| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Forum Statistics |
» Members: 268
» Latest member: Sarah
» Forum threads: 6,377
» Forum posts: 11,925
Full Statistics
|
| Online Users |
There are currently 430 online users.
» 1 Member(s) | 427 Guest(s)
Bing, Google, Chivalry
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebvre: 'The Mystery of Jesus ' excerpt "We Must Have No Rest..." |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-07-2020, 07:35 AM - Forum: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
- No Replies
|
 |
The Mystery of Jesus, The Meditations of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
"Placed before the image of the Infant Jesus in the crib, some might be moved to say, “It is not possible, He could not possibly have created the earth; he was just born.” To these St. Paul gives the reply: He was just born, yes, but His Person is a divine Person, and this Person is God, the Word of God. It is truly the Word of God who is there present in the crib, who assumes this body and soul. It is the Word of God, it is this divine Person whom we address. When you speak to someone, you address the person. This Person was the Word of God, by whom all was created. How can anyone then say that this Person who is the Word of God made Man is not Savior, and Priest and King, the three great attributes that this Person gives to this creature of God by the grace of the hypostatic union?*1
"Has any man then the right to be indifferent to the presence of the Word of God in our midst? It is inconceivable. God has willed to come among us; who then has a right to say, “Just let me live my life: I don’t need Jesus Christ to live.” It is unthinkable, especially since He came to save us from our sins. Consequently, we are all affected because we are all sinners. He came to die on the cross to redeem us from eternal damnation; can anyone then be disinterested? And how can they dare to compare this Person who is our Lord Jesus Christ to Mohammed or Budddha or Luther? How can a Catholic who has the Faith utter such words? How can they even speak of “the religions, all the religions, the cults” as if they were equal?
"Pope Pius VII manifested his indignation when presented with the Constitution of France in which was affirmed the freedom of all the religions. He reacted against the words “all the religions.” By these words they were putting the holy religion of God, of our Lord Jesus Christ, on the same level as the heresies and schisms. He was outraged, and he wrote to the Archbishop of Troyes: “Go and see the king. Tell him that it is inadmissible for a Catholic monarch, for a king who calls himself Catholic, to allow the freedom’ of all the religions,’ without distinction.” The Pope was indignant. This should be the conviction of every Catholic.
"It is not possible to be a Catholic and not feel outrage when they speak of “all the religions,” placing thereby our Lord on a par with Buddha and all the rest. They do not believe that our Lord is God. They do not believe that it is the Person of God who is before us. Clearly not. Are there several incarnations of God? In Buddha? In Mohammed? In Luther? No, there is only one, in our Lord Jesus Christ. This fact has enormous consequences, and we should sense this in proportion to our belief in the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ.
"What St. John says on this point is very important, as we have seen. It can be summed up in this way: He who affirms that Jesus Christ is God is of God, and he who denies that our Lord Jesus Christ is God is an antichrist (cf. I Jn. 2:22). Antichrist! and, consequently, a devil. St. John, for one, had the Faith, and he knew how to draw the consequences.
"It can be wondered today if there are any real Catholics left among those who call themselves Catholic, because everyone finds it natural to speak of freedom of religion and the liberty of worship. Yet that cannot be conceded, because it is contrary to the dignity of our Lord Jesus Christ. They will accuse you of being intolerant. How many Catholics think the same thing, even m our own Catholic families?
"If you affirm there is only one true religion, the religion of our Lord Jesus Christ, and all the others come from the devil, that they are of the Antichrist because they deny the divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, they will accuse you of being intolerant. “So, you want to go back to the Middle Ages,” they will sneer. No, we only want to restore what is: our Lord is King. The day when He comes suddenly in majesty upon the clouds of heaven they will say, “Ah, indeed, He is King; we did not believe it was possible.”
"Yes, our Lord is King, and He will be the only one, there shall be none beside Him. People are not able to convince themselves of it. They are infected by liberalism, by the secularism that affects many. Our Lord Jesus Christ is no longer ascribed his true place.
"His reign must be established on the earth as in heaven.
"It is He himself who said so in the prayer that He taught us, the Our Father: Thy Kingdom come Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven. And this must be the object of our prayers, the intention of our sufferings, and the purpose of our life. We must have no rest until our Lord’s reign is established. A Catholic whose heart is not animated by this profound desire is not a Catholic. He is not one of the faithful of our Lord Jesus Christ.[2]
Notes:
1. The union of two natures, divine and human. of Jesus Christ in one unique person, the Person of the divine Word. From the fact that this man Jesus Christ, is God, he is necessarily Savior, Priest, and King.
2. The Mystery of Jesus, The Meditations of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre [Kansas City: Angelus Press, 2000], pp. 23-25.
Source
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebvre: 1983 Conference - 'Holy Church Was Betrayed in Three Ways' |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-07-2020, 07:27 AM - Forum: Sermons and Conferences
- Replies (1)
|
|
Conference Of His Excellency Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
Long Island, New York
November 5, 1983
I THINK THAT, like all traditionalist Catholics, you would like now to hear how things stand; at what point relations are between the Priestly Society of St. Pius X and the Vatican in Rome. So I shall give you a rapid summary.
Why do I maintain relations with Rome? Why do I keep going to Rome? Because I think that Rome is the center of Catholicism, because I think that there cannot be any Catholic Church without Rome. Consequently, if our purpose is to find a way of setting the Church straight again, it is by turning to Rome that maybe, with the grace of God, we may perhaps manage to set the situation straight. It is not one single bishop like myself who can set the whole situation straight in the Catholic Church. That is why I strive to keep on going to Rome and to plead the cause of Tradition. Because I am persuaded that it is by Tradition that the Catholic Church will recover its position as it was before the Second Vatican Council, and the means of its true progress. In the first place, I must tell you that I am under no illusions the situation in Rome is very grave, very grave. Let me sum up the whole situation as it took place at the Council and such as, unfortunately, it still exists even today, by saying that there were, in fact, three betrayals of the Church. Holy Church was betrayed in three ways in a very direct and concrete fashion.
The first betrayal was the betrayal with the Freemason, the second with the Protestants, and the. third was the betrayal with the Communists.
There was an understanding before the Council and during the Council through men commissioned by the Church who were the instruments of these betrayals, namely, the Secretariat for the Unity of Christians, which was specially created for that, directed by Cardinal Bea with, as Vice President, Msgr. de Smedt, Bishop of Bruges, and with, as Secretary, Msgr. Willebrands, who became Cardinal of Holland. These were the personalities who were the instruments of betrayal. There were direct contacts precisely between Cardinal Bea and the Masonic Lodge here in New York and in Washington, with the B'nai Brith, the Jewish Lodge numbering 75,000 members, and with the lodges of the whole world.
Why did these contacts take place? Why did Cardinal Bea come in the name of the Vatican, in the name of Rome, to meet these Freemasons? In order that we would accept the “rights of man” at the Council. How could we accept them? By accepting Religious Liberty, which is one of the “rights of man.” Hence, to accept Religious Liberty was in principle to accept the “rights of man” within the Church. Now, the Church has always condemned these declarations on the “rights of man” which have been made against the authority of God.
The second betrayal was the betrayal with the Protestants. It is Msgr. Willebrands who was entrusted in particular with the fostering of relations with the Ecumenical Council of Churches in Geneva. He went to Geneva to make peace with the Protestants, and the Protestants said to him, we can make peace with you, we can all unite and work together, but you must remove everything in the liturgy of the Church and in the concept of the Church which does not agree with Protestant principles. Hence, the whole liturgy and the whole structure of the Church was to be modified and there was to be a new Canon Law to establish this new structure of the Church and to put it into practice, a democratic structure. This is what was then accomplished by Msgr. Willebrands.
The third betrayal was through Msgr. Willebrands also, and Cardinal Bea, through their meeting with delegates of Moscow at Constantinople and also in Greece, with representatives of the Orthodox Church, the Patriarch Pimen of the Orthodox Church delegated by Moscow. What had to be done in order to please the Communists? The Communists required that there should be no condemnation of Communism at the Council, firstly; secondly, that all the bishops opposed to the Communist regime should be dismissed and replaced by collaborating bishops. Well, these various requirements: Religious Liberty required by the Freemasons, the changing of the whole interior and the Constitutions and the liturgy of the Church by the Protestants; the non condemnation of Communism and the changing of the bishops by the Communists all this was agreed to and granted by the Church. The Church said yes, that’s all right, we accept Religious Liberty, and it was Msgr. de Smedt, the Vice President of the Secretariat for Christian Unity, who was the reporter at the Council for the schema on Religious Liberty, together with Cardinal Bea, who was behind him and who supported him. Five times there was an attempt to refuse this schema, five times they brought it back, and finally they succeeded in having Religious Liberty passed.
What that meant was the laicizing of all the Catholic States, which is very grave, excessively grave. The Protestants also were given what they wanted and you saw the Protestants present at the liturgical reform. They were there: six Protestant pastors were present at the liturgical reform, and they asked these Protestant pastors what might be displeasing to them in the Catholic Church, and Pope Paul VI did everything he could to satisfy them. Hence, they changed our Mass in order to please the Protestants, and that is what they call “ecumenism.” And the Communists were promised, Communism will not be condemned at the Council, and it wasn’t condemned at the Council. I myself carried 450 signatures to the Secretariat of the Council in order to have Communism condemned. I did it myself! Four hundred and fifty signatures of bishops were put away in a drawer and they were buried in silence whereas sometimes the request of a single bishop was listened to. In this case, 450 bishops were ignored. The drawer was closed, we were told, no, no, we have no knowledge of that, there will be no condemnation of Communism. And they replaced the anti Communist bishops: Cardinal Mindszenty by Cardinal Lekai, Cardinal Beran in Czechoslovakia by Cardinal Tomasec. The same happened in Lithuania, and in Czechoslovakia, all the bishops became priests of the Pax movement, collaborators of the Communist regime. You can read in the book called Moscow and the Vatican how the Lithuanian priests wrote to their bishops a letter in which they say:
“We no longer understand. Before, our bishops used to support us in the fight against Communism and they died martyrs, many are still in prison, others are dead, martyred because they supported us against the Communists in order to fulfill our duty as priests, and now it is you bishops who are condemning us, it is you who are telling us that we don’t have the right to resist, to fulfill our apostolate, because it is contrary to the laws of Communism, it is contrary to the government.”
How is that possible? That is the situation in the Church. These are real betrayals which took place!
