divided into sub-categories: articles, dialogues, debates, and Q&A. Visitors who are interested in suggesting an article or asking a question are encouraged to e-mail us their request.
Pete Vere surveys some of the excuses that followers of the SSPX use to justify their rebellion against Rome. After years as a Traditionalist, Pete provides us with his inside view of the machinations of the SSPX.
John Pacheco reviews the Church's teaching on religious liberty, and shows, despite what some Ultra-traditionalists might think, there is no separation between a civil right and a moral right.
Pete Vere's comprehensive account of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre's break with Rome and the canonical implications of the split. A very enjoyable, yet disturbing, account of the legal and political power plays between Rome and Lefebvre.
Contra the claims of some ultra-traditionalists, Pope Paul VI upheld the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist. In this article, Pete Vere, examine's Paul VI's Mysterium Fidei, which sought to reaffirm Catholic teaching on the Eucharist.
Shawn McElhinney and Pete Vere, JCL discuss why a traditional Catholic is one who adheres to Catholic Tradition. They examine five criteria from Catholic Tradition to define who are authentic Catholic Traditionalists.
Fr. Gruner has been officially suspended by the Vatican, but it seems that he believes that his particular suspension is unjust and refuses to submit to his superiors. Of course, how many sad cases in the Church's history have not hosted similar pretenses as an excuse to disobey? Pete Vere sets the record straight, gives everybody a reality check on this situation, and explains how Fr. Gruner is hardly a persecuted martyr for Fatima.
It is a difficult path to walk: on the one part, insisting on the Church's divine institution and the "extrinsic" necessity of belonging to her versus rejecting the absolute intrinsic and formal necessity of belonging to the Church on the other part. It is clear, however, that both the indifferentist position and the rigorist position pose serious problems from a moral and theological perpective. The former finds its foundation in Protestantism and Modernism, while the latter attempts to quash the former with theological extremism. Neither of them witness to the truth.