| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Online Users |
There are currently 457 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 455 Guest(s)
Bing, Google
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebvre: Open Letter to Pope John Paul II - November 1983 |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-14-2020, 11:28 AM - Forum: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
- No Replies
|
 |
Open letter to Pope John Paul II: An Episcopal Manifesto
Given at Rio de Janiero, Brazil on November 21, 1983
Holy Father,
May Your Holiness permit us, with an entire filial openness, to submit to you the following considerations. During the last twenty years the situation in the Church is such that it looks like an occupied city.
Thousands of members of the clergy, and millions of the faithful, are living in a state of anguish and perplexity because of the "self-destruction of the Church." They are being thrown into confusion and disorder by the errors contained in the documents of the Second Vatican Council, the post-conciliar reforms, and especially the liturgical reforms, the false notions diffused by official documents and by the abuse of power perpetrated by the hierarchy.
In these distressing circumstances, many are losing the Faith, charity is becoming cold, and the concept of the true unity of the Church in time and in space is disappearing.
In our capacity as bishops of the Holy Catholic Church, successors of the Apostles, our hearts are overwhelmed at the sights throughout the world, by so many souls who are bewildered yet desirous in continuing in the faith and morals which have been defined by the Magisterium of the Church and taught by Her in a constant and universal manner. It seems to us that to remain silent in these circumstances would be to become accomplices to these wicked works (cf. II Jn. 11).
That is why we find ourselves obliged to intervene in public before Your Holiness (considering all the measures we have undertaken in private during the last fifteen years have remained ineffectual) in order to denounce the principal causes of this dramatic situation, and to beseech Your Holiness to use his power as Successor of Peter to "confirm your brothers in the Faith" (Luke 22, 32), which has been faithfully handed down to us by Apostolic Tradition.
To that end we have attached to this letter an appendix containing the principal errors which are at the origins of this tragic situation and which, moreover, have already been condemned by your predecessors. The following list outlines these errors, but it is not exhaustive:
Quote:1. A latitudinarian and ecumenical notion of the Church, divided in its faith, condemned in particular by the Syllabus, No. 18 (Den. 2918).
2. A collegial government and a democratic orientation in the Church, condemned in particular by Vatican Council I (Den. 3055).
3. A false notion of the natural rights of man which clearly appears in the document on Religious Liberty, condemned in particular by Quanta cura (Pius IX) and Libertas praestantissimum (Leo XIII)
4. An erroneous notion of the power of the Pope (cf. Den. 3115).
5. A Protestant notion of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments, condemned by the Council of Trent, Session XXII.
6. Finally, and in a general manner, the free spreading of heresies, characterized by the suppression of the Holy Office.
The documents containing these errors cause an uneasiness and a disarray, so much the more profound as they come from a source so much the more elevated. The clergy and the faithful most moved by this situation are, moreover, those who are the most attached to the Church, to the authority of the Successor of Peter, and to the traditional Magisterium of the Church.
Most Holy Father, it is urgently necessary that this disarray come to an end because the flock is dispersing and the abandoned sheep are following mercenaries. We beseech you, for the good of the Catholic Faith and for the salvation of souls, to reaffirm the truths, contrary to these errors, truths which have been taught for twenty centuries in the Church
It is with the sentiments of St. Paul before St. Peter, when he reproached him for having not followed "the truth of the Gospel (Gal. 2, 11-14), that we are addressing you. His aim was none other than to protect the faith of the flock.
St. Robert Bellarmine, expressing on this occasion a general moral principle, states that one must resist the pontiff whose actions would be prejudicial to the salvation of souls (De Rom. Pon., I.2, c.29).
Thus it is with the purpose of coming to the aid of Your Holiness that we utter this cry of alarm, rendered all the more urgent by the errors, not to say the heresies, of the new Code of Canon Law and by the ceremonies and addresses on the occasion of the Fifth Centenary of the birth of Luther. Truly, this is the limit!
May God come to your aid, Most Holy Father. We are praying without ceasing for you to the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Deign to accept the sentiments of our filial devotion,
H.E. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre,
International Seminary of St. Pius X
Econe, Switzerland
H.E. Bishop Antonio de Castro-Mayer
Riachuelo 169, C.P. 255
28100 Campos, (RJ) Brazil
[Emphasis - The Catacombs]
Source
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebvre: 1983 Press Conference on the 'Open Letter of Archbishop Lefebvre to the Pope' |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-14-2020, 11:09 AM - Forum: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
- No Replies
|
|
The Angelus - May 1984
The Archbishop's Press Conference
Paris - 9 December 1983
In our January issue, we published the very important Open Letter of Archbishop Lefebvre to the Pope [see below - The Catacombs], its importance enhanced by the fact that it is also signed by a second bishop, Antonio de Castro-Mayer, retired Bishop of Campos (Brazil). The date of the Letter is also significant: November 21, (1983), the same date on which, nine years earlier, he wrote at Ecône, his now famous Declaration in response to the scandals caused at the Seminary by the Visitors from Rome. He mentioned that point in this article which is the text of a press conference he held in France in November, to focus the light of publicity on his Letter to the Holy Father, and thus hopefully give it greater impact. It is translated by Father Philip Stark from the January-February issue of Fideliter,a magazine of the Society of St. Pius X.
Question: We gather from everything you say that your meetings in private with the Vatican have borne no fruit. Do you think that this sort of public approach—this Open Letter—will bear any fruit?
Archbishop Lefebvre: I place my hopes in Providence. In answer to your question, I don't know, but we are fulfilling our responsibility to the people and to the priests, because we are being accused of doing nothing. People say, "You are constantly talking of your contact with Rome, but finally is anything being done? Are you really doing anything?" We ourselves see nothing. We see no results. We must speak louder. We must speak more openly.
Question: How about Bishop de Castro-Mayer? Is he also getting ready one day to ordain priests?
Archbishop Lefebvre: Well, he has already ordained some in his diocese, because you know he was a diocesan bishop. And now you know that the bishop who succeeded him, a progressivist, has closed the seminary and driven out the priests. But Bishop de Castro-Mayer has once again collected his seminarians together in a house and he is continuing to form them and certainly he will also ordain them. Clearly he is being forced by events to take the same attitude as myself because now his priests are being persecuted. He had 29 secular priests, 25 of whom were carrying on Tradition under his direction. Now that he has handed in his resignation and is no longer a diocesan bishop, the new bishop is persecuting these 25 priests. He has already put three or four of them out of their parishes. And he is using the radio, the newspapers, the press, the law courts and the police against these priests. It is unheard of, the persecution that they can undergo, even though the whole population is with them.
Question: You speak of a dialogue with Rome and, as far as we are concerned, we hear you saying today exactly what you were saying ten years ago. Can there really be any dialogue established between you and Rome?
Archbishop Lefebvre: I think that Rome will nevertheless pay a little more attention to an Open Letter published throughout the entire world than to a conversation, since they are not listening to me. Perhaps they will listen a little more like this.
Question: Are you disturbed by finding yourself opposite 2,000 bishops as though you are the absolute truth?
Archbishop Lefebvre: The truth does not depend upon me, or else the Church went astray for twenty centuries. All I am doing is to continue what I was taught, that is to say, what the Credo and the Catechism of all times teach. You can see for yourselves that the catechisms are being changed. All the traditional catechisms—the Catechism of the Council of Trent, the Catechism of St. Pius X, the Catechism of Cardinal Gasparri—are all these catechisms no longer worth anything because the French bishops have just published a brand new one? It's madness. Catechism and Catholic doctrine cannot change. Our Credo cannot change. The moral law cannot change. It's inconceivable.
Question: Are there just two of you in the whole Church who realize this?
Archbishop Lefebvre: No, I don't think so. As I was telling you, there are many who realize inside what is going on, but we are the only two to cry out. But go and see them and they will tell you, yes, in fact, it's unacceptable, it's really sad to see what is going on, it's unfortunate that the children have catechism like that in their hands, but what do you expect us to do? It's the episcopal conference which decides. Rome it is true, has spoken a little against these catechisms, but it wasn't truly decisive. They weren't courageous.
Question: In your opinion, is there terrorism going on inside the Catholic Church?
Archbishop Lefebvre: To speak of terrorism is going a bit far. It's a strong word. But there is tyranny. I consider that the way in which the priests of Campos are actually being persecuted is a veritable tyranny. I think that behind the Iron Curtain, among the Soviets, no one is being persecuted any more.
Question: How do you see the Church in France at this moment?
Archbishop Lefebvre: I think a good number of bishops are no longer Catholic. We are in the state England was in at the moment it passed over to Protestantism. One fine day England woke up to find itself Protestant and Anglican. All the bishops, priests and people went over to Anglicanism, and they thought they were doing the right thing. Well, with the Church in France, it's the same thing. It is in the process of passing over to Modernism, worse than Anglicanism. And nobody is waking up! Everybody is swallowing this poison. The Church is going to wake up entirely Modernist. You know, you can now ask many faithful, many priests in France, "Do you still believe in Purgatory, do you still believe in the angels, in Hell?" Oh no, all those things belong to the past. Do you still believe in original sin? Original sin—this is what they wrote in this recent French catechism—is a fairy tale which was put together by sages at the time of Solomon. So if that's original sin, then there's nothing left of the Catholic religion. Why did Our Lord come, if original sin doesn't exist? It no longer makes any sense. There's no longer any sense in the whole Catholic Church. You have no idea of the depth of the errors in which people now find themselves. And so we protest. There will be at least two bishops who protest. We hope we are speaking clearly, respectfully, but firmly.
Question: Monseigneur, can this Manifesto be considered your will and personal testament?
Archbishop Lefebvre: Oh no. Of course, I can very well die quite soon. That's entirely possible. But it's still not a testament. Exactly the same day nine years ago on the 21st of November, I drew up a manifesto which also brought down on me the persecution of Rome, in which I said I can't accept Modernist Rome. I accept the Rome of all time with its doctrine and with its Faith. That is the Rome we are following, but the Modernist Rome which is changing religion—I refuse it and I reject it. And that is the Rome which was introduced into the Council and which is in the process of destroying the Church. I refuse that Church. Well, today, I am continuing quite simply, so it's not a testament, it's the Truth.
Question: Monseigneur, we know of your difficulties with Pope Paul VI, but we find it much more difficult to understand that you have not been able to reach any agreement with such a Pope as John Paul II.
Archbishop Lefebvre: Well, that's a mistake. Pope John Paul II is as inclined to reform as Pope Paul VI was. Pope John Paul II has not condemned Communism. He tries to come to an understanding with Communism. I am convinced that Pope John Paul II would be in agreement with a Christian Socialism, a Christian-flavored Communism. Communism needs to be improved on. After all, why can't we come to an understanding with Communism? It is Pope John Paul II who is changing the bishops to replace them with collaborating bishops, bishops of the Pax Movement, a movement of the "priests of peace." It is they who are now being named cardinals and bishops in the countries behind the Iron Curtain and these cardinals, these bishops persecute the good priests, whereas before these priests used to be encouraged by their bishops in order to resist Communism. Bishops are now being imprisoned and many have died in Communist jails. Now it is the very bishops themselves who are turning into the instruments of the Communist governments in order to persecute the priests doing their duty.
Question: So it's the Devil, not the Holy Spirit, who has been at work in the last few conclaves?
Archbishop Lefebvre: In any case the role being played by the Pope today is not truly the role that he ought to play. That is certain. He is not fulfilling his duty in the face of Communism. Look also at the "affair" that he is having with the Protestants. It's unheard of! He sent twenty official delegates to the Vancouver Congress of the Ecumenical Council of Churches. Those are the ones who have most worked with Protestants. After all, must we become Protestants? I had already written during the Council an article called "Must We Become Protestants in Order to Remain Good Catholics?" I already did that during the Council. It's going on. There is no change in this area. And then thirdly, Religious Liberty, the Rights of Man—it's always this humanism with which the Pope is infested. That is what pleases the Freemasons and the Protestants.
Question: However, John Paul II is a true pope?
Archbishop Lefebvre: I think so. I have always thought so, but he is a Pope who is not doing his duty. I would say so to himself if he were here. I am not afraid to say so to him. It's not my fault. Never before has one seen the Church not condemning Communism. Never before has one seen the Church agreeing with Communism to nominate collaborating bishops. Never before has the Church been seen united with Protestants to make a Catholic or Protestant liturgy and so on and so on.
Question: Then Monseigneur, if the situation is a deadlock, how do you see the future, notably the future of your communities and of your young priests?
Archbishop Lefebvre: That poses no problems for us. We have vocations in our seminaries. They are asking for us throughout the world. Communities of faithful Catholics who still wish to save their souls and who wish to continue the Catholic Church, so in that respect we have no difficulties. We have no problems within. But of course, as far as Rome is concerned, I do not know. I admit that the situation looks very dark because Rome is occupied by Modernists.
Question: The two signatures on the Manifesto—yourself and Msgr. de Castro-Mayer—are nevertheless rather closer to eternity than they are to today. So what's going to happen afterwards? How are you going to insure the continuation of your communities when there are no longer any bishops?
Archbishop Lefebvre: So you are asking the question for which maybe you all came, thinking that I was going to announce that I was going to make some bishops (laughter)?
Question: Monseigneur, why don't you make some bishops?
Archbishop Lefebvre: Because I still think that in appearance it would be an act of rupture with Rome which would be grave. I say, mark you, in appearance, because I think that before God, it is possible that this act may be an act necessary for the history of the Church, for the continuation of the Church, for the continuation of the Catholic priesthood, and so I am not saying that one day I won't do it. But it would be in circumstances still more tragic than today. Besides, as long as the Good Lord leaves me still a little health, I am still here, I prefer not to put the Society of St. Pius X into an even more difficult situation with regard to Rome. I still live in hope that, after all, Rome will one day open its eyes. Otherwise the Good Lord Himself must intervene with events of which we have no knowledge.
Question: So you are not absolutely refusing to consecrate a bishop?
Archbishop Lefebvre: No, I am not absolutely refusing. No, because if there is any role which is important for the bishop, it is that of handing on Tradition, of handing on the Gospel, of handing on the Faith.
Question: But in communion with other bishops, surely, Monseigneur.
Archbishop Lefebvre: Yes, but supposing these bishops no longer have the Faith? I wish it could be in communion with them. I have no desire at all to consecrate bishops, but if the bishops no longer have the Faith and I assure you that one may well ask how many bishops do still have the Faith, the true Catholic Faith. It is enough to see what has become of their seminaries. It is unheard of!