So, you can understand that when I go to Rome and when I refuse the principle of Religious Liberty proclaimed at the Council, I am told, “you must accept the Council, you must accept the liturgical reforms.” And, then, I refuse. These are not trifling matters. Religious Liberty did not get passed in the Council as easily as that. It is a whole program. Consequently, for the last six years I have been going to Rome, always to try to have them reform the Council, to have the schemas of the Council reformed which are no good, like the one on Religious Liberty. Obviously, I meet with a continuous refusal on the part of the Vatican, though when I met the Pope himself, at the end of 1978, he did agree to name an intermediary between himself and myself, Cardinal Seper. Then Cardinal Seper died and the Pope named Cardinal Ratzinger. But we are still running up against the same problems. In the latest letter which I received from Rome, the Pope continues to regret that I am unwilling to accept all the acts of the Council, that I am unwilling to accept the liturgical reforms in the Holy Church. But there is no way round these. And in fact, there is even an additional obstacle, which is the new Code of Canon Law, which has been made in the same spirit I’ve just been speaking to you about, the spirit of the Council, a bad spirit. Hence, obviously, I run into great difficulties. But since they are willing to sit down and discuss, who knows? Almighty God is all – powerful and so, I say to myself, if the Good Lord wishes to make them understand, wishes one day to give them a particular enlightenment, perhaps one day we shall manage to make them accept a correction of the Council, to come back to Tradition in the liturgy and to come back to Tradition in the Church. Well. I am well aware that it is very difficult, because I have now been going for six or seven years to Rome in order to achieve this purpose and we are still at the same point we started. Hence, when they say I am seeking a compromise with Rome, there is no question for me of compromising over anything whatsoever with Rome I am simply asking for the return to Tradition, which is the only way for the Church to truly recover her perfection and her sanctity, as before.
There is the situation such as it is at present, and I must admit that, for the moment, I see no great hope. The only little success which might be on the way is this famous decree still in suspense, still being put off, a decree to enable all priests to say the old Mass, to leave them freedom and no longer to persecute them. Now, this decree was due to appear, but for three years they have been talking about it and for three years it has still not been published. For, you must realize that, at present, the situation at Rome is very difficult. Modernism is still all powerful at Rome. The Modernist and progressive Cardinals are in the majority; thus, even if there are one or two cardinals who are more or less traditionalists and who have at least a desire to come back to Tradition, well, they are immediately stopped by five or six cardinals who have all power and who put pressure on the Holy Father to stop any return to Tradition. It is they who are preventing this decree from appearing. They say to the Pope, “If you make this decree appear, if you liberate the old Mass, the traditional Mass, then everything that we have done since the Council is over and done with.”
There is a true struggle going on in Rome between the few traditionalist Cardinals Cardinal Oddi, Cardinal Ratzinger, Cardinal Pallazini, on one side, and all the progressive cardinals on the other: Cardinal Casaroli, Cardinal Pironio, Cardinal Baggio; and all those who are in the Congregations of Worship: Cardinal Casoria with Msgr. Virgilio Noe; and then in the Congregation of Faith, Msgr. Hamer, a Dominican, all these are Modernists and each time that they go to see the Pope they say, “Above all, no turning back, no return to Tradition, out of the question!”
Now the Pope is not strong willed. He seems a strong man, but he is not a strong man, he is weak. I saw that myself in the audience I had with him. He was ready to sign a paper giving me freedom, saying that I and the Priestly Society could celebrate the Tridentine Mass, “Oh, that’s not important, you prefer that Mass, oh, if you like, that is not important. It’s a disciplinary question.” And then, he summoned Cardinal Seper to say that he would be the intermediary between the Pope and myself, and when he told Cardinal Seper, “After all, there aren’t really many difficulties in the case of Msgr. Lefebvre. We could grant him the right to celebrate the Tridentine Mass with the Society.” “Oh, no!” cried out Cardinal Seper, “Oh, no, Holy Father! They are making this Mass into a battle flag! We cannot accept!” And then the Holy Father was like a naughty child caught in the act, he seemed to be afraid, and he said, “All right, all right. Listen, you talk with Monseigneur, I have a great deal of work. Cardinal Baggio is waiting for me. He has a great deal of work.” And then the Holy Father left. That is not behaving like a true Pope! A Pope who knows what he is doing should have said to Cardinal Seper, “Listen, I am the head, I know what I am doing, and if I wish to sign such a document for Msgr. Lefebvre, I am quite free to do so!”
Here is why I have always thought that I had to go to Rome, that I had to write, that I had to visit these cardinals in order that they should not say that we are doing nothing or that we no longer recognize them or that we wish to have no contact with them. They cannot say that I have not done everything in my power to try to stay in contact with them. However, I think what counts much more are the facts, than the words or writings, even for Rome. What are the facts which count for us? The seminaries! To make priests! To make traditional priests, priests according to Tradition, to make good and holy priests in our seminaries. That is the work we must carry on with and the work which counts in Rome. Why does Rome still go on receiving me? Why do they still consider me with a certain respect? Because they know that I have seminaries, that I have now ordained nearly 200 priests since 1970 and that I have 250 seminarians in my seminaries. They know that very well and that’s what counts at Rome. They no longer have any seminaries. Their seminaries are empty or they are Modernist seminaries. Now they know that at Ecône, at Ridgefield, at Zaitzkofen, and at Buenos Aires, we are forming true priests. They know that very well and they admire our young priests. So, that is what makes even more of an impression on them than my words, writings or meetings. They are well aware that this year I ordained thirty priests. So that’s what I think it is. And they are perfectly well aware that our priests are spread throughout the world. They know of the existence of our traditional groups throughout the world, and a little everywhere in the world. We are striving to extend. They know we have many priories in Europe, in all the European countries. They know, moreover, that there are other traditional priests, that we are not alone, that we support other traditional priests in their work. So all of that scares them a little. They are forced to reckon with us. And that is how I think we will succeed one day in convincing Rome that they must return to Tradition. They will say, we can no longer ignore these seminaries, these priests, not only the priests of the Society, but all traditionalist priests as well. We can no longer ignore them. That is the task before us, and I have never changed!