Question: Monseigneur, isn't this Manifesto also a little jab of the spurs to stimulate a movement that is beginning to slow down? Isn't it the opportunity to exert pressure with regard to your movement, in any case the communities connected with you and which have lost a little of their importance, or of the crowds which were following them?
Archbishop Lefebvre: No, not at all. I assure you that is not at all my intention, not the least in the world. I am not seeking publicity, and I don't think that we have habitually sought publicity. I think this act is sufficiently important once more in the history of the Church for me to ask for your cooperation in making known this appeal to the Holy Father and in reassuring Christians they are not alone, they are not abandoned; there are two bishops who are speaking for them.
Question: Isn't this act an ultimatum to Rome just before you consecrate bishops? Aren't you wishing to say to the Holy Father: "I am beginning to get on a bit in years, I'm getting a bit tired?"
Archbishop Lefebvre: That may be, but I don't yet know. I haven't thought out a method, but very possibly I will ask the Holy Father for an audience. If it is granted me, I might say to the Pope, "Listen. The situation is such that I believe in conscience I must consecrate a bishop; grant me the authorization. If you do not give it to me in the present situation, you oblige me to go ahead nevertheless."
[Emphasis - The Catacombs]
|
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebvre: Spiritual Journey - The Sacraments of Jesus Christ |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-14-2020, 10:58 AM - Forum: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
- No Replies
|
|
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre: Spiritual Journey
Chapter VII - The Sacraments of Jesus Christ
The Word of God was made flesh on account of the sin of man, to make reparation for it and to bring about a rebirth of divine life in souls, so that they might again become acceptable to God and glorify Him in this world and for eternity.
Thus Jesus, in His merciful love, chose to assume in a certain way the sins of humanity and to offer Himself as a sacrifice of redemption and of propitiation to His Father in order to restore the life of the Holy Ghost, the life of charity, in souls through a participation in His own life, which has become the sole source of life and salvation for men.
The Sacrifice of Calvary appears, then, as the Light which shines in the darkness, as the only fountain of life in the middle of the desert. By what means does God communicate this new life to us? It is by perpetuating Calvary. There will never be but one Sacrifice of the Cross, but one Victim, but one Priest: it is Jesus Himself.
We will never be able to insist enough on this marvelous invention of Divine Mercy, which sheds light on everything ordered by Divine Providence in the establishment of the Church, the Priesthood, and the Sacraments, of which the Eucharist, fruit of the Sacrifice and source of our sanctification, is the center and, in a certain way, the raison d’être. Which is the greatest and the most important of all these sacraments, and the one to which the rest are directed and whereby they are in some sort perfected?
It is the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. For in this Sacrament, our Lord Himself is present substantially, whereas in all the other sacraments there is only a power or a virtue which comes from Him. Further, all the other sacraments would seem to be directed to the Holy Eucharist, as Holy Orders which effect the sacrament; or as Baptism, Confirmation, Penance, and Extreme Unction, which make one worthy or more worthy to receive the Holy Eucharist; or as Marriage which signifies it, in so far as it is a union.(Pegues, pp. 247-8, III, Q. 65, Art. 3)
Would that we were able to give to the Mystery of the Cross its full value, its full place in the divine plan of the Redemption and in its application to souls throughout the history of the Church!
We must recognize that proper place is not always given, even in the teaching of the Church, in catechisms, to the Sacrifice of the Cross perpetuated on our altars. There is a tendency to give all recognition to the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist and to make but an accidental allusion to the sacrifice. [color#71101d]This is a great danger for the faith of the laity[/color], especially in face of the violent attacks of the Protestants against the Holy Sacrifice. The devil is not mistaken when he is out to make the Sacrifice disappear. He knows that he is attacking the work of Our Lord at its vital center, and that any lack of esteem for this sacrifice brings about the ruin of all Catholicism in every domain.
The devil’s action since Vatican II is very revealing. It obliges those who wish to remain Catholic to courageously defend the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Priesthood as Our Lord instituted them.
It is essential for the spiritual life of priests as for that of the faithful to clarify our faith and our knowledge of the act, willed by Divine Wisdom, which has spiritually and supernaturally revived humanity.[/b] This act is the reason behind the Incarnation. It is the accomplishment of the Redemption. It is the act which glorifies God infinitely and opens the gates of heaven for sinful humanity. It is the Sacrifice of Calvary.
One cannot but be struck by the insistence of Our Lord during His entire earthly life on His “hour.” “Desiderio desideravi —greatly have I desired,” said Our Lord: Greatly have I desired this hour of My immolation. Jesus is stretched forward, as it were, towards His Cross.
The Mysterium Christiis, above all, the Mysterium Crucis —the mystery of the Cross. That is why, in the designs of the infinite Wisdom of God for the accomplishment of the Redemption, for the Re-creation and Renovation of humanity, Jesus’ Cross is the perfect, total, final, and eternal solution. It is by His Cross that all will be resolved. It is with respect to the relation each soul has with Jesus Crucified that the judgment of God will be delivered. If the soul is in a living relation with Jesus Crucified, then it prepares itself for eternal life and already participates in Jesus’ glory by the presence of the Holy Ghost in it. It is the very life of the Mystical Body of Jesus: “If anyone abide not in Me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall wither, and they shall gather him up, and cast him into the fire, and he burneth” (Jn. 15:6).
For our justification, for our sanctification, Jesus organizes everything around this fountain of life which is His Sacrifice of Calvary. He founded the Church, He transmits His Priesthood, He instituted the sacraments to share with souls the infinite merits of Calvary. St. Paul does not hesitate to say: “For I judged not myself to know anything among you, but Jesus Christ, and Him crucified” (I Cor. 2:2).
This Sacrifice of Calvary becomes on our altars the Sacrifice of the Mass, which at the same time as it continues the Sacrifice of the Cross brings about the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, which makes us participants in the divine Victim, Jesus Crucified.It is therefore around the Sacrifice of the Mass that the Church, the Mystical Body of Our Lord, is organized. It is around the Sacrifice of the Mass that the Priesthood lives, in order to build up this Mystical Body by the preaching which attracts souls to purify themselves in the water of Baptism so as to be worthy to participate in the Eucharistic Sacrifice of Jesus, in the consuming of the divine Victim, and so as to unite themselves more and more to the Holy Trinity, beginning celestial and eternal life already here below.
It is also from the Cross that the grace of matrimony, received at the Sacrifice of the Mass, builds up Christendom, the social reign of Jesus Crucified, in families and in society. Christendom is society living in the shadow of the Cross, in the shadow of the parish church constructed in the form of a cross, surmounted by the cross, sheltering the altar where Calvary is renewed daily, in which souls come to receive and feed the life of grace by the ministry of priests, who are “other Christs.”
Christendom consists of this village, of those villages, cities, and countries which, following Christ on the Cross, accomplish the law of love under the influence of the Christian life of grace. Christendom is the Kingdom of Jesus Christ.The authorities of this Christendom call themselves “lieutenants of Jesus Christ,” for they simply stand in His place and are thus charged with the application of His law, with protecting faith in Jesus Christ and with aiding its extension by all means possible, in full accord with the Church.
One can say in truth that the blessings of Christendom come from the Cross of Jesus and from Jesus Crucified. It is the resurrection of a fallen humanity thanks to the power of the blood of Jesus Christ. This marvelous program, put together by the eternal Wisdom of God, could not be realized without the Priesthood, whose particular grace is to perpetuate the unique Sacrifice of Calvary, source of life, of redemption, of sanctification, and of glorification.
The radiance of priestly grace is the radiance of the Cross. The priest is at the heart of the renovation merited by Our Lord. His influence is the determining factor on souls and for society. A priest enlightened by faith and filled with the virtues and gifts of the Spirit of Jesus can convert numerous souls to Jesus Christ, raise up vocations, and transform a pagan society into a Christian society.
Clearly, the role of the bishop—who is priest in the full sense of the term—is considerable. His function is the multiplication of true priests, the encouragement of religious vocations, the building up of Christian institutions, for the vitality of Christendom and the growth of Our Lord’s universal reign.
The bishops are responsible for keeping an unfailing, uncompromising faith in the virtue of the Cross of Jesus, unique source of salvation. They must not turn, as does the world, towards the use of human means as a so-called more effective apostolate. This would be a sign of their loss of faith in Jesus Christ Crucified. It is precisely this which we have observed for many decades and which has led to the self-destruction of the Church, according to the word of Paul VI, himself a decisive collaborator in this self-destruction.
It is Israel abandoning Yahweh, the one, true God, to prevaricate with false gods from neighboring tribes, whose daughters they took for wives and whose gods they adopted. Israel ended up by being guilty of deicide. But its glory would come from a virgin of the tribe of Judah, predestined to be the Mother of God and the Mother of the New Israel.
Thus, in spite of the promises of Our Lord, which in truth do not cease to be fulfilled, the majority of Church authorities prevaricate with false modern gods by ecumenism! These false, modern gods are not only those worshipped by false religions, but also the false deified ideologies: the goddess Reason, the goddess Liberty, and the goddesses Democracy, Socialism, and Communism.
God, Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church, the Holy Sacrifice of the Cross and of the Mass, and the true Catholic Priesthood are not ecumenical because they proclaim a Credo and practice an anti-ecumenical Law: they work towards the universal reign of the King of Kings: Jesus Christ Crucified: “One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism” (Eph. 4:5).
Along these lines, since we have touched on the meaning of the sacraments, it seems an opportune time to return to the importance given to Baptism of water and of the Spirit by Our Lord. It is by this Baptism that Our Lord intends to constitute the new people of God, destined for the promised land, for eternal life.
The fact that He wished to be baptized by St. John the Baptist, and that all the significance of Baptism by water and by the Spirit was then manifested in a marvelous fashion, is of paramount importance for the work of the Redemption.
During His baptism, the whole Trinity deigned to make Itself manifested—[the Second Person] in His human nature, the Holy Ghost under the form of a dove, and the Father in the voice that was heard—in order to make known what would be the form of the Sacrament. He also made known the effect of this new baptism by the fact that the heavens were opened above His head; this was to show that by His baptism the gates of heaven were opened for men, in virtue of the baptism of blood where He washed away in His own person the sins of the world. (III, Q. 39, Arts. 1-8)
Thus the universality of the power of the Cross is manifested. By the character imprinted on the soul, the soul becomes able to participate in the Church, in the effects of Our Lord’s priesthood. But it cannot exercise the hierarchical acts of this priesthood.
Those who have received the grace of Baptism and who carry forever its indelible character, insofar as they are faithful to its grace, surpass in dignity and in excellence all creatures, considered in their own nature.
Our Lord wanted us to learn of His conversation with Nicodemus in St. John’s Gospel. His words were clear: “Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God....unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (Jn. 3:3-5).
It is also the command that Our Lord gives in a solemn manner when, before ascending to heaven, He sends the apostles on mission: “All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost” (Mt. 28:18).
It is this valid baptism of water which confers the sacramental character and constitutes a person as a full member of the Church, with rights and duties; and this even if baptism does not confer sanctifying grace, that is, even if it is not fruitful. This is the case with Protestants when their baptism is valid. Not having the true faith, they cannot receive grace, and yet they do receive the sacramental character, from which they can receive grace if they foreswear their heresies.
There is in the Church a teaching filled with errors, if not heresies, on the subject of the sacraments and especially of Baptism. It is very important to remember the doctrine of the Church on this subject. The new Rite of Baptism has been influenced by these errors, especially in what concerns the effects of Baptism. The true doctrine concerning Baptism corresponds well to the missionary spirit Our Lord inspired in His apostles. The visible outpouring of the Holy Ghost on the baptized at the beginning of the preaching of the Gospel confirms the capital importance of Baptism. Still today, in pagan regions, missionaries recognize the baptized by their faces—faces which are open, relaxed, trusting—while the pagans breathe fear, servility, and distrust.
Henceforward, the blood of Jesus, in which Christians have been baptized, calls them to unite themselves to Jesus’ Sacrifice every Sunday and thus to accomplish the most important act of the virtue of religion in union with Our Lord and all His Mystical Body for the glory of the Holy Trinity.
Before closing these meditations on the Holy Mass and the sacraments, it seems useful to consider especially the sacrament of Penance, which in numerous circumstances occupies a great part of the time that the priest consecrates to the apostolate. Given the weakness of souls and the scandals of a corrupt society in the midst of which they live, falls are frequent. Our Lord, in His infinite wisdom, instituted “a second plank of salvation” for us to hold on to.
The Fundamental Principle of the Spiritual Combat
The Wounds in Our Soul after Baptism
The acquisition of that holiness which is necessary for the salvation of our souls is not a simple thing. In effect, our daily experience and the teaching of the Church inform us that the grace of Baptism, although it gives us sanctifying grace by the outpouring of the Holy Ghost and frees us from original sin and from the control of the devil, does not free us from all the consequences of original sin. These consequences explain why our spiritual life takes on the bearing of a spiritual battle lasting throughout all our lives here below.
This teaching is fundamental and governs all of our apostolate. We remain sick and in need of the Doctor of our souls and of the spiritual helps He has provided for. Here is the teaching of the Church, expressed by St. Thomas Aquinas (I-II, Q. 85, Art. 3; Father Pegues, Catechism of the Summa, p. 128 [Fr. ed.]):
Quote:Original sanctity was lost by the sin of the first man. That is why all the powers of souls remain disordered, in a certain measure, with respect to their proper end, by which they were adapted to the practice of virtue. This absence of order is called the wounding of nature (vulneratio naturæ).
Insofar as reason is without its order to the truth, it is the wound of ignorance (vulnus ignorantiæ).
Insofar as the will is without its order to good, it is the wound of malice (vulnus malitiæ).
Insofar as fortitude is without its order to the accomplishing of difficult things, it is the wound of weakness (vulnus infirmitatis).
Insofar as fleshly desires are without the government of reason in that which is pleasurable, it is the wound of concupiscence (vulnus concupiscentiæ).
In his First Epistle, St. John confirms this truth: “All that is in the world is the concupiscence of the flesh and the concupiscence of the eyes and the pride of life” (I Jn. 2:16).
These four wounds undermine the four cardinal virtues and thus provoke in us a continual disorder. The most devastating seems to be that of ignorance or blindness, that is to say ignoring God and Our Lord Jesus Christ. For it is in this knowledge that eternal life resides: “Now this is eternal life: That they may know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent” (Jn. 17:3).
How, in effect, can we render to God the love and the worship which are due to Him if we remain blind with respect to Him? The seminarians and priests will never be able to thank God enough for having led them to the seminary, where all studies teach them to know God and Our Lord, and where all life is directed to render to the Holy Trinity by the person of the Word Incarnate the honor, worship, and love which are due Him, “per Christum Dominum nostrum.”
May priestly souls enter courageously into the spiritual combat to heal their souls of these wounds and thus learn to become doctors of souls by their preaching, by the prayer of the Holy Mass, by the Eucharist, and by the sacrament of Penance. Retreats are a powerful means for diminishing the blindness of souls and for healing the other wounds.
Without knowledge of these elementary truths, one cannot comprehend the Catholic spirituality of the Cross, of sacrifice, of despising temporal goods so as to be attached to eternal goods.
The demons use all that appeals to the senses and is delectable to deepen our wounds. What happened to Eve continues to happen now. Having listened to the word of the devil, Eve saw that the fruit was delectable—pulchrum visu et delectabile (Gen. 3:6). She would say to God, but, alas, too late: “The serpent deceived me” (Gen. 3:13). Hence the insistence of the Church, in all its spirituality, and especially for priestly souls or those consecrated to God, on distancing oneself from the world and its spirit so as to seek nothing but eternal things, following Jesus and Jesus Crucified.
But it is yet another of the disastrous consequences of the Council that this traditional and Catholic spirituality, a spirituality of self-denial, of the cross, of contempt for temporal things, of being invited to carry one’s cross following Our Lord, is destroyed. The alternative proposed is the search for social justice based on envy and the desire of the goods of this world. Thus whole populations are thrown into a fratricidal struggle, and the poor increase in number. On the contrary, it is the true Catholic spirituality which will change hearts and bring about a turn towards greater social justice.
This bad spirit of the Council—the spirit of the world—has invaded priestly and religious life and has led to a destruction without precedent of the priesthood and of religious life. The great triumph of Satan is to have accomplished by men of the Church the destruction which no persecution has ever produced.
The priest has received the power to apply the merits of the Cross and of the Blood of Jesus to souls who confess their sins with contrition and make satisfaction for the punishment due for sins already pardoned. The fruitful exercise of this ministry requires of the priest numerous qualities: knowledge of the divine law and of the laws of the Church so as to judge the gravity of the sin confessed; prudence, discretion, counsel, merciful charity following the example of Our Lord, in order to bring appropriate help to the sick soul. Souls generally are more appreciative of sweet firmness than of liberal laxity; they yearn to be healed, even if this desire is not explicit.
Contrition being essential to the reception of the sacrament of Penance, it is often useful to insist on this disposition, as also on firm resolutions. To be effective, contrition must be interior and habitual. This profound sentiment of regret for sin, if it persists, shelters the soul from further sin, maintaining it in humility, self-distrust, and in a state of continual vigilance. This is indeed the advice constantly repeated by Our Lord: “Vigilate—Watch!”
Satisfaction is, of course, accomplished by the prayers or actions imposed by the confessor, but it should also be continuous; in our daily prayers, in sacrifices and self-denial, in fasting and almsgiving. In the context of that satisfaction which is applied by indulgences, the reality of the Mystical Body appears in all its effectiveness. Without doubt, in the course of history, indulgences were abused for financial gain. But these simoniacal abuses, although condemnable, do not obliterate the priceless reality. Indulgences do help us to pay back in satisfaction for the debt which we still have with respect to God before the particular judgment at the hour of our death.
In this apostolate we should act in such a way, publicly and socially, that nobody would have any reluctance to ask for the sacrament of Penance; that is to say, we should always conduct ourselves in a truly priestly manner.
- Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Spiritual Journey. Kansas City: Missouri. Angelus Press. E-Book
[Emphasis - The Catacombs]
|
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebvre: Where is the Schism? |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-14-2020, 10:42 AM - Forum: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
- No Replies
|
|
Taken from A Bishop Speaks:
Ecône, Switzerland
August 2, 1976
Where Is the Schism?
“Your Excellency, aren’t you heading towards schism?”
That is the question that very many Catholics are asking on reading about the latest sanctions adopted by Rome against us! Catholics for the most part define or imagine schism to mean a break with the pope. They don’t push their investigation any further. You are going to break with the pope or the pope is going to break with you, so you are heading towards schism.
Why does breaking with the pope cause a schism? Because where the pope is, there is the Catholic Church. In reality, it means separating oneself from the Catholic Church. But the Catholic Church is a mystical reality that exists not only in space, on the face of the earth, but also in time and eternity. For the pope to represent the Church and be its image, he must not only be united to it in space, but also in time, the Church being essentially a living tradition.
In the measure that the pope would distance himself from this tradition, he would become schismatic, he would break with the Church. Theologians like St. Robert Bellarmine, Cajetan, Cardinal Journet, and many others have studied this possibility. Thus it is not something inconceivable.
But what is of concern to us is the Vatican Council II and its reforms and official orientations, much more than the personal attitude of the Pope, which is more difficult to discover. The Council represents, as much to the eyes of the Roman authorities as to our own, a new Church, which in fact they themselves call the Conciliar Church.
We believe that we can affirm, by limiting ourselves to a critique of Vatican II, that is to say, by analyzing the documents and by studying the conduct of the Council, that, by turning its back on tradition and breaking with the Church’s past, it is a schismatic Council. A tree is judged by its fruits. At present, the mainstream press in Europe and America and even worldwide, recognizes that the Council is in the process of ruining the Catholic Church to such an extent that even unbelievers and secular States are worried.
A non-aggression pact was concluded between the Church and the Freemasons. That is the reality behind the words “aggiornamento–opening to the world,” and “ecumenism.”
Henceforth, the Church accepts being no longer the one true religion, the only way of eternal salvation. It recognizes the other religions as sister religions. It recognizes as a right derived from the nature of the human person that man is free to choose his religion, and consequently a Catholic State is no longer admissible.
Once this new principle is admitted, then all the doctrine of the Church must change: its worship, its priesthood, its institutions. For until now everything in the Church manifested that she alone possesses the Truth, the Way, and the Life in our Lord Jesus Christ, whom she possesses in person in the holy Eucharist present thanks to the continuation of His sacrifice. A complete overthrow of the entire tradition and teaching of the Church has been brought about since the Council by the Council. All those who co-operate in the implementation of this overthrow accept and adhere to this new “Conciliar Church,” as His Excellency Bishop Benelli designates it in the letter he addressed to me in the name of the Holy Father last June 25th, and enter into schism.
The adoption of liberal theses by a Council could not have occurred except in a non-infallible pastoral council, and cannot be explained without there having been a secret, detailed preparation which the historians will eventually uncover to the great stupefaction of Catholics who confuse the eternal Roman Catholic Church with the human Rome susceptible to infiltration by enemies robed in purple.
How could we, by a blind and servile obedience, go along with these schismatics who ask us to collaborate in their enterprise of demolishing the Church?
The authority delegated by our Lord to the pope, to the bishops, and to the priesthood in general is at the service of the faith in His divinity and the transmission of His own divine life. All the institutions, divine or ecclesiastical, are destined to serve this end. Each and every law has no other purpose. To make use of the Church’s law, institutions, and authority to destroy the Catholic Faith and to no longer transmit the life of grace is to practise spiritual abortion or contraception. Who will dare say that a Catholic worthy of the name can co-operate in a crime that is worse than physical abortion?
That is why we are submissive and ready to accept everything that is in conformity with our Catholic Faith such as it has been taught for two thousand years, but we reject everything that is against it.
The objection is made that we make ourselves the judge of the Catholic Faith. But is it not the gravest duty of every Catholic to judge the faith which is taught him by that which was taught and believed for twenty centuries and which is inscribed in the official catechisms, like that of Trent, of St. Pius X, and of every pre-Vatican II catechism? How have the true faithful always acted in the face of heresy? They have preferred to shed their blood rather than betray their faith.
No matter how exalted the dignity of the spokesmen of heresy may be, the problem for the salvation of our souls remains the same. And in connection with this, many Catholics are seriously ignorant about the nature and scope of the pope’s infallibility. Very many think that every word that comes from his mouth is infallible.
For the rest, it seems to us much more certain that the faith taught by the Church for twenty centuries cannot contain error than that it is absolutely certain that the Pope is pope. Heresy, schism, ipso facto excommunication, or the invalidity of the election are so many causes which, eventually, could make it such that a Pope was never pope or that he is so no longer. In such a case, obviously very exceptional, the Church would be in a situation similar to that which occurs after the death of a Sovereign Pontiff. For, ultimately, a serious problem has presented itself to the faith of all Catholics since the beginning of Pope Paul VI’s pontificate. How can a Pope who is a true successor to Peter, and hence is guaranteed the assistance of the Holy Ghost, preside over the most extensive devastation the Church has ever experienced in its history in such a short period of time, something no heresiarch has ever succeeded in doing? One day this question will have to be answered. But leaving this problem to theologians and historians, the reality constrains us to respond practically in accordance with the counsel given by St. Vincent of Lerins: Quote:What, therefore, will the Catholic Christian do if some members of the Church have broken away from the communion of universal faith? What else, but prefer the sanity of the body universal to the pestilence of the corrupt member? What if a new contagion strives to infect not only a small part but the whole of the Church? Then, he will endeavor to adhere to the antiquity which is evidently beyond the danger of being seduced by the deceit of some novelty.
We are resolved to continue our work for the restoration of the Catholic priesthood come what may, persuaded that we can provide no greater service to the Church, the Pope, the bishops, and the faithful. Let us be permitted to carry out the experiment of Tradition.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, A Bishop Speaks, Kansas City, MO: Angelus Press. E-Book
[Emphasis - The Catacombs]
|
|
|
|
| Cardinal Burke: Forces of the ‘Great Reset’ have used COVID to advance ‘evil agenda’ |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-14-2020, 10:35 AM - Forum: Great Reset
- Replies (1)
|
|
Cardinal Burke: Forces of the ‘Great Reset’ have used COVID to advance ‘evil agenda’
"So many in the Church seem to have no understanding of how Christ continues his saving work in times of plague and of other disasters."
![[Image: Burke-1-696x464.png]](https://alphanewsmn.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Burke-1-696x464.png)
Cardinal Raymond Burke/Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe
Alphanews | December 13, 2020
At a time when “we need to be close to one another in Christian love, worldly forces would isolate us and have us believe that we are alone and dependent upon secular forces, which would make us slaves to their godless and murderous agenda,” Cardinal Raymond Burke said during a Saturday homily.
Burke, the founder of the Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe, delivered a powerful homily at the La Crosse, Wisconsin, pilgrimage site Saturday evening.
“We come to Our Lady of Guadalupe on her feast day with troubled and heavy hearts. Our nation is going through a crisis which threatens its very future as free and democratic. The worldwide spread of Marxist materialism, which has already brought destruction and death to the lives of so many, and which has threatened the foundations of our nation for decades, now seems to seize the governing power over our nation,” Burke began his sermon.
“To attain economic gains, we as a nation have permitted ourselves to become dependent upon the Chinese Communist Party, an ideology totally opposed to the Christian foundations upon which families and our nation remain safe and prosper,” he continued.
Burke spoke specifically of the United States, but “evidently many other nations are in the throes of a similar, most alarming crisis,” he said.
“Then there is the mysterious Wuhan virus about whose nature and prevention the mass media daily give us conflicting information. What is clear, however, is that it has been used by certain forces, inimical to families and to the freedom of nations, to advance their evil agenda. These forces tell us that we are now the subjects of the so-called ‘Great Reset,’ the ‘new normal,’ which is dictated to us by their manipulation of citizens and nations through ignorance and fear,” said the cardinal.
Given these “grievous” conditions, Americans are now being asked to find “the way to understand and direct” their lives in a “disease and its prevention,” rather than “in God and in his plan for our salvation.”
“The response of many bishops and priests, and of many faithful, has manifested a woeful lack of sound catechesis. So many in the Church seem to have no understanding of how Christ continues his saving work in times of plague and of other disasters,” Burke said.
“What is more, our holy mother Church, the spotless bride of Christ, in which Christ is ever at work for our eternal redemption, is beset by reports of moral corruption, especially in matters of the sixth and seventh commandments, which seem to increase by the day. In our own nation, the reports about Theodore McCarrick have rightly tempted many devoted Catholics to question the shepherds, who in accord with Christ’s plan for the Church are to be their secured guides by teaching the truths of the faith, by leading them in the fitting worship of God and in prayer to him, and by guiding them by means of the Church’s perennial discipline,” he continued.
Instead, the faithful too often “receive nothing in response, or a response which is not grounded in the unchanging truths regarding faith and morals.”
“They receive responses that seem to come not from shepherds but from secular managers. The confusion regarding what the Church truly teaches and demands of us in accord with her teaching generates ever greater divisions within the body of Christ. All of this cripples the Church in her mission of witness to divine truth and divine love at a time when the world has never needed more the Church to be a beacon,” Burke declared.
“In encountering the world, the Church falsely wants to accommodate herself to the world instead of calling the world to conversion in obedience to the divine law written on every human heart and revealed in its fullness in the redemptive incarnation of God the Son,” he added.
The cardinal said these troubles “present a formidable challenge” to Christian life and have produced “the most painful suffering.”
“Yes, our hearts are understandably heavy, but Christ, through the intercession of his Virgin Mother, lifts up our hearts to his own, renewing our trust in him, who has promised us eternal salvation in the Church. He will never be unfaithful to his promises. He will never abandon us,” Burke concluded. “Let us not be beguiled by the forces of the world and by false prophets. Let us not abandon Christ and seek our salvation in places where it never can be found.”
[Emphasis - The Catacombs]
|
|
|
|
| A Day in the Life of Archbishop Lefebvre |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-14-2020, 10:12 AM - Forum: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
- No Replies
|
|
The Angelus - November 1980
A Day in the Life of Archbishop Lefebvre
This article first appeared in the September 1979 issue of Fideliter.
TO SEE ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE officiating at ordination or confirmation ceremonies, robed in his pontifical vestments, surrounded by gold and incense, one would think that he lives continuously in episcopal splendor. Nothing could be further from the truth. Christian simplicity inspires all his daily actions.
In everyday life Archbishop Lefebvre wears a simple black cassock with the cincture of the Holy Ghost Fathers. The only signs of his episcopacy are his ring and pectoral cross.
When he is at Écône, the Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X rises at 5: 30 a.m., a half-hour before the community. He celebrates Mass at 6:00, in a small chapel on the second floor of the seminary, for a group of the faithful who come before beginning their work day.
Around 6:45, His Grace goes to the main chapel where the seminarians are finishing Prime, and with them prays and attends the community Mass. At 8:00 he goes to the refectory for breakfast, sitting at the head of the faculty table.
After that His Grace is in his office, a little room next to his bedroom, exactly like the offices of-all the priests at the seminary. There he remains until noon. On the shelves of his library can be found books of spirituality, the Summa Theologiae of St. Thomas Aquinas, Acts of the popes, a dictionary. The former Superior General of the Holy Ghost Fathers has not forgotten his vow of poverty: he gives all books presented to him to the seminary library.