And that is why I will now proceed to say a few words, as we must do, on the sad situation in which the Society found itself this year in the Northern District of the United States. Well! I have been accused of changing. Changing what? The Mass that I say, the Mass that was said a few moments ago by Fr. Schmidberger, is the Tridentine Mass! It’s the traditional Mass! I have never changed anything! It’s the same Mass attended by the poor priests who left us: Fr. Kelly, Fr. Sanborn, and the others, while they were at Ecône. And how long were they at Ecône? Fr. Kelly spent two years in Switzerland, Fr. Sanborn three, or maybe, four years, Fr. Dolan the same, Fr. Collins was also at Ecône, they always had the same Mass there the one we say today. So, we have not changed a thing. How can they now say, “The Archbishop is changing”? What? What am I changing? They know perfectly well they spent years at Ecône that they had there the liturgy which we now have, that we have not changed one iota, not one thing. They are the ones who have wanted change, who have wanted to go back to an older liturgy or to older practices. They are the ones who wanted change. We wanted to change nothing, not one thing. We have made no compromise with Rome. That charge is not true. So it is very sad to think that these priests who were ordained by myself and who, after all is said and done, receiving everything from Ecône and the Society, should now be turning against the Society. Why? They say we are making compromises, they say we are going to accept the New Mass, they say things of this kind, which are absolutely false. You can see that for yourselves.
So, I think that the good sense of the faithful will triumph and that, little by little, the faithful will understand that a certain number of our priests have taken up an attitude which is not normal. In fact, they are children rebelling against their parents. Their father in priesthood is me. They are rebelling against me, whereas I have changed nothing, nothing, nothing. This attitude is unacceptable, absolutely unacceptable. And not only are they rebelling, as you see, but also it is I, obviously, who asked them to look after the development of the Society here in the United States. Consequently, through them we obtained Oyster Bay Cove and acquired Ridgefield, Armada, and the other chapels, and all this was agreed between us we granted them the necessary authorizations. And now they are saying, “All that property is ours.” Not only are they rebelling, but also they are claiming the properties, properties for which, in the case of Ridgefield, I sent the money from Switzerland! I sent $500,000.00 from Switzerland to buy Ridgefield! And now, it’s meant to belong to them? It’s inconceivable! It’s plain theft! It’s unreal, it’s unbelievable! They deliberately put all their names on the boards of the corporations, whereas I was asking them to put the usual names on them, as everywhere else in the Society: those of “Superior General, Econome General,” and so on. True, they put my name in, but my name is the only one in these corporations, in place of the others we asked them to put in, they put in all their own names, telling us all the time, “Oh, yes, Monseigneur, we’ll change them, we’re going to do what you want” . . , but they never did. And now they thought they were strong enough to break away from us, so they are saying, “The properties are ours.” Did you ever hear anything like it? It is really unbelievable. It is really sad to think that priests formed by ourselves could reach such a point. However, in our day and age, alas! trials are all too common. Obviously, we are living in an age of confusion within the Church and we have to get used to such trials. However, I hope that the situation will be straightened out and that maybe some of them will come back to join us once more, that some of them will do some thinking, and that God will give them light.
In any case, I thank all of you here for remaining faithful to us, and we will remain faithful to you. We will carry on with what you have always seen in the Society. I gave Confirmation today just as I have given it in Oyster Bay Cove, in Armada, and elsewhere, in all the centers. I have changed nothing. So, I trust you will remain faithful and that we will be able to continue working together for the greater good of the Church, because there is nothing more disastrous, even in the face of Rome, than these divisions, because these divisions weaken us and weaken our fight for Tradition. So, let us pray that everything will be sorted out.
Personally, I am not seeking to harm these priests may God be their judge! And I ask you not to get into polemics, but simply to follow us. You now have here a magnificent chapel. Come and attend Mass in this chapel with the priests of the Society, and, in the various centers, bring about a regrouping of the faithful staying with the Society, so that they keep their bond with Rome and with the Church. It is very important that there should always be the bond with Rome if we wish to remain Catholic; even if we do not agree with everything being done in Rome, I think the bond is absolutely indispensable.
That is what I wished to say to you. I thank you warmly for your attention and for your support. I congratulate you on all the work you have done here it is a minor miracle. For I had been saying to Father Kelly for the last ten years, we must have a chapel in New York, and now, in the space of a few months, the chapel exists and we have at last got a chapel in the New York area. So, I thank the Good Lord, I thank you all, and I trust that this chapel will be the means of a return to genuine Tradition.
|
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebvre: 1963 Letter - On the Wearing of the Cassock |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-07-2020, 07:20 AM - Forum: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
- No Replies
|
|
Archbishop Lefebvre on the Wearing of the Cassock
The present text is a reflection of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre on the significance of the cassock which was written during his time as Superior General of the Holy Ghost Fathers.