During the morning hours, Archbishop Lefebvre answers his mail, prepares the spiritual talks which he gives to the seminarians each Thursday, does research for the course on papal teachings which he gives every week to the first-year students.
He receives most of his visitors in the parlor. Saturday morning is devoted to discussions with professors.
At 12:15 p.m. His Grace goes to the chapel for Sext in community, and leads the Angelus. He takes his lunch in silence, listening with the professors and seminarians to the table reading. The former missionary is not hard to please, much less fastidious: his food is the same as the others. Still, one attentive seminarian thinks he has spotted in him a certain predilection for grapefruit.
During recreation after lunch, His Grace loves to be with his sons, to walk and talk with them; unfortunately his many responsibilities seldom give him the opportunity to do so. The afternoon finds him again in his office, where he sees informally the seminarians who wish to speak to him after their classes.
When time permits, he visits the sacristy, the library, the supply room, to make sure that things are running smoothly in these areas. At 7:00 p.m. His Grace recites the Rosary with his seminarians, for the intentions of the friends of the Society. In spite of voracious demands on his time, he is rarely absent from community exercises. Dinner, then evening recreation, finally Compline chanted at 8:45, and his day is ended.
As he leaves the chapel, before retiring to his room, the Superior General of the Society of St.Pius X kneels on the tile floor of the cloister, before the statue of the Blessed Virgin for a short prayer; it would not be hard to guess what he is saying to Her. Until the next morning, throughout the house, it is Grand Silence.
|
|
|
|
| The Angelus 1994: Attendance at Today's Masses |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-14-2020, 10:02 AM - Forum: In Defense of Tradition
- No Replies
|
|
The Attendance at Today's Masses
by Fr. Marc Van Es
This article by Fr. Marc Van Es, was first featured in June 1994 issue of The Angelus magazine.
The attendance at today's Sunday Masses
After He had created in six days the universe and all it contains, God rested on the seventh day.[1] Thus, it was by this "divine repose" that the duty for man to reserve for God a part of his weekly time was foreshadowed; a duty which is one of the elements of religion due and owed to the Creator by the creature. Meanwhile, this natural duty was not specified except by the Mosaic law,[2] which had fixed its observance on the last day of the week, the Sabbath and which had established its forms. However, the duty to sanctify the Sabbath was imposed only on the Jewish people. Then, under the New Law a change took place; in memory of the Resurrection of Christ and of the descent of the Holy Ghost on the Apostles, events which both happened on a Sunday, this duty became the Sunday precept as we know it today, characterized in particular by the duty of attendance at Mass.
But in our days we witness a multiplicity of Masses, all different one from the other, old or Tridentine, new or Conciliar, in traditional liturgical language or in the vernacular, for the young, for the handicapped, etc., etc.
In order to see a little more clearly on the subject of our Sunday duties today, let us first look at what the precept of Sunday Mass consists of, so as to examine subsequently the particular cases which are the attendance at the New Mass called that of "Pope Paul VI" and at the Mass called "with Indult."
The Sunday precept in general
From the beginning of the Christian era, it was the norm to sanctify feast days by the attendance at Mass. Why was this? To show by a public worship that we acknowledge the sovereignty of God over all things and, in consequence, our total dependence on Him. Such a duty was, however, at first, of a customary character. It did not become obligatory until, the year 506 A.D. through a provision of the Council of Agde.[3] This decree of a particular council was later transformed by custom into a universal law.
One satisfies the duty of attending Sunday Mass by a conscious participation[4] in the whole of the Sacrifice, it being understood that this same Mass is celebrated in the Catholic Rite. This precept binds "subgravi" (i.e., under pain of mortal sin) all those who have reached the age of reason, i.e., seven years old.[5] But one can be excused from attending Mass in the case of impossibility
resulting from:- illness,
- distance (estimated at about one hour's journey),
- from the fear of grave inconvenience (e.g., the shame of a pregnant girl out of wedlock),
- grave danger (e.g., traveling under dangerous conditions such as icy roads),
- or from charity towards one's neighbors (e.g., a mother looking after her children), etc.
The case of attending the New Mass called the "Conciliar Mass" or "of Paul VI"
Following the directives and the spirit of the Second Vatican Council, a new Ordo Missae was promulgated by the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum on April 3, 1969. Composed with the help of Protestant ministers, it had as its aim "to do everything to facilitate our separated brethren (i.e., the Protestants and the Orthodox) on the way to union, by avoiding every stumbling block and displeasing thing."[6] Composed so as to be acceptable to everyone, by this same deed all specifically Catholic marks disappeared. But very quickly the faithful, the clergy and some bishops resisted this reform by denouncing it as dangerous for the Faith. Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci did not hesitate to write on this occasion, that "the Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent."[7]
Now what do we note in this reform of the Missal? The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the non-bloody renewal of the Sacrifice on Calvary has become a meal around a table, serving as a memorial, more nor less a simple narrative of the Last Supper on Holy Thursday. The worship of the real Eucharistic Presence has been diminished and is no longer signified, by the suppression of genuflections, by the precious lining of the sacred vessels, by the placing aside of the tabernacle, by the placing of communion in the hand while standing, etc. Finally, the priest, sole minister and acting in persona Christi, has become president and brother of the people of God, barely distinct from them in the distribution of the Eucharist and in the readings. A series of facts which demonstrate the Protestantization of this New Mass, a Mass which can be used by the Protestants themselves because "theologically this is possible."[8]
Now, what about attending these new Masses? First of all, they constitute a danger to the faith of the faithful:
Quote:one can... without any exaggeration say that most of these Masses are sacrilegious and that they impoverish all Faith by diminishing it. The taking away of the sacredness is such that this Mass risks losing its supernatural character, "its mystery of faith" to become no more than an act of natural religion."[9]
This truth is confirmed by the evidence of numerous priests who have said this New Mass as well as by the attitude of the faithful in general who attend it, Even occasionally, in whom one notices unfortunately a lack of the spirit of prayer and recollection. The danger is likewise increased through the sermons heard, by the bad example seen and by becoming accustomed to the sacrileges committed.
The first consequence then is that attendance at such a Mass could become a sinful act for the Catholics warned of the danger.
In the second place, attendance at the New Mass signifies in some way one's approval, particularly if one receives Communion. It is a point of Catholic doctrine, recognized moreover by other religions, that he who receives the offering made during a religious ceremony recognizes in some implicit way, by his participation, this same religious cult. It is because of this that St. Paul declared on the subject of food offered to idols, to take care not to become an occasion of scandal for those who surround us.
Quote:"Because if someone sees you, you who have knowledge, seated at a table in the idol's temple" (today we would say at the table of the Conciliar supper), "shall not his conscience, being weak, bring him" to attend and to receive communion at the New Mass. And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish for whom Christ hath died? Now when you sin thus against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ."
That is why the attendance and Communion at the New Mass leads others to do the same; this thus becomes an occasion of loss of faith for our neighbor, it would be better to stop forever from frequenting this New Mass.[10]
In the same way, St. Thomas Aquinas adds, that he:
Quote:who receives the Sacrament from a doubtful minister (suspended, demoted, we may nowadays add dubious as to his intentions) sins for his part and does not receive the effect of the sacrament, unless excused through ignorance.[11]
But whoever communicates with another who is in sin, becomes a sharer in his sin. Hence we read in II John that 'He says unto him, God speed you, communicates with his wicked words."[12]
Consequently, it is not lawful to receive Communion from them, or to assist at their Mass.[13] Thus:
Quote:by refusing to hear the Masses of such priests, or to receive Communion from them, we are not shunning God's sacraments; on the contrary, by so doing we are giving them honor."[13]
What practical consequence can we draw from this?
These new Masses, not only cannot be the object of the obligation of the Sunday precept but one should apply, in their regard, the rules of moral theology and of Canon Law, which are those of supernatural prudence with regard to the participation or attendance, as an act perilous to our Faith or eventual sacrilege."[9]
This teaching demands on the part of the faithful an effort, sometimes very meritorious, of traveling long distances to come regularly or at least periodically to the Tridentine Mass. This also demands total abstention from attending at the New Mass; a passive attendance is tolerated for a serious reason "to render honor or for a polite obligation" (as for example for the marriage or funeral of a relative or friend), "as long as there is no peril of perversion and of scandal."[14]
In any case, no authority can oblige us to put our faith in danger. The children who attend so-called "Catholic" schools are particularly exposed by the fact of their lack of foundation and of discernment. It would be better to stay at home on Sunday, to say the family rosary, to read in your missal the Mass of the day or to read a spiritual book (Catechism, Lives of the Saints, etc.) rather than to expose oneself to the disquiet and to the imperceptible but certain alteration of our Catholic Faith, a treasure so rare in our days.
The case of attending the traditional Mass said under the "Indult"
Despite all the efforts of the official hierarchy since 1969, a few bishops, many priests, and a great number of the faithful have remained attached to the two thousand year-old traditional rite of Mass. Time passed but the problem remained. In order to resolve it, Pope John Paul II gave to the diocesan bishops the faculty of making use of an indult so as to allow priests to say and faithful to attend the Mass contained in the Roman Missal edited in 1962; the missal moreover used by the Society of St. Pius X. That was the indult promulgated by the Congregation for the Divine Worship on October 3, 1984 [Quattuor Abhinc Annos],[15] an indult we shall see hereafter, made unacceptable through the intention of its legislators and by the conditions of its application. The consecrations of June 30, 1988, occurring, Pope John Paul II made use of this with regards to the traditionalists.
Now, what about attending a Tridentine Mass celebrated under the indult?
First of all, it constitutes a danger for the faith of the faithful, a danger which comes from the priests themselves who are celebrating it. Because to obtain this indult from the official hierarchy, these priests must fulfill the following conditions:
Quote:That it should be very clear that these priests have nothing to do with those who place in doubt... the doctrinal soundness of the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI, in 1970 and that their position should be without any ambiguity and publicly known."[15]
Thus is it necessary that these priests prove publicly by their behavior, their words and writings, shorn of ambiguities, that they admit "the doctrinal soundness" of the New Mass. No question in any way whatsoever of criticizing the Protestant and definitely non-Catholic look of Pope Paul VI's New Mass.
Cardinal Mayer, former president of Ecclesia Dei [Commission] placed in charge of re-integrating the traditionalists in the Conciliar Church, added the following condition:
Quote:these same priests "can obtain" this indult "on the condition that they be in normal juridical standing with their bishops or religious superiors."[16]
One remembers that dozens of priests have been unjustly put out of their churches or their religious houses for the simple fact of continuing to say without change the Tridentine Mass, except for a good number of those who were favored by certain circumstances (age, distance etc.). May we ask these indult favored priests at what cost or compromise with the integral Catholic Faith have they kept or obtained "normal legal relations" with the hierarchy? Compromise which, for example, could appear in the fact of giving hosts doubtfully consecrated during a previous conciliar Mass or even through the manner of celebrating the traditional Mass full of hesitations and mistakes, sometimes even cause of scandal.
There is a danger too for the Faith, that comes from the proximity of the faithful who attend exclusively these indult Masses, because they also have to fulfill the conditions of not placing in doubt the "doctrinal soundness" of the New Mass.[15] Characteristically, these type of faithful, unfortunately too often, are concerned with reconciling in thought and in action the truth with heresy, Tradition with the conciliar spirit. [see also the related FAQ: Should we attend diocesan Latin Masses?]
Secondly from the very nature of the indult: an indult is "a concession from the authority which dispenses its subjects from the obligation of keeping a law."[17] "The indult is an exception. It can always be withdrawn. It confirms the general rule"[18] which is the New Mass, the conciliar liturgy. Because, to use a special permission, is this not to recognize and legitimize ipso facto the general law, that is to say the legal suppression of the two thousand year-old traditional rite?
Indeed, to obtain the indult of 1984, one must fulfill the following conditions:Quote:that it should be quite clear that those priests and those faithful have nothing to do with those who place in question the legitimacy of the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970."[15]
Furthermore "this concession... should be utilized without prejudice to the observance of the liturgical reform [of Pope Paul VI] in the life of ecclesiastical communities"[15] of the Conciliar Church.
Therefore no question of them advertising for the universal usage of the Traditional Mass. They must be made to recognize that this Tridentine Mass was validly, legally and legitimately abrogated or forbidden. No question either or calling the worth, always actual, of the words of the Pope St. Pius V:
Quote:by virtue of Our Apostolic authority We give and grant in perpetuity, that for the singing or the reading of Mass in any church whatsoever this Missal (that is to say, the Tridentine Mass), may be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment or censure, and may be freely and lawfully used."[19]
The third point to tackle is this: to attend the "indult" Mass is at least to approve implicitly and to encourage the work of the destruction of Catholic Tradition undertaken by the official hierarchy. To prove this assertion, let us look first of all at the intentions of some of those responsible, to see some precise facts.
In the first place the intention of Pope John Paul II himself, using this indult to favor the winning over of "traditional Catholics" to conciliar Rome:
Quote:The Holy See has granted... the faculty of using the liturgical books in use in 1962... It is very evident that, far from seeking to put a brake on the application of the reform [of the New Mass] undertaken after the Council [by Pope Paul VI], this concession is destined to facilitate the ecclesial communion (that is to say their reinstatement in the Conciliar Church) of people who feel themselves attached to these liturgical forms."[20]
What now of the intentions and hopes of Cardinal Mayer, former president of the Ecclesia Dei Commission? He said:
Quote:There are grounds to hope that, with the concerted efforts on the part of all concerned a substantial number of priests and seminarians will find the strength to renounce a 'state of mind' which until now was full of prejudices, of accusations and of disinformation... We have good reason to believe that the charity with which the priests coming from Archbishop Lefebvre and returning into the Church will be received, will contribute greatly to the fulfillment of this hope that, following them, numerous faithful whom they had served up till then, would also return into the ecclesial communion (with the Conciliar Church) through their mediation. Sometimes a temporary solution may be necessary, such as allowing them the possibility of celebrating the Holy Mass[21] [of Pope St. Pius V]."
In the hands of the official hierarchy, the Tridentine Mass serves therefore as a temporary means and bait to attract the traditional priests and people and to destroy at the same time the work of Catholic restoration, started by Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop de Castro Mayer and their priests. Means and bait to attract the traditional Catholics now considered as schismatics because they are no longer considered as "being in communion" with the present-day Rome, of liberal and modernist tendency.