Paris, February 11, 1963
Feast of Our Lady of Lourdes
Letter to All Members of the Congregation of the Holy Ghost on the Wearing of the Cassock
My dear Brethren,
The measures taken by certain bishops in various countries in the matter of ecclesiastical dress are deserving of thought, since they may have consequences which are by no means unimportant to us.
In itself, the wearing of the cassock or clerical dress has meaning only in so far as this dress marks a distinction from that of the laity. The matter is not primarily one of propriety. At most, the high-buttoned waistcoat of the clergy marks a certain austerity and decorum; this the cassock does even more.
It is rather a mark of the cleric or of the religious by means of his dress. It goes without saying that this symbol should be characterized by modesty, decorum, and poverty, not their opposites. Clearly, this distinction in dress must give rise to respect and suggest detachment from the vanities of this world.
It is well to lay particular stress on the chief quality which distinguishes the cleric, the priest, or the religious as do the forms of the soldier, the police, or transport workers. This idea is manifested in all religions. The religious chief is easily recognizable by his garments, often by their accompaniments. The faithful attach great importance to these distinctive marks. A Moslem leader is immediately identifiable. The distinguishing marks are legion; rich garments, rings, necklaces, and surroundings declare the presence of one particularly honored and revered. The same is true of the Buddhist religion as of the whole Christian East, whether Catholic or no.
The feeling of the faithful, particularly in its reverence for the sacred and its wish to receive the blessing of heaven on all rightful occasions through the ministers of God, is a legitimate aspiration.
Until the present day clerical dress seemed designed to distinguish a person consecrated to God, but with the least possible outward sign, especially in those countries where the suit is exactly like that worn by the laity. In some countries such as Portugal and, not long ago, Germany, the jacket was knee-length. Priests accustomed to wearing clerical dress in those countries think of it as an outdoor suit, not worn indoors. Moreover, the wearing of such garments outdoors was made compulsory by anti-Catholic State legislation. That explains the desire to return to the cassock as soon as the priest was within clerical buildings, presbyteries or churches. The spirit in which clerical dress is worn in these countries is thus vastly different from the attitude taken by some priests to its adoption.
To estimate the import of the measures taken by the bishops, the considerations to which they refer must be studied. Confronted with the wearing of lay dress bearing no indication of the clerical state and in order that they may the more strongly forbid this practice, the bishops have authorized the wearing of clerical suits, but have not encouraged it and, still less, made it obligatory.
Now, it is observable that since these episcopal rulings the wearing of lay dress has made enormous progress, even where it had not previously occurred. In many dioceses these measures gave rise in practice to the abandonment of any sign distinguishing the priesthood. The rulings have been wholly overstepped. The question is no longer one of the cassock in the presbytery, or even of the jacket in the parish. It is important to ask ourselves: is it or is it not desirable that the priest should be marked out, recognizable among the faithful and the laity; or, on the contrary, bearing in mind the efficacy of his apostolate, should the priest no longer be distinguishable from the laity?
To this question we will reply by the conception of the priest in the eyes of our Lord and His Apostles, the considerations brought to us through the Gospel, that we may know whether they still hold good today. In St. John, Chapter XV, particularly verse 19:
Si de mundo fuissetis, mundus quod suum erat diligeret, quia vero DE MUNDO NON ESTIS, sed ego ELEGI VOS DE MUNDO, propterea odit vos mundus-If you were of the world, the world would love his own, but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, the world hates you (v. 19). Nesciunt eum qui misit me-they know not Him that sent me (v. 21); et vos testimonium perhibebitis, quia ab initio mecum estis-and you also shall bear witness, because you have been with me from the beginning (v. 27).
In St. Paul to the Hebrews, Chapter V, verse 1:
Omnis namque pontifex ex hominibus ASSUMPTUS pro hominibus constituitur in iis quae sunt ad Deum-for every high priest chosen from among men is appointed to act on behalf of men in things pertaining to God.
It is clear that the priest is a man chosen and set apart from others. St. Paul (Heb. 7:26) says of our Lord that He is "segregatus a peccatoribus-separated from sinners." This is what the priest who has been especially chosen by God should be.
To this first consideration must be added that of the witness to God, our Lord, that the priest must bear to the world. "Et eritis mihi testes-you shall be witnesses unto me" (Acts 1:8). Witness is a word often on our Lord's lips. As He bears witness to His Father, we must bear witness to Him. This testimony must be seen and heard without difficulty by all. "Men do not light a candle and put it under a bushel, but upon a candlestick, that it may give light to all that are in the house" (Mt. 5:15).
The priest's cassock achieves both these ends clearly and unequivocally. The priest is in the world without being of the world. Though living in it, he is one set apart and protected from evil. "I pray not that Thou shouldst take them out of the world, but that Thou shouldst keep them from the evil, for they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world" (Jn. 17:15-16). The witness of the word, which is indeed more essential to the priest than the witness of the habit, is yet greatly aided by the clear manifestation of the priesthood given by the wearing of the cassock.
The clerical coat, though it goes some way towards this, is more ambiguous. It is not a specific mark of the Catholic priest. As for lay dress, it does away with all distinction, renders the bearing of witness more difficult and the preservation from evil less effective. This disappearance of any outward witness by means of dress clearly indicates a lack of faith in the priesthood, a failure in respect for the religious attitude of one's neighbor, besides cowardice and a lack of courage in one's convictions.