It is to be further noted that the Commission Ecclesia Dei could be generous for a time in the concessions granted to priests — a question of making them bite at the bait. But if through their "mediation" more or less conscious, their faithful do not return into the conciliar fold, it is to be anticipated that they will be judged as useless instruments and will find themselves either in the obligation to fulfill other conditions to keep that permission, or even to simply see the aforesaid permission withdrawn.
Let us now move on to some illustrating facts: having received the permission to celebrate the Tridentine Rite, the Fraternity of St. Peter now see themselves threatened to accept giving Communion in the hand[22] and saying the Mass of 1965,[22] having already accepted by one of their superiors, "all the documents of the Vatican II Council."[23] Hundreds of priests, seminarians and faithful have been lured with the Tridentine Rite and now are made to forcibly return to the ranks and the spirit of the Council. This work of destruction continues by the approval of Indult Masses close to our important Mass centers... A good method to empty these last ones or at least to prevent them from developing.
Quote:That is why, what can look like a concession is in reality merely a maneuver to separate from us the largest number of faithful possible. This is the perspective in which they seem to be always giving a little more and even going very far. We must absolutely convince our faithful that it is no more than a maneuver, that it is dangerous to put oneself into the hands of Conciliar bishops and modernist Rome. It is the greatest danger threatening our people. If we have struggled for twenty years to avoid the Conciliar errors, it was not in order, now, to put ourselves in the hands of those professing these errors."[18]
To attempt to restore the traditional Mass without considering the historical context of the crisis of the Faith is to become a blind instrument in the hands of the conciliar hierarchy.
What final conclusion can we draw from all this?
That the precept of attending Sunday Mass is obligatory for all Catholics who have reached the age of reason (seven years old) but that some may be excused particularly those who are only near Masses "of Pope Paul VI" or to traditional Masses said under the "Indult." Why? Firstly, because of the danger for the faith coming either from the priests who celebrate or from the faithful who attend them; secondly, legitimization is given to the new liturgy and finally an approval more or less implicit of the work of destruction of the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Tradition.
Footnotes
1 Gen. 2: 2-3
2 Ex. 20 :8, Lev. 23 :3, Deut. 5 :15, Ex. 31 :14.
3 Gratian: Dist. I De cons. c.3.
4 Can. 1247 (1917 Code of Canon Law).
5 Can. 12 (1917 Code of Canon Law).
6 Fr. A. Bugnini: L'Osservatore Romano (Mar 19, 1965) in Documentation Catholique, April 4, 1965, No. 1445, p. 603.
7 A Short Critical Study of the Novus Ordo Missae (also commonly known as The Ottaviani Intervention), TAN Books and Publishers, 1992.
8 Declaration of the Protestant minister Max Thurian: La Croix, May 30, 1969; p. 10.
9 Position of Archbishop Lefebvre on the New Mass and the Pope (Nov 8, 1979), Cor Unum, No. 4, November 1979, pp 3-9.
10 This is strongly inspired by I Cor 8.
11 Summa Theologica, III, Q. 64, A. 9.
12 II John 11.
13 Summa Theologica, III, Q. 82, A. 9.
14 Can. 1258, 2 (CIC 1917).
15 Indult of the Sacred Congregation of Divine Worship of October 3, 1984 in Fideliter, No. 42, Nov-Dec 1984, pp 18-19.
16 30 Days, No. 6, June 1989, p. 48.
17 F. Roberti, P. Palazzini, Dizionario di Theologia Morale, Ed. Studium, Roma, 1955, article "Indulto".
18 Interview with Archbishop Lefebvre, Fideliter, No. 70, July-August 1989, pp 13-14.
19 Bull Quo Primum Tempore of Pope St. Pius V, July 14, 1570.
20 Audience of Sept 28, 1990 to the Benedictine Monks of Le Barroux. L'Osservatore Romano (French edition), October 2, 1990, No. 40.
21 Letter of Cardinal Mayer to Msgr. May, L'Homme Nouveau, March 19, 1989.
22 Controverses, No. 42; January1992, p. 3.
23 Controverses, No. 37; October 1991, p. 4.
|
|
|
|
| The Angelus 1994: Attendance at Today's Masses |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-14-2020, 10:02 AM - Forum: New Rite Sacraments
- No Replies
|
|
The Attendance at Today's Masses
by Fr. Marc Van Es
This article by Fr. Marc Van Es, was first featured in June 1994 issue of The Angelus magazine.
The attendance at today's Sunday Masses
After He had created in six days the universe and all it contains, God rested on the seventh day.[1] Thus, it was by this "divine repose" that the duty for man to reserve for God a part of his weekly time was foreshadowed; a duty which is one of the elements of religion due and owed to the Creator by the creature. Meanwhile, this natural duty was not specified except by the Mosaic law,[2] which had fixed its observance on the last day of the week, the Sabbath and which had established its forms. However, the duty to sanctify the Sabbath was imposed only on the Jewish people. Then, under the New Law a change took place; in memory of the Resurrection of Christ and of the descent of the Holy Ghost on the Apostles, events which both happened on a Sunday, this duty became the Sunday precept as we know it today, characterized in particular by the duty of attendance at Mass.
But in our days we witness a multiplicity of Masses, all different one from the other, old or Tridentine, new or Conciliar, in traditional liturgical language or in the vernacular, for the young, for the handicapped, etc., etc.
In order to see a little more clearly on the subject of our Sunday duties today, let us first look at what the precept of Sunday Mass consists of, so as to examine subsequently the particular cases which are the attendance at the New Mass called that of "Pope Paul VI" and at the Mass called "with Indult."
The Sunday precept in general
From the beginning of the Christian era, it was the norm to sanctify feast days by the attendance at Mass. Why was this? To show by a public worship that we acknowledge the sovereignty of God over all things and, in consequence, our total dependence on Him. Such a duty was, however, at first, of a customary character. It did not become obligatory until, the year 506 A.D. through a provision of the Council of Agde.[3] This decree of a particular council was later transformed by custom into a universal law.
One satisfies the duty of attending Sunday Mass by a conscious participation[4] in the whole of the Sacrifice, it being understood that this same Mass is celebrated in the Catholic Rite. This precept binds "subgravi" (i.e., under pain of mortal sin) all those who have reached the age of reason, i.e., seven years old.[5] But one can be excused from attending Mass in the case of impossibility
resulting from:- illness,
- distance (estimated at about one hour's journey),
- from the fear of grave inconvenience (e.g., the shame of a pregnant girl out of wedlock),
- grave danger (e.g., traveling under dangerous conditions such as icy roads),
- or from charity towards one's neighbors (e.g., a mother looking after her children), etc.
The case of attending the New Mass called the "Conciliar Mass" or "of Paul VI"
Following the directives and the spirit of the Second Vatican Council, a new Ordo Missae was promulgated by the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum on April 3, 1969. Composed with the help of Protestant ministers, it had as its aim "to do everything to facilitate our separated brethren (i.e., the Protestants and the Orthodox) on the way to union, by avoiding every stumbling block and displeasing thing."[6] Composed so as to be acceptable to everyone, by this same deed all specifically Catholic marks disappeared. But very quickly the faithful, the clergy and some bishops resisted this reform by denouncing it as dangerous for the Faith. Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci did not hesitate to write on this occasion, that "the Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent."[7]
Now what do we note in this reform of the Missal? The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the non-bloody renewal of the Sacrifice on Calvary has become a meal around a table, serving as a memorial, more nor less a simple narrative of the Last Supper on Holy Thursday. The worship of the real Eucharistic Presence has been diminished and is no longer signified, by the suppression of genuflections, by the precious lining of the sacred vessels, by the placing aside of the tabernacle, by the placing of communion in the hand while standing, etc. Finally, the priest, sole minister and acting in persona Christi, has become president and brother of the people of God, barely distinct from them in the distribution of the Eucharist and in the readings. A series of facts which demonstrate the Protestantization of this New Mass, a Mass which can be used by the Protestants themselves because "theologically this is possible."[8]
Now, what about attending these new Masses? First of all, they constitute a danger to the faith of the faithful:
Quote:one can... without any exaggeration say that most of these Masses are sacrilegious and that they impoverish all Faith by diminishing it. The taking away of the sacredness is such that this Mass risks losing its supernatural character, "its mystery of faith" to become no more than an act of natural religion."[9]
This truth is confirmed by the evidence of numerous priests who have said this New Mass as well as by the attitude of the faithful in general who attend it, Even occasionally, in whom one notices unfortunately a lack of the spirit of prayer and recollection. The danger is likewise increased through the sermons heard, by the bad example seen and by becoming accustomed to the sacrileges committed.
The first consequence then is that attendance at such a Mass could become a sinful act for the Catholics warned of the danger.
In the second place, attendance at the New Mass signifies in some way one's approval, particularly if one receives Communion. It is a point of Catholic doctrine, recognized moreover by other religions, that he who receives the offering made during a religious ceremony recognizes in some implicit way, by his participation, this same religious cult. It is because of this that St. Paul declared on the subject of food offered to idols, to take care not to become an occasion of scandal for those who surround us.
Quote:"Because if someone sees you, you who have knowledge, seated at a table in the idol's temple" (today we would say at the table of the Conciliar supper), "shall not his conscience, being weak, bring him" to attend and to receive communion at the New Mass. And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish for whom Christ hath died? Now when you sin thus against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ."
That is why the attendance and Communion at the New Mass leads others to do the same; this thus becomes an occasion of loss of faith for our neighbor, it would be better to stop forever from frequenting this New Mass.[10]
In the same way, St. Thomas Aquinas adds, that he:
Quote:who receives the Sacrament from a doubtful minister (suspended, demoted, we may nowadays add dubious as to his intentions) sins for his part and does not receive the effect of the sacrament, unless excused through ignorance.[11]
But whoever communicates with another who is in sin, becomes a sharer in his sin. Hence we read in II John that 'He says unto him, God speed you, communicates with his wicked words."[12]
Consequently, it is not lawful to receive Communion from them, or to assist at their Mass.[13] Thus:
Quote:by refusing to hear the Masses of such priests, or to receive Communion from them, we are not shunning God's sacraments; on the contrary, by so doing we are giving them honor."[13]
What practical consequence can we draw from this?
These new Masses, not only cannot be the object of the obligation of the Sunday precept but one should apply, in their regard, the rules of moral theology and of Canon Law, which are those of supernatural prudence with regard to the participation or attendance, as an act perilous to our Faith or eventual sacrilege."[9]
This teaching demands on the part of the faithful an effort, sometimes very meritorious, of traveling long distances to come regularly or at least periodically to the Tridentine Mass. This also demands total abstention from attending at the New Mass; a passive attendance is tolerated for a serious reason "to render honor or for a polite obligation" (as for example for the marriage or funeral of a relative or friend), "as long as there is no peril of perversion and of scandal."[14]
In any case, no authority can oblige us to put our faith in danger. The children who attend so-called "Catholic" schools are particularly exposed by the fact of their lack of foundation and of discernment. It would be better to stay at home on Sunday, to say the family rosary, to read in your missal the Mass of the day or to read a spiritual book (Catechism, Lives of the Saints, etc.) rather than to expose oneself to the disquiet and to the imperceptible but certain alteration of our Catholic Faith, a treasure so rare in our days.
The case of attending the traditional Mass said under the "Indult"
Despite all the efforts of the official hierarchy since 1969, a few bishops, many priests, and a great number of the faithful have remained attached to the two thousand year-old traditional rite of Mass. Time passed but the problem remained. In order to resolve it, Pope John Paul II gave to the diocesan bishops the faculty of making use of an indult so as to allow priests to say and faithful to attend the Mass contained in the Roman Missal edited in 1962; the missal moreover used by the Society of St. Pius X. That was the indult promulgated by the Congregation for the Divine Worship on October 3, 1984 [Quattuor Abhinc Annos],[15] an indult we shall see hereafter, made unacceptable through the intention of its legislators and by the conditions of its application. The consecrations of June 30, 1988, occurring, Pope John Paul II made use of this with regards to the traditionalists.
Now, what about attending a Tridentine Mass celebrated under the indult?
First of all, it constitutes a danger for the faith of the faithful, a danger which comes from the priests themselves who are celebrating it. Because to obtain this indult from the official hierarchy, these priests must fulfill the following conditions:
Quote:That it should be very clear that these priests have nothing to do with those who place in doubt... the doctrinal soundness of the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI, in 1970 and that their position should be without any ambiguity and publicly known."[15]
Thus is it necessary that these priests prove publicly by their behavior, their words and writings, shorn of ambiguities, that they admit "the doctrinal soundness" of the New Mass. No question in any way whatsoever of criticizing the Protestant and definitely non-Catholic look of Pope Paul VI's New Mass.
Cardinal Mayer, former president of Ecclesia Dei [Commission] placed in charge of re-integrating the traditionalists in the Conciliar Church, added the following condition:
Quote:these same priests "can obtain" this indult "on the condition that they be in normal juridical standing with their bishops or religious superiors."[16]
One remembers that dozens of priests have been unjustly put out of their churches or their religious houses for the simple fact of continuing to say without change the Tridentine Mass, except for a good number of those who were favored by certain circumstances (age, distance etc.). May we ask these indult favored priests at what cost or compromise with the integral Catholic Faith have they kept or obtained "normal legal relations" with the hierarchy? Compromise which, for example, could appear in the fact of giving hosts doubtfully consecrated during a previous conciliar Mass or even through the manner of celebrating the traditional Mass full of hesitations and mistakes, sometimes even cause of scandal.
There is a danger too for the Faith, that comes from the proximity of the faithful who attend exclusively these indult Masses, because they also have to fulfill the conditions of not placing in doubt the "doctrinal soundness" of the New Mass.[15] Characteristically, these type of faithful, unfortunately too often, are concerned with reconciling in thought and in action the truth with heresy, Tradition with the conciliar spirit. [see also the related FAQ: Should we attend diocesan Latin Masses?]
Secondly from the very nature of the indult: an indult is "a concession from the authority which dispenses its subjects from the obligation of keeping a law."[17] "The indult is an exception. It can always be withdrawn. It confirms the general rule"[18] which is the New Mass, the conciliar liturgy. Because, to use a special permission, is this not to recognize and legitimize ipso facto the general law, that is to say the legal suppression of the two thousand year-old traditional rite?
Indeed, to obtain the indult of 1984, one must fulfill the following conditions:Quote:that it should be quite clear that those priests and those faithful have nothing to do with those who place in question the legitimacy of the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970."[15]
Furthermore "this concession... should be utilized without prejudice to the observance of the liturgical reform [of Pope Paul VI] in the life of ecclesiastical communities"[15] of the Conciliar Church.
Therefore no question of them advertising for the universal usage of the Traditional Mass. They must be made to recognize that this Tridentine Mass was validly, legally and legitimately abrogated or forbidden. No question either or calling the worth, always actual, of the words of the Pope St. Pius V:
Quote:by virtue of Our Apostolic authority We give and grant in perpetuity, that for the singing or the reading of Mass in any church whatsoever this Missal (that is to say, the Tridentine Mass), may be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment or censure, and may be freely and lawfully used."[19]
The third point to tackle is this: to attend the "indult" Mass is at least to approve implicitly and to encourage the work of the destruction of Catholic Tradition undertaken by the official hierarchy. To prove this assertion, let us look first of all at the intentions of some of those responsible, to see some precise facts.
In the first place the intention of Pope John Paul II himself, using this indult to favor the winning over of "traditional Catholics" to conciliar Rome:
Quote:The Holy See has granted... the faculty of using the liturgical books in use in 1962... It is very evident that, far from seeking to put a brake on the application of the reform [of the New Mass] undertaken after the Council [by Pope Paul VI], this concession is destined to facilitate the ecclesial communion (that is to say their reinstatement in the Conciliar Church) of people who feel themselves attached to these liturgical forms."[20]
What now of the intentions and hopes of Cardinal Mayer, former president of the Ecclesia Dei Commission? He said:
Quote:There are grounds to hope that, with the concerted efforts on the part of all concerned a substantial number of priests and seminarians will find the strength to renounce a 'state of mind' which until now was full of prejudices, of accusations and of disinformation... We have good reason to believe that the charity with which the priests coming from Archbishop Lefebvre and returning into the Church will be received, will contribute greatly to the fulfillment of this hope that, following them, numerous faithful whom they had served up till then, would also return into the ecclesial communion (with the Conciliar Church) through their mediation. Sometimes a temporary solution may be necessary, such as allowing them the possibility of celebrating the Holy Mass[21] [of Pope St. Pius V]."
In the hands of the official hierarchy, the Tridentine Mass serves therefore as a temporary means and bait to attract the traditional priests and people and to destroy at the same time the work of Catholic restoration, started by Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop de Castro Mayer and their priests. Means and bait to attract the traditional Catholics now considered as schismatics because they are no longer considered as "being in communion" with the present-day Rome, of liberal and modernist tendency.
It is to be further noted that the Commission Ecclesia Dei could be generous for a time in the concessions granted to priests — a question of making them bite at the bait. But if through their "mediation" more or less conscious, their faithful do not return into the conciliar fold, it is to be anticipated that they will be judged as useless instruments and will find themselves either in the obligation to fulfill other conditions to keep that permission, or even to simply see the aforesaid permission withdrawn.
Let us now move on to some illustrating facts: having received the permission to celebrate the Tridentine Rite, the Fraternity of St. Peter now see themselves threatened to accept giving Communion in the hand[22] and saying the Mass of 1965,[22] having already accepted by one of their superiors, "all the documents of the Vatican II Council."[23] Hundreds of priests, seminarians and faithful have been lured with the Tridentine Rite and now are made to forcibly return to the ranks and the spirit of the Council. This work of destruction continues by the approval of Indult Masses close to our important Mass centers... A good method to empty these last ones or at least to prevent them from developing.
Quote:That is why, what can look like a concession is in reality merely a maneuver to separate from us the largest number of faithful possible. This is the perspective in which they seem to be always giving a little more and even going very far. We must absolutely convince our faithful that it is no more than a maneuver, that it is dangerous to put oneself into the hands of Conciliar bishops and modernist Rome. It is the greatest danger threatening our people. If we have struggled for twenty years to avoid the Conciliar errors, it was not in order, now, to put ourselves in the hands of those professing these errors."[18]
To attempt to restore the traditional Mass without considering the historical context of the crisis of the Faith is to become a blind instrument in the hands of the conciliar hierarchy.
What final conclusion can we draw from all this?
That the precept of attending Sunday Mass is obligatory for all Catholics who have reached the age of reason (seven years old) but that some may be excused particularly those who are only near Masses "of Pope Paul VI" or to traditional Masses said under the "Indult." Why? Firstly, because of the danger for the faith coming either from the priests who celebrate or from the faithful who attend them; secondly, legitimization is given to the new liturgy and finally an approval more or less implicit of the work of destruction of the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Tradition.
Footnotes
1 Gen. 2: 2-3
2 Ex. 20 :8, Lev. 23 :3, Deut. 5 :15, Ex. 31 :14.
3 Gratian: Dist. I De cons. c.3.
4 Can. 1247 (1917 Code of Canon Law).
5 Can. 12 (1917 Code of Canon Law).
6 Fr. A. Bugnini: L'Osservatore Romano (Mar 19, 1965) in Documentation Catholique, April 4, 1965, No. 1445, p. 603.
7 A Short Critical Study of the Novus Ordo Missae (also commonly known as The Ottaviani Intervention), TAN Books and Publishers, 1992.
8 Declaration of the Protestant minister Max Thurian: La Croix, May 30, 1969; p. 10.
9 Position of Archbishop Lefebvre on the New Mass and the Pope (Nov 8, 1979), Cor Unum, No. 4, November 1979, pp 3-9.
10 This is strongly inspired by I Cor 8.
11 Summa Theologica, III, Q. 64, A. 9.
12 II John 11.
13 Summa Theologica, III, Q. 82, A. 9.
14 Can. 1258, 2 (CIC 1917).
15 Indult of the Sacred Congregation of Divine Worship of October 3, 1984 in Fideliter, No. 42, Nov-Dec 1984, pp 18-19.
16 30 Days, No. 6, June 1989, p. 48.
17 F. Roberti, P. Palazzini, Dizionario di Theologia Morale, Ed. Studium, Roma, 1955, article "Indulto".
18 Interview with Archbishop Lefebvre, Fideliter, No. 70, July-August 1989, pp 13-14.
19 Bull Quo Primum Tempore of Pope St. Pius V, July 14, 1570.
20 Audience of Sept 28, 1990 to the Benedictine Monks of Le Barroux. L'Osservatore Romano (French edition), October 2, 1990, No. 40.
21 Letter of Cardinal Mayer to Msgr. May, L'Homme Nouveau, March 19, 1989.
22 Controverses, No. 42; January1992, p. 3.
23 Controverses, No. 37; October 1991, p. 4.
|
|
|
|
| Posts on "Bishop" Pfeiffer on the Archived Catacombs |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-14-2020, 08:36 AM - Forum: "Bishop" Joseph Pfeiffer
- Replies (1)
|
|
"Bishop" Joseph Pfeiffer
Opening post:
Well, dear friends, it seems that Fr. Pfeiffer has been "consecrated" by the dubious "Bishop" Neal Webster.
It is my understanding that "Bishop" Webster is a sedevacantist and a Feeneyite. But of even more concern is the fact that"Bishop" Webster is a Thuc line priest and bishop, placing great doubt on the validity of both his ordination and consecration, and consequently on the "consecration" of "Bishop" Pfeiffer.
Here is what Archbishop Lefebvre said about the Thuc line of clergy, taken from The Angelus 1982:
Quote:A Warning to Traditional Catholics Concerning False Shepherds
During his recent visit to America, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre referred several times to the report that several individuals including some claiming to be "traditional" priests had attempted to have themselves consecrated bishops. Archbishop Lefebvre totally condemned their actions and warned all Catholics to have nothing to do with them. "They will bring ruination and scandal on the Church," Archbishop Lefebvre replied when asked his opinion of the scandal-ridden "consecrations."
"It is a direct result of what happens when one loses faith in God and separates himself with Rome and the Holy Father," Archbishop Lefebvre stated, "and the enemies of the Church, including those who so strongly promote Modernism, will try to associate us and other good traditional Catholics with these (fanatics) in hopes of trying to bring discredit upon the good as well as the evil."
Archbishop Lefebvre also stated that the actions of Ngo-Dinh-Thuc, the former Vietnamese Bishop who participated in the so-called "consecrations," are quite questionable in view of the fact that he is the same individual responsible for the Palmar de Troya fiasco which took place in Spain some years ago. A "visionary" of sorts, Clemente Dominguez de Gomez induced Thuc to ordain and consecrate him and then proceeded to proclaim himself pope. This group scandalized the world by conferring orders indiscriminately on anyone who presented themselves to "Pope" Gomez. The sect now claims hundreds of clerics, including large numbers of 14- and 16-year-old bishops and cardinals.
Soon after the questionable ordinations, Bishop Ngo-Dinh-Thuc renounced his actions and published a letter saying that the "orders" he had conferred were null and void because he had withheld all intention of conveying orders to the Palmar de Troya sect. Given his past performances, there is no reason to believe that his present fiasco is any more credible.
Referring to Ngo-Dinh-Thuc, Archbishop Lefebvre said, "He seems to have lost all reason."
The proof of these individuals' bad intention is clearly evident in the fact that the new sect—which includes Father Moise Carmona and Father Adolfo Zamora of Mexico; Father Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., of France; and Father George Musey of America—have already conducted meetings with small groups of traditional Catholic priests and have announced their intention of calling their own "Council" and selecting one or more popes!
Faithful Catholics are reminded that their faith prevents them from having any contact whatever with these schismatics and heretics, and that they are not permitted to support them in any way. All involved have incurred automatic excommunication, and all who support or affiliate themselves with them do likewise.
[Emphasis - The Catacombs]
Our Lady, Help of Christians, pray for us.
|
|
|
|
| Dubious Sermon from a Dubious Deacon |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-14-2020, 08:28 AM - Forum: "Bishop" Joseph Pfeiffer
- Replies (1)
|
|
From the Archived Catacombs - by The Recusant:
Will somebody out there please have a word in the ear of Steve Kaldawi, before he makes an even greater fool of himself? It's so embarrassing to witness, I'm not sure I can take much more of it!
On 15th and 16th of August (Assumption and XI Sunday after Pentecost), the sermon at Boston KY was preached by Mr. Kaldawi, videos of which are on 469fitter (here and here).
It must be quite a daunting thing to get up and preach for the first time, especially knowing that whatever you say is going straight onto the internet. I think most people, if not all, would easily forgive the halting, nervous delivery, the more than once forgetting what he was about to say next, the embarrassing pauses, the not being able to remember the details of the story on which he was about to make his next point, the not being able to find the quote he was about to read next, and so on... if only the content weren't so objectionable.
Having listened to both sermons, here is what I think stands out a mile concerning the content.
The August 15th sermon is really a sermon on the previous day's Gospel, it deals with the Blessed Virgin Mary being called "Blessed" and Mr. Kaldawi tells everyone that just as it isn't her parentage per se which makes her fidelity (that she "hears the word of God and keeps it"). All very well and good. But he then goes off on something of a tangent and starts indirectly addressing (with a certain amount of insinuation, it must be said) the thorny question of Fr. Pfeiffer's scandalous non-consecration by a man who denies the teaching of the Church. Mr. Kaldawi draws a not-very-satisfactory parallel between the idea of a family tree, Our Lady's ancestors in particular, and that of episcopal succession. One ought hardly need add that that Gospel doesn't really have anything to do with episcopal lineage, and that what he says is not really relevant to the Blessed Virgin Mary's parentage. The analogy just doesn't work, in other words.
Firstly, it doesn't work because people aren't pointing to Fr. Pfeiffer's (supposed) episcopal lineage because they object to it being somehow "dirty". They are objecting to the fact that it may well not exist at all!
Secondly, if, as Mr. Kaldawi seems to be saying, what matters is not lineage but fidelity to the word of God, then Fr. Pfeiffer stands condemned on that count too. I agree that that is what matters most. Validity matters, yes, but fidelity matters more. And what can one say about the fidelity of one who publicly attempts to be consecrated by a sedevacantist Feeneyite, all the while claiming to be fighting against sedevacantism and Feeneyism? How can concelebrating the Mass of a man who denies Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood be seen as "Hearing the word of God and keeping it"..?
The either/or fallacy (lineage vs. fidelity) which Mr. Kaldawi seems to be presenting is in reality a false dichotomy. In the case of Fr. Pfeiffer is it not either/or, it is neither. Neither is there any fidelity, nor is there a great deal of chance (if any at all) in it being valid. The validity isn't there and the fidelity isn't there either. It's the worst of both worlds.
The Sunday 16th August Sermon, seems to be about sins of the tongue, calumny and detraction. Once again, it seems to involve a rather large dolop of insinuation to try to address people who aren't happy about "Bishop" Pfeiffer's bogus episcopal orders, and once again, it is all a little bit irrelevant. Mr. Kaldawi at one point even mentions Cathinfo and this website in the same breath as being sources of gossip. I can't speak for that other place, but nobody here is either speaking public lies against Fr. Pfeiffer, nor are they revealing hidden sins, nor are they saying evil things without justification. Nobody who has written here about "Bishop" Pfeiffer, from what I can see, is the least bit guilty of "sins of the tongue." On the contrary, if the standard is that what we say needs to be 1. true and 2. necessary, then what has been said here has, if anything, been remarkably restrained.
Given which, I would like to challenge Mr. Kaldawi on behalf of everyone else here. If he is right, then I will retract everything I have written and urge everyone else to do the same. How does that sound, Steve? If, on the other hand, we are right and it turns out that what has been said here is true, and that it is urgently necessary to say it publicly, to warn everyone of the danger, then I think there will be consequences for Mr. Kaldawi too. Let him demonstrate in front of everyone why it is wrong for the faithful to go to Fr. Gavin Bitzer's Feeneyite chapel for Mass, Communion and confession, but it's somehow OK for Fr. Pfeiffer to go to a feeneyite "bishop" for episcopal consecration. Let him demonstrate how is it wrong for families to go to the sedevacantists to have their children confirmed, but it is somehow a good thing for Fr. Pfeiffer to go to sedevacantist for holy orders. Furthermore, if Fr. Pfeiffer is justified in obtaining holy orders from a sedevacantist "bishop", why would it be wrong for a seminarian to, say, sneak off to a sedevacantist seminary (the CMRI, or Bishop Sanborn in Florida) and stay there long enough to get ordained, before coming home to Kentucky as a priest..? What is the essential difference? Does the end justify the means, or does it not? Why does one rule apply to episcopal consecration and another (totally the opposite) rule apply to the other sacraments?
I have already asked ten questions of Fr. Pfeiffer. Perhaps he will at some point respond, but don't hold your breath. The silence has so far been deafening.
And if, going forwards, there continues to be no response to what are surely reasonable questions for any faithful to ask, then in the meantime please let's not hear any more whiny insinuating sermons about gossip or sins of the tongue or Our Blessed Lady's episcopal lineage. Let's not hear any more almost-sobbing emotional sermons about how persecuted we are by all those wicked people on the internet who like to speak evil things. Because it isn't true and you know it. Time to put up or shut up. Either defend your scandalous un-Catholic fiasco, or own up to it.