Lack of Faith in the Priesthood
For almost a hundred years popes have continued to lament the progressive secularization of societies. Modernism and Sillonism (1) have diffused their errors on the duties of secular societies to God and to the Church. The separation of Church and State, accepted and sometimes regarded as the best constitutional solution, gradually penetrated every sphere of State activity, particularly that of the schools, with atheism. That harmful influence is still continuing, and we cannot but observe that many Catholics, and even priests, no longer have any clear concept of the place of religion, even of the Catholic religion, in a secular society and all its activities. Secularism has invaded every field, even our schools and our Catholic colleges. Religious practice is clearly on the decline in these institutions. There are fewer and fewer communicants.
The priest, living in a society such as this, feels increasingly remote from such a world. He begins to feel out of place, a relic from a bygone and outworn past. His presence is tolerated. Such, at heart, is often the feeling of young priests. Thence arises the wish to fall into line with the secularized, dechristianized world, which betrays itself today in giving up the wearing of the cassock.
These priests have no longer any clear conception of the place of the priest in the world and in regard to the world. They have traveled little, and their judgments in such matters are superficial. Had they lived for some time in less atheistic countries, they would have been heartened by the realization that, by the grace of God, faith in the priesthood is still keenly alive in most countries of the world.
Understanding the Religious Sense of One's Neighbor
Secularism, official atheism let us say, has at one blow killed the discussion of many religious questions in divers environments. Religion has become very personal, and a mistaken deference for the opinion of others has relegated it to the rank of personal concerns and questions of conscience. Hence, every human milieu thus secularized, is pervaded by a false shyness of such a subject of conversation. That is why we gratuitously assume that those about us in our business or chance relationships are areligious. True as it may be, alas, that there are countries where many know nothing of religion, it is a mistake to believe that such people no longer have any religious feeling, and an ever greater one to think that all the countries in the world are alike in this respect.
There, too, travel has much to teach us, and shows us that by the grace of God, mankind is still deeply preoccupied with the question of religion. It is to know little of the human soul to believe it indifferent to the things of the spirit and the desire for those of heaven. It is far otherwise. These principles are essential in the daily practice of the apostolate.
It is Cowardice
Faced with secularism and atheism, to fall completely into line is to capitulate and remove the last obstacles to their spread. Through his habit, through his faith, the priest is a living sermon. The seeming absence of any priest, especially in a large town, is a serious setback to the teaching of the Gospel. It is the continuance of the baneful influence of the revolution, which despoiled the churches, and of the separative legislation which drove out monks and nuns and secularized the schools. It is a denial of the spirit of the Gospel, which foretold the difficulties to which the world would expose priests and disciples of our Lord.
These three considerations have grave consequences for the soul of the priest who turns secular, and bring in their train the swift secularization of the souls of the faithful. The priest is the salt of the earth. "If the salt lose its savor, wherewith shall it be salted? It is good for nothing any more but to be cast out, and to be trodden under the foot of men'' (Mt. 5:13). Alas! Is that not the result which always awaits those priests who no longer wish to be seen as such. The world will love them none the better, but despise them. The faithful, on the other hand, will be grievously affected by no longer knowing with whom they are dealing. The cassock was a guarantee of the true Catholic priesthood.
In the present instance and in the context of history, we are not concerned with the circumstances, motives, and intentions of a trifling matter, a question of ecclesiastical fashion of purely secondary importance. It is the very role of the priest in the world and in relation to the world which is at stake. It is this which those priests and religious who wear lay dress despite the episcopal prohibitions claim to judge. It is for this reason that the authorization of the clerical jacket has had no effect where the wearing of lay dress is concerned; on the contrary, it has served as an encouragement to do so. The question is no longer whether the priest will keep the cassock, or whether he will wear a clerical coat outdoors and a cassock in the church and in the presbytery. It is that of knowing whether the priest will keep his ecclesiastical habit or not.
In these circumstances, our own choice has been to keep the habit, that is the cassock, in those provinces where it has been customary until now and the clerical coat in those provinces where it is habitual, while wearing the cassock in the community and in the church.
We say "in these circumstances," for it goes without saying that in the event of new regulations on ecclesiastical dress which would safeguard the two principles aforementioned-the outward symbol of the priesthood and the Gospel witness, and that in a discreet and seemly, though clearly distinctive, manner, we should not hesitate to adopt them.
My dear Brethren, may these reflections bind us to our priesthood and to our mission in this world with our whole soul. May we, when our life draws to its end, be able to say, "Father, I have manifested Thy Name unto the men whom Thou gavest me out of the world-I have glorified Thee on earth, I have finished the work Thou gavest me to do."
(1) Marc Sagnier, a neo-modernist condemned for seeking to weld the Church to a particular political school of thought, gave the name of Le Sillon (The Furrow) to his organ of publication.
Contained in the volume enitled A Bishop Speaks: Writings and Addresses 1963-1976 (Angelus Press: 2007, pp. 1-6) and reproduced here with permission. Source
[Emphasis - The Catacombs]
|
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebvre: 1986 Interview - 'Paul VI and JPII are both Liberal Modernists' |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-07-2020, 07:15 AM - Forum: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
- Replies (1)
|
|
Interview with Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
January 1986
His Grace granted this interview to Don McLean, Editor of Catholic, an Australian publication. There is much in it to give us encouragement. Archbishop Lefebvre faces difficult decisions in the near future, some alluded to here. and in this difficult time he must be supported by our prayers. Our thanks to Mr. McLean for permission to reprint this interview for our readers.
Q. Can you tell us something of your visit to Colombia so soon after the tragic earthquake?
A. We learned of the disaster while we were in the West Indies. Everybody in Colombia was very shocked to learn of a town of 20,000 people disappearing. There was great disquiet that the volcano might erupt again. As far as the Church is concerned, it seems that not only in Colombia, but also in the entire continent of South America, the Catholic tradition will have a greater future among ordinary people rather than among an intellectual elite who understand the principle behind the present reform in the Church. The people and their spiritual needs are more and more being abandoned by their priests, and the people are turning to priests who will provide them with the Sacraments and the devotions such as they have always known and require.
Q. You have just conferred the Sacrament of Holy Orders at the Society’s seminary at La Reja, Argentina for the first time. Eight more priests for the Society, and Bishop de Castro Mayer was present?
A. The presence of Bishop de Castro Mayer was a very great event for the Society. This was the first time that I assisted at Ordinations in one of our seminaries conferred by another bishop. It was a great joy for all and a great satisfaction for Bishop de Castro Mayer.
Q. Does he still ordain priests for the Diocese of Campos and other places?
A. His Lordship, Bishop de Castro Mayer conferred the Tonsure and the Minor Orders on a certain number of seminarians at the Seminary at La Reja. This day, December 1, 1985, was a memorable one at the seminary.
I do not know if he will ordain other seminarians at other places.
Q. There are only two bishops who speak out against Modernism. Are there others who support you?
A. Many other bishops among those nominated before Vatican II are with us in their heart, but they do not dare to express this publicly.
Q. The seminary has just finished an extensive building program. What was your impression of it compared to the other three seminaries of the Society?
A. The seminary at La Reja has the great advantage of being constructed according to a total plan. There were no existing buildings, and therefore we were able to construct the seminary exactly as we liked. 1t is very favorable for the formation of the seminarians and for the development of their piety and recollection.
Q. We have heard that you have ordained more priests this year than any other bishop. Is that so?
A. I ordained thirty-nine priests last year. This is the greatest number which has ever been ordained by me in a given year. Henceforth the average number will be about forty every year. I do not know if I will ordain more priests this year than any other bishop.
Q. You ordain priests for other communities?
A. Yes, for communities which, in normal times, would be recognized by the Dioceses and the Holy See.
Q. You had a chance to confer with Bishop de Castro Mayer at the seminary?
A. Certainly. We spent several days together, and so we were able to speak about the state of the Church today. We were able to speak of the various problems which have developed, and will develop after the Synod.
Q. Did you speak of the Episcopal Manifesto sent to Rome after your last visit to South America in November 1983?
A. We spoke of the recent letter which we sent to the Pope rather than the Manifesto of 1983. This letter is a grave warning to the Pope, and a further appeal to him to return to Tradition, and to cease spreading the errors of the Second Vatican Council.
Q. Has there been any reaction to that letter, or the Manifesto?
A. Not yet.
Q. Last May, in Canada, you spoke of "pertinacity in error." Could you expand upon what you mean?
A. It is because of' this pertinacity that we sent our recent letter to the Pope. If he continues to promote the reforms in the Church, which are becoming more and more grave, then he can certainly be described as pertinacious. Soon, perhaps, Bishop de Castro Mayer and I will produce another document which will outline the gravity of the situation.
Q. You had difficulties with Pope Paul VI. Do you have the same difficulties with Pope John Paul II?
A. Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II are both Liberal and Modernists, favorable to the Conciliar Revolution. We have the same reasons to mistrust John Paul II as Paul VI. In practice they have adopted all the consequences of a false principle which may be expressed thus: "All religions are means of salvation." Therefore the Church is no longer the unique means of salvation. This is to establish the Revolution in the Church and by the Church. We refuse this change and this Revolution.
Q. You said in an interview in Paris in December 1983 that Pope John Paul II was a Pope who was not doing his duty, with particular reference to his not condemning Communism. Do you still hold that position?
A. In consequence of a fundamental change of principle, it is logical that Pope John Paul II does not publicly condemn Communism, which is a form of atheistic conviction.
Q. In the same interview in 1983, you did not rule out the possibility of consecrating a bishop. But you said that "it would be in circumstances more tragic than today." Would you comment?
A. Today I remain in the same position, but the circumstances have become more serious during the last six months.
Q. Cardinal Ratzinger recently said: "I see no future for a position that, out of principle, stubbornly renounces Vatican II." Do you have a comment on that?
A. I could equally ask Cardinal Ratzinger if he sees a future in the present progressive policies in the Church. Not only is there no future in them, but according to his book The Ratzinger Report, there would seem to be total ruin. That is not the case with our Society of St. Plus X.
Q. On page 21 of his book (English edition). Cardinal Ratzinger says: "Clearly everything possible must be done to prevent Archbishop Lefebvre’s movement from giving rise to a schism peculiar to it that would come into whenever Msgr. Lefebvre should decide to consecrate a bishop which, thank God, in the hope of reconciliation, he has not yet done." Could you comment on this statement?
A. These are in fact the words of Cardinal Ratzinger.In our last letter we warned the Pope that we would perhaps consecrate a bishop if the diffusion of error continues as before, and the reform continues in the same manner.