Steve, if you're reading this - Fr. Pfeiffer almost certainly isn't a bishop. And if he's not a bishop, that means you're not a deacon. Stop preaching. Don't handle the sacred host. And please, please, when the time comes, don't go through the sacrilegious simulation of being ordained a priest! [/size]
|
|
|
|
| Can "garage bishops" be presumed valid? |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-14-2020, 08:24 AM - Forum: "Bishop" Joseph Pfeiffer
- No Replies
|
|
From the Archived Catacombs - by The Recusant:
Below is an article by Fr. Anthony Cekada. Obvious caveat: we wouldn't agree with him on everything, for one thing I take issue with some of the things he is on record as having said concerning Archbishop Lefebvre, for another he's about as sedevacantist as they come! That being said, this article isn't about sedevacantism or about his historic disagreement with Archbishop Lefebvre, it doesn't really even touch on any of those things. The article is concerning the question of bishops and priests who have had not one day of proper seminary training, who don't know any Latin, have only sketchy theology, etc and/or who were ordained by men who were equally as ignorant and untrained. His point that to ordain someone with no training is "un-Tridentine" in that it goes directlly against the Council of Trent is a well made. And he does make a number of other very good points which bear directly on the case of Fr. Pfeiffer's supposed "episcopal" consecration, "bishops" Webster, Hennebery, Terrasson, et al.
One of the things he says is something I was reaching for myself, though I fear I could never have expressed it as clearly as he does here, and it is this. If there is a general presumption of validity when it comes to valid Holy Orders outside the Church (the schismatic Orthodox, for instance), does that extend to garage bishops with not one day of seminary under their belts? And the answer has to be a resounding "No!" If anything, the contrary is true: one ought almost reasonably to expect a garage bishop to bungle the ceremony because, due to his lack of training, he really doesn't have a clue what he's doing. If anyone had any doubts about that, the scandalous example given by so-called "bishop" Webster recently, in the OLMC video of Fr. Pfeiffer's "consecration," is an eloquent lesson.
Here are a few extracts. The whole thing is well worth a read, and can be found here: www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/UntrainedUnTrid.pdf
Quote:But how far does this presumption extend? Does it extend even to orders conferred by an underworld traditionalist “bishop” of the type mentioned at the beginning of this article — someone canonically unfit for the priesthood himself, lacking a proper ecclesiastical education, summarily ordained a priest, and raised to the episcopate, perhaps by a bishop equally ignorant and canonically unfit?
I doubt that any Roman canonist explored such an issue in a pre-Vatican II canon law manual — Holy Orders conferred by, say, a chicken farmer-bishop untrained in Latin and theology.
The principle to be applied, nevertheless, is clear enough: Unless someone has received proper training, no presumption of validity is accorded to the sacraments he confers, because he may not know enough to confer them validly.
[...]
Quote:Old Catholic Schismatics
Canonists such as Beste26 and Regatillo27 concede the presumption of validity to orders conferred by the Old Catholic bishops in Holland, Germany and Switzerland only. Of orders conferred by the countless other Old Catholic bishops operating (in the U.S., England, etc.) at the time they were writing, the canonists say nothing at all.
Here too, the distinction appears to be based on whether or not the clergy had an ecclesiastical education. In Holland, Germany and Switzerland, Old Catholic clergy were required to have theological training. [Dutch Old Catholics studied at their theological school in Utrecht or at a university, Germans at a theological school in Bonn, and the Swiss at the University of Berne. P. Baumgarten, “Old Catholics,” Catholic Encyclopedia (New York: Appleton 1913) 11:235–6. These groups were also organized and somewhat centralized. They consecrated a limited number of bishops, kept proper records, followed the old ordination rites, and had clear lines of succession.] In the other countries Old Catholic bishops conferred ordinations and consecrations pell-mell on hundreds of untrained candidates.
To demonstrate the problem this poses for the validity of Holy Orders conferred in the latter group, we need take as an example only one series of Old Catholic bishops in the U.S.: Mathew (consecrated 1908), de Landas Berghes (1913), Carfora (1916), Rogers (1942), Brown (1969).
While the first and third bishops in the line, Mathew and Carfora, had been properly-trained Catholic priests and presumably would have known how to confer a sacrament properly, the second and fourth, de Landas Berghes and Rogers, are identified only as, respectively, “a distinguished Austrian nobleman” and “a West Indian Negro.” But navigating through the second most complex ceremony in the Roman Rite — Episcopal Consecration — and getting the essential parts right (or even knowing what they are) is not exactly something a layman picks up in a Habsburg emperor’s court or a Caribbean sugar cane field. There is no reason then to assume that either de Landas Berghes or Rogers had any idea about how to confer this sacrament validly.
This problem is complicated by yet another: Rogers’ own priestly ordination was doubtful, which would in turn render his episcopal consecration doubtful. [He appears to have been ordained a priest in the Vilatte succession (Anson, 433), which was of uncertain validity. According to most theologians the order of priesthood is required to receive episcopal consecration validly.]
So by the time we get to Brown in 1969, there is no possible way to sort out whether his orders are valid or not. Such problems are encountered across the board with orders derived not only from the Old Catholics, but also from the Brazilian nationalist schismatics. [Apologists for the validity of Old Catholic or Old Roman Catholic orders in the United States (the terms are interchangeable) invariably try to support their case by citing the same group of published statements by various Catholic authors. With one exception, however, these statements appeared not in theological works, but in popular ones (various religious dictionaries for the laity, overviews of non-Catholic sects, etc.), or they refer to the Old Catholic bodies in Europe about whose orders there is no dispute. The one article cited from a scholarly journal (“Schismatical Movements among Catholics,” American Ecclesiastical Review 21 [July 1899], 2–3) is from a passage concerning the specific issue of the priestly ordination of René Vilatte which cannot be disputed. The passage cited proves nothing about subsequent Old Catholic episcopal consecrations in the U.S., which were a dog’s breakfast of the type already described above.] Sacraments conferred by the ignorant cannot be presumed valid.
(I have added in square brackets what was contained in footnotes.)
How does that not fit Fr. Pfeiffer's supposed "consecration" like a glove? Webster may have spent a few weeks or months in Bishop(?) Louis Vezelis's "seminary" in Rochester NY, but goodness only knows what he learned there, if anything useful at all. He quite clearly doesn't understand a word of Latin and can't even pronounce it properly. When he managed to mangle the essential form so badly, who knows whether he even realised that those words were the essential form? And what about Heneberry or Terrasson? Did they ever have any formal training anywhere? As far as I'm aware neither of them did. So how confident can anyone be that they were able to consecrate validly? What are the odds that Hennebery, when he "ordained" Webster to the priesthood didn't make a mess of it? Or Terrasson, when he "consecrated" Hennebery? And what about Clemente Dominguez Gomez (later known as "Pope Gregory XVII The Very Great")..? He, by all accounts, was as ignorant as they come. From what I can tell, Fr. PFeiffer's supposed "episcopal lineage" is about as messy and dubious as they come.
There is a not-very-amusing irony in Fr. Pfeiffer trying to run a seminary in order to train priests, only to then "ordain" them with orders which must surely be presumed invalid, or at least highly doubtful, due to having been obtained from "bishops" who themselves were scandalously ignorant and didn't go to seminary.
I doubt very much that Fr. Pfeiffer is going to listen to anyone, but if anyone is in contact with any of the seminarians, sending them this article might not be a bad idea. The last thing they need is to become dubious non-priests and be sent out into the world to offer invalid Masses and confect invalid sacraments.
|
|
|
|
| The Recusant: Ten Questions for Fr. Pfeiffer |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-14-2020, 08:19 AM - Forum: "Bishop" Joseph Pfeiffer
- No Replies
|
|
Taken from The Recusant - Autumn 2020, pages 24-25
Ten Questions for Fr. Pfeiffer
1. In 2015, you criticised Bishop Williamson for consecrating Bishop Faure with very little notice given, which meant that more Resistance priests and faithful could not attend. Yet when it came to your own attempted episcopal consecration you gave no notice whatsoever, no priests other than your two colleagues at Boston KY (Fr. Poisson and Fr. Pancras Raja) were present, and almost no faithful. Is this not equally deserving of criticism and a sign that something is not right?
2. In 2016, following the consecration of Dom Tomas Aquinas in Brazil, you and many others criticised certain Williamsonist priests and websites for attempting to suppress the sermon preached by Williamson (his infamous “The time for structure is yesterday” sermon) even though they had published plenty of pictures and other media. And yet at your own attempted episcopal consecration it was arranged that the consecrating “bishop” would not preach a sermon at all, not even five minutes. Nobody has been allowed to know from his own mouth why he was present at Boston, KY, attempting to consecrate you, we are just supposed just to take your word for it that it was “for the love of souls only” and no other reason. Isn’t this lack of a sermon equally as deserving of criticism as the attempt by the Fake Resistance in 2016 to suppress a sermon which embarrassed them?
3. Incidentally, why is it that there was no sermon by “Bishop” Neal Webster? And -the lack of sermon being unusual on such an occasion -why have you so far offered no explanation as to why there wasn’t one? Does this not look at least a little unusual, some might say even suspicious?
4. Do you accept that Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood form part of the Church’s teaching and that Sedevacantism does not, and further, that such an Episcopal Consecration, a public sacrament done before the whole world and not hidden away in private will always in practice be taken to be a public profession of Faith? Given which, how does your intimate involvement in such an event in public not constitute a public compromise of the Faith?
5. Shortly after the event, you said that you had told Webster that you did not agree with him about “the one baptism” or “the Pope issue.” If true, this must have been spoken in private and we have only your word for it. Are you able to see and will you have the humility to admit that telling someone privately that you do not agree (or alleging afterwards that you told them so in private) simply is not enough? That public actions matter immeasurably more than private words?
6. Your own faithful have been encouraged for years not to go to receive the sacraments from those involved in a public compromise of the Faith, such as the Ecclesia Dei priests, the modern SSPX, the Sedevacantist, the Feeneyites, et al. because it would necessarily be a public compromise and the Faith, something which matters more than sacraments. In what way is your own attempted “consecration” at the hands of a Feeneyite, sedevacantist “garage bishop” not exactly the same thing? In other words, if it is somehow OK for you to go to the sedevacantist or Feeneyites (both, in this case!) to get Holy Orders, why is it not OK for your faithful to go the sedevacantists to get their children confirmed or to go to Fr. Gavin Bitzer’s Feeneyite chapel to get Mass, Communion and Confession? Are you not guilty of a double standard here, one rule for you and another for everyone else?
7. You yourself have long been critical of Thuc-lineage “garage bishops” who have no proper training. From the two-and-a-half-hour long video put out by you, is it not abundantly clear that “bishop” Neal Webster fits this description like a glove, that he has no training and (to use your own words) “doesn’t know anything”?
8. Bishops are supposed to be chosen by the Church, the consecration ritual even says so and continually refers to the bishop-elect as “electus” (‘the one who has been chosen’). And to be chosen requires that someone else do the choosing, one cannot choose oneself. Before the Council, a bishop was never one who had petitioned, lobbied or actively sought the episcopate for himself, and the only “bishops” who had done so were to be found amongst the “Old Catholics,” the “Brazilian Catholic Apostolics” or other such schismatic, heretical sects. In 1988 the four SSPX bishops, whatever their faults or limitations, were at least chosen by Archbishop Lefebvre from among hundreds of other priests. Is it not the case, however, that you sought the episcopate for yourself, just like every other Thuc-lineage garage bishop, that like them, it was not the Church who called you but you who called yourself? (And please -getting Fr. Pancras Raja to ask Webster to consecrate you is just a sophism, it is “colour of law,” an empty form for the sake of appearances, since Fr. Pancras Raja is your subordinate and you are his superior, and therefore anything he does in such matters would normally be presumed to be done at your behest or at the very least with your permission.)
9. One often-heard and oft-repeated criticism of Bishop Fellay in 2012 was that, as a bishop, he ought never to have become Superior General; that Archbishop Lefebvre while he was still alive had appointed a simple priest as Superior General and had intended the bishops to be there simply to dispense the sacraments; that in becoming Superior General in 1994, Bishop Fellay had been invested with an appearance of authority which might prove dangerous, due to the risk of the priests and faithful seeing him as “our bishop” as though he held ordinary jurisdiction. You yourself voiced this view on many occasions in the early days of the Resistance. And yet, within the little empire of Boston KY, you are now both “bishop” and “superior general” combined, just like Bishop Fellay after the death of Archbishop Lefebvre; just like Fr. Kelly who became Bishop Kelley; just like Fr. des Lauriers who became Bishop des Lauriers, or Fr. Dolan becoming Bishop Dolan, or like Bishop Carmona, or Bishop Pivarunas. In this respect, how are you not just like every other sedevacantist sect? Are you not giving yourself a dangerous appearance of authority which you don’t really have?
10. Not so long ago, you seemed to spend a lot of time and effort in attempting to convince as many Traditional Catholics as possible, particularly those in the Resistance who had at one time supported you, that the fraudulent fantasy-merchant who calls himself “Archbishop Ambrose Moran” was both valid and legitimate and that it would be in everyone’s best interests (yours especially, no doubt!) for him to become actively involved in the capacity of a bishop. One of the paper-thin arguments which many will remember you making was that: “He’s certainly valid, and that’s what matters!” Another one was that: “He is professing the Catholic Faith in its entirety, he officially stands for what we stand for, and that’s what matters.” How do these two arguments look now, in light of your recourse to a man publicly known to be both a sedevacantist and a Feeneyite, who does not, by any stretch of the imagination, stand for what you stand for, and who is a long way from being “certainly valid”? Do not your own previous words condemn you?
|
|
|
|
| Fr. Pfeiffer himself on the Thuc-line Bishops |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-14-2020, 08:18 AM - Forum: "Bishop" Joseph Pfeiffer
- No Replies
|
|
From the conference given by Fr. Pfeiffer in November of 2018 on Moran:
Quote:And at that same time was when Archbishop Ambrose appeared on the scene. And so, it just feels shortly before that, it was that same summer that he appeared on the scene, and he says, ‘you know, I want to meet with Bishop Williamson, I want to meet with you guys, I like what you’re seeing, what you're doing. My name is Archbishop Ambrose and I’m in Colorado.’ So, I called him up and thought it was just another one of these nut bishops or whatever, but I called him up and then he seemed very unusually knowledgeable for bishops who or priests that came from the non-seminaries or the Thuc line bishops and all that, who never went to a seminary, never studied, they don't know anything.
|
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebvre - On the Thuc-Line Bishops |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-14-2020, 08:08 AM - Forum: "Bishop" Joseph Pfeiffer
- No Replies
|
|
From the Archived Catacombs:
The following list was forwarded to me and is reprinted here with permission of the author, with slight formatting changes, the title is mine. All emphasis in the original. - Admin
A Compilation: Abp. Lefebvre [and the traditional-SSPX] on the Thuc-line Bishops
- A Warning to Traditional Catholics Concerning False Shepherds
The Angelus June 1982
During his recent visit to America, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre referred several times to the report that several individuals including some claiming to be "traditional" priests had attempted to have themselves consecrated bishops. Archbishop Lefebvre totally condemned their actions and warned all Catholics to have nothing to do with them. "They will bring ruination and scandal on the Church," Archbishop Lefebvre replied when asked his opinion of the scandal-ridden "consecrations."