Q. Rome these days, seems to be over-run with Modernists. Do you have any real friends there?
A. They who might be our friends, and who recognize the damage which Modernism is causing to the Church, have not had the courage to uphold it, and so it is possible to say that Rome is almost completely occupied by the Modernists. All that is done there is done according to modernistic principles.
Q. Professor van der Ploeg, in an article in the Dutch magazine, Katholiecke Stemmen for October 1985, speaking of Fr. Hans Küng, decries the fact that: "Küng has not been suspended from his priestly functions as was, for example, Archbishop Lefebvre who adheres to the Faith that the Church has always confessed." Would you comment on that?
A. The case of Hans Küng is only a particular incident. Entire Episcopal Conferences should be suspended if they do not retract their writings. For example, a recent document issued by the German Episcopal Conference no longer makes a clear distinction between Catholics and Protestants in mixed marriages.
Q. Would you comment on the Church in France today?
A. The great majority of the bishops in France are apostate, and have abandoned the Catholic Faith to become Modernist. Their new catechism is evident proof of this.
Yet, there is in France, an extraordinary resistance on the part of many priests, the faithful, and very many young Catholics. This is a great hope. The Catholic Church survives and is organizing itself against the persecution of the Conciliar Revolution.
Q. There are now five members of the Sisters of St. Pius X from Australia, including Sister Mary Michael who joined soon after your first visit to Australia in 1972. Can you tell us when a foundation of the Sisters might be established here?
A. This decision depends upon the Mother General of the Sisters, but I feel sure that it is her intention to found a community here quite soon.
Q. What do you say to people who claim that the Society of St. Pius X will die out?
A. God is the Master of all things, and He could make it come about that our Society should disappear. However, as the Church cannot disappear, then we are an important element in the continuity of the Church. I think that Providence will continue to support us, as It has done up to the present.
Q. Last April, Your Grace, the Archbishop of Melbourne, Sir Francis Little, welcomed Dr. Robert Runcie, head of the Anglican Church in England, as a brother bishop into St. Patrick’s Cathedral here in Melbourne. Could you explain to our readers why this was wrong?
A. All of these ceremonies, whether performed by the Pope or other bishops,result in religious indifferentism. In other words, they give the impression that all religions are good, that there is no distinction between the Catholic Church and other religions. The essential distinction between true and false religion is therefore lost, with the result that heresy is spread throughout the world. This heresy being that the Catholic Church is no longer the one true Church founded by Jesus Christ.
Q. Pope John Paul II recently created twenty-eight new cardinals. There were from Australians among them. We maintain that there were none worthy. Could you comment?
A. Given that many new cardinals are unworthy of their designation, any from Australia would only have added to that. In effect, the choice of cardinals is now made by reason of their total adhesion to the Conciliar Revolution, apart from a few rare exceptions.
Q. Do you have a message for Australia’s bishops?
A. Bishops, what have you done with your diocese, with your seminary, and your convents, with your schools, and with your Faith? The ruins are before you, and you persist in continuing the destruction of our holy religion. Reflect that you will soon have to render an account of your charge. "Redde rationem villicationis tuae," says Our Lord. Come back to the Church of before the Council, and all will flourish again.
Your Grace, thank you most sincerely. May the remainder of your visit be rewarding, and may our Immaculate Mother ensure your safe return to Switzerland.
Source
[Emphasis - The Catacombs]
|
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebvre: 1984 Conference - The Tridentine Indult |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-07-2020, 07:06 AM - Forum: Sermons and Conferences
- Replies (1)
|
|
The Church, The Priesthood and the Tridentine Indult
Conference of His Excellency Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre to Priests
29 October 1984 - Stuttgart, Germany
My dear brethren:
I would like to speak to you today on three things in particular: first, a little bit about the general situation of the Church, next a few words on the spirituality of the priesthood, and finally, a few thoughts on the decree which has just appeared.
First, I would like to give you a little overview of the general situation of the Church, and particularly of Rome, especially the Pope, because it is the Pope, I would say, who leaves his particular influence on the actual state of the Church. In our present epoch it is difficult to deny that we find the Church in a painful state - for nearly twenty years - because the principles of Liberalism have penetrated the Church.
Journalists often say to me: “But, Monseigneur, you should have better relations with Pope John Paul II because he is a traditionalist. He stresses the importance of the cassock or religious habit; he is very devoted to the Blessed Virgin Mary; he wants discipline in the seminaries. He gives the impression of 'reacting' against the changes of Paul VI - you should certainly have better relations with him!”
It is indeed true that on some particular points Pope John Paul II does desire a certain return to the old discipline in the seminaries, in religious life, in certain exterior aspects of the Church. Unfortunately, however, we would not be correctly judging the mind of the Holy Father were we to judge only by these kinds of things, which are certainly secondary. It cannot be denied, and he himself said it, that one of the principal goals of his pontificate would be religious liberty - he himself says it - and ecumenism as well, He said it again in Canada when he was there. He said it to the World Council of Churches: "Ecumenism cannot be turned back, thus we must continue towards this end," and, for him, as he often repeats, it is one of the principal ends of his pontificate. One can see it also in his discourses published in Documentation Catholique: "One of the goals of my pontificate is ecumenism, and religious liberty."
Ecumenism, such as it is actually practiced, and religious liberty, are principles, which come from the Declaration of the Rights of Man. It is written in the constitution of the Rights of Man that every man has the right to his religion according to his conscience, and thus