"It is a direct result of what happens when one loses faith in God and separates himself with Rome and the Holy Father," Archbishop Lefebvre stated, "and the enemies of the Church, including those who so strongly promote Modernism, will try to associate us and other good traditional Catholics with these (fanatics) in hopes of trying to bring discredit upon the good as well as the evil."
Archbishop Lefebvre also stated that the actions of Ngo-Dinh-Thuc, the former Vietnamese Bishop who participated in the so-called "consecrations," are quite questionable in view of the fact that he is the same individual responsible for the Palmar de Troya fiasco which took place in Spain some years ago. A "visionary" of sorts, Clemente Dominguez de Gomez induced Thuc to ordain and consecrate him and then proceeded to proclaim himself pope. This group scandalized the world by conferring orders indiscriminately on anyone who presented themselves to "Pope" Gomez. The sect now claims hundreds of clerics, including large numbers of 14-and 16-year-old bishops and cardinals.
Soon after the questionable ordinations, Bishop Ngo-Dinh-Thuc renounced his actions and published a letter saying that the "orders" he had conferred were null and void because he had withheld all intention of conveying orders to the Palmar de Troya sect. Given his past performances, there is no reason to believe that his present fiasco is any more credible.
Referring to Ngo-Dinh-Thuc, Archbishop Lefebvre said, "He seems to have lost all reason."
The proof of these individuals' bad intention is clearly evident in the fact that the new sect—which includes Father Moise Carmona and Father Adolfo Zamora of Mexico; Father Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., of France; and Father George Musey of America—have already conducted meetings with small groups of traditional Catholic priests and have announced their intention of calling their own "Council" and selecting one or more popes!
Faithful Catholics are reminded that their faith prevents them from having any contact whatever with these schismatics and heretics, and that they are not permitted to support them in any way. All involved have incurred automatic excommunication, and all who support or affiliate themselves with them do likewise.
- A Journey with the Archbishop
Taken from The Angelus July 1982
“...The Archbishop also was adamant in his complete and total condemnation of the recent consecrations of so-called "bishops" by the Vietnamese bishop, Pierre Martin Ngo Dinh Thuc. The Archbishop's condemnation included the supposed ordination of an American priest by those "consecrated" by the Vietnamese bishop. His Grace urged all Catholics to totally reject these individuals and to have nothing whatever to do with them. He looks at the act as being an act of schism which, if carried to its logical conclusion, will lead to heresy. This is based on the fact that several of the "bishops" and a number of the priests with whom they have met have openly declared that their intention is to select a "pope" from among their group. The Archbishop predicted that these individuals would attempt to lure unsuspecting traditionalists into their schismatic schemes. He also said that eventually the movement will be a discredit to traditional Catholicism and would be used by the enemies of the Church as a means of trying to discredit traditional Catholicism. To emphasize his condemnation of these individuals, Archbishop Lefebvre specified that none of the chapels of the Society are to be made available to either these individuals or to those who support them...”
- Are the Masses of Thuc-line priests valid, and can we attend them? - by Fr. Peter Scott
SSPX - Catholic FAQs
I do not believe that there is a strong reason to doubt the validity of the episcopal consecrations performed by the exiled Vietnamese Archbishop Ngo Dinh Thuc. However, there are several lesser reasons, that might be considered sufficient to establish some kind of positive doubt in the matter. These include the absence of correct witnesses during the original ceremony of consecration, which was done in private, and in the middle of the night.
Also relevant is Thuc’s confused mental state, as evidenced by his public concelebration of the New Mass with the local Novus Ordo bishop of the diocese of Toulon, just one month before these consecrations in 1981. Also, the lack of conviction can be seen in the fact that twice he consecrated bishops illicitly and twice he requested absolution from the canonical punishment of excommunication. These frequent changes indicate that he was a man who, to say the least, lacked conviction about what he was doing. This is further confirmed by his failure to join the Coetus internationalis patrum, the traditional group of bishops at Vatican II, and by a certain liberal tendency that he showed during the Council, speaking out against discrimination directed towards women and in favor of ecumenism.
Consequently, although the logical thing would be to presume that he did have the intention of confecting the sacrament of Holy Orders, the absence of co-consecrators, and of a clear purpose, does open the door to some astonishment and doubt. Any doubt concerning the first bishops that he consecrated would clearly be passed on to any other bishops and priests ordained as a consequence. The moral theologians say that we must hold to the pars tutior,or safer position, when it concerns the sacraments.
Consequently, in case of doubt, it would not be permissible to go to these priests for the sacraments, unless there was no other priest available, and in danger of death.However, even were there no doubt at all as to validity, it would still not be permissible to assist at the Masses and receive the sacraments from priests of the Thuc line. For they all hold to the radical sedevacantist position that there is no pope, and that if anybody says that there is a pope, or that he is in communion with the Holy Father, then he is in communion with a heretic and a heretic himself. By maintaining such a position, which makes no distinctions, and takes no account of the confusion in the Church due to the breakdown of authority, they not only condemn every other Catholic to hell fire, but effectively separate themselves off from all other Catholics, and make themselves into a church of their own. They are truly schismatic. It is consequently entirely illicit to have any kind of association with them. As a consequence of their loss of the sense of the Church, they abandon all sense of hierarchy and structure in the Church. Any bishop can consecrate any other bishop at any time, without authority between them. These bishops constantly ordain to the priesthood men who have no preparation or training, who belong to no religious community, and who are consequently entirely independent of one another and all Church authority. Throwing all canonical norms out of the window, they effectively become just as protestant as the modernists they pretend to defend the Church against.
- Meet the Sedevacantist Priests
SiSiNoNo November 1998 No. 29
Fr. Guérard des Lauriers was a Dominican theologian asked by Archbishop Lefebvre to be one of the professors at Ecône in the early 70’s. In the mid-70’s, he developed his theory distinguishing between “a material pope and a formal pope.” Archbishop Lefebvre strictly forbade him to teach this theory. In a retreat which he preached to the seminarians at Ecône (Sept., 1977) he defied the Archbishop and taught it anyway. Archbishop Lefebvre expelled him as a professor at Ecône. In 1981, he was dubiously consecrated "bishop" by the aging Bishop Ngo Di Thuc in a secret ceremony, and has since died.
- WHO IS MSGR. PIERRE MARTIN NGO-DHIN-THUC?
The Angelus April 1983
“...pseudobishops...”
“...If we don't stop our apathy in so serious a case, the Catholic Church may be flooded in a short time by hundreds, or thousands, of vocationless impostors, consecrated and ordained arbitrarily, or having bought their Orders...”
“...How odd this statement sounds, published in the sedevacantist "Trento" of March,1982, that Msgr. Ngo Dhin-Thuc held that it was necessary to dispel certain conjectures:
"I testify that I performed the ordinations of Palmar deTroya in full lucidity, (sic) I do not have any relation with Palmar de Troya since its chief imparted himself a pope...etc.
Imparted, December19,1981,in Toulon in full possession of my faculties,(sic) Pierre Martin Ngo Dhin-Thuc, Archbishop Tit. of Bulla Regis."
Why such a curious self- criticism, that only could be valid with an affidavit of a physician? Its hows that he thinks the opposite beforehand. This is the reason why, in Europe, where Msgr. Thuc is better known, there exists some doubt oncerning the validity of those ordinations and consecrations. Validity depends on the mental responsibility of the consecrating bishop...”
- Archbishop Lefebvre Interview
Fideliter 66, November-December 1988
(Notice how in 1988, Archbishop Lefebvre does not call Fr. Guérard Deslauriers “Bishop” even though he was “consecrated” in1981. He also says about Munari, “the one who is called Monsignor Munari.” Munari was “consecrated”a bishop in 1987 by Guérard des Lauriers. The Archbishop does not acknowledge them as bishops.)
Archbishop Lefebvre: “I think that it is maybe necessary to take care to avoid anything that could show, by expressions a little too hard, our disapproval of those who leave us. Do not label them with epithets which can be taken a little injuriously, it is useless, it is the other way around. You see, personally, I've always had this attitude among those who have left us, and God knows how many in the course of the history of the Society have left us; the history of the Society is almost a history of separations, isn’t it? I always believed, as a principle: No more relations. It's over. They are leaving us, they are going towards other pastors, other shepherds. No more relations. They tried, just as well I would say, those who left as sedevacantists, like those who left because we were not papists enough etc. All have tried to lead us into a polemic. I received letters from Father Guérard des Lauriers with lawsuit threats, didn’t they, if I did not answer? I threw it in the garbage - never replied. I never replied one word. Neither Monsignor, I mean the one who is called "Monsignor Munari"and the others, northe fourteen (or thirteen) of America, nor Cantoni who left us, nor the other Italians who left us. I never replied.
This is what I said to Dom Gerard: "Dom Gérard you will never hear from me anynore, I will not set foot at your place. I will not write to you anymore and when you will write to me, I will not answer you. You will not hear a word from me. It is over. I consider you like those who have left us, like Fr. Bisig, like Dom Augustin, like the others who have left us. That’s it. I pray for you but it's over. We will not have contact anymore." This way they can’t ever pull out, none of them, from their sleeve, I would say, a letter [saying]; This is how the Archbishop treated me. This is what he told me. Because if one writes, the sole fact of writing, and it is false to claim: “See, I agree with the Archbishop. He wrote to me again 8 days ago.” So then, we would have almost had to denounce it right away. But I wrote, I didn’t say that I agree, and we write another letter, and we begin another polemic. It is over. We cannot. We cannot play that game. We have to leave them behind. I think there is nothing better to make them reflect and then bring them back to us eventually, if there are some, and there are not many who came back. But at least for eventually and in any case, they cannot say that we were unpleasant towards them or that we did them wrong. No. I think it's the best method, you know, except of course, when there are statements that are absolutely false. Then we must publish a communique to rectify them like the superior general for the declaration of Dom Gerard. It is normal but it is necessary to say for correspondence that is established, we could do it indefinitely, and then we come, in fact,easily and unfortunately to say things that we regret a little to have said, which are not charitable. That’s it. Thank you.
Archbishop Lefebvre published in part in Fideliter 66 November-December 1988, p. 27-31.
|
|
|
|
| Fr. Ruiz's Statement concerning the 'Consecration' of Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-14-2020, 07:50 AM - Forum: "Bishop" Joseph Pfeiffer
- No Replies
|
|
To all my friends and benefactors,
We have recently learned with great sadness that on July 29 Father Pfeiffer has proceeded to have himself consecrated "bishop" by the Feeneyite and sedevacantist "bishop" Neal Webster, who also belongs to the so-called Thuc line. Several mistakes in one. All this is due to the desire to have quick and precipitate solutions. All this will only contribute more to the already existing state of disorientation that exists today not only in the Church and Tradition but also in the so-called "Resistance". It is regrettable that one wants to call oneself a "bishop" when it should be the Church who does so. From a dubious "bishop", because he is of the Thuc line, one can only have dubious sacraments as well. In no way can I associate myself with this new initiative, nor can I encourage any of the faithful to do so. Moreover, it is now time for the faithful to distance themselves from all contact with Father Pfeiffer. According to Bishop Lefebvre, this kind of adventure can lead not only to schism but also to heresy.
It is a great pity for me to have to say this about a priest with whom I once had a good friendship.
May the Immaculate Heart of Mary protect us from so many dangers,
Father Hugo Ruiz V.
Querétaro, August 1, 2020, the first Saturday of the month
+ + +
A todos mis amigos y benefactores,
hemos sabido hace poco con gran tristeza que éste 29 de julio el Padre Pfeiffer ha procedido a hacerse consagrar "obispo" por el "obispo" feneyista y sedevacantista Neal Webster, quien además se inscribe en la llamada línea Thuc. Varios errores en uno solo. Todo esto se debe a querer tener soluciones rápidas y precipitadas. Todo esto no hará más que contribuir más al estado ya existente de desorientación que hoy hay no solo en la Iglesia y la Tradición sino también en la llamada "Resistencia". Es lamentable el querer autonombrarse a sí mismo "obispo" cuando debería ser la Iglesia quien lo haga. De un "obispo" dudoso, por ser de la línea Thuc, solo se pueden tener también sacramentos dudosos. De ninguna manera yo me puedo asociar a esta nueva iniciativa ni puedo animar a ningún fiel a hacerlo. Es más, es ahora el momento de que los fieles se alejen de todo contacto con el Padre Pfeiffer. Según Monseñor Lefebvre este tipo de aventuras no solo pueden llevar al cisma sino también a la herejía.
Para mi es una gran pena tener que decir esto de un sacerdote con el cual antes yo tuve una buena amistad.
Que el Corazón Inmaculado de María nos proteja de tantos peligros,
Padre Hugo Ruiz V.
Querétaro, el 1 de agosto 2020, primer sábado de mes.
+ + +
Frs. Hewko and Ruiz - Regarding the Kentucky "Consecration" of Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer
Followed by texts on the Thuc line
Listen to these true sons of Archbishop Lefebvre and Holy Mother Church! Deo gratias!
|
|
|
|
|
![[Image: ?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.traditionalcatholicp...g&f=1http:]](https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.traditionalcatholicpriest.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F04%2Fseven-sacraments.jpg&f=1http://)
![[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Ficc.id.sspx.org%2Fsites...0bbAuD&f=1]](https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ficc.id.sspx.org%2Fsites%2Fsspx%2Ffiles%2Fstyles%2Fdici_image_full_width%2Fpublic%2Fla_reja1.jpg%3Fitok%3DPy0bbAuD&f=1)
![[Image: DB2-AAAE1-789-A-480-F-ABE8-0-C0-AEA606-C82.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/kMtcs4BR/DB2-AAAE1-789-A-480-F-ABE8-0-C0-AEA606-C82.jpg)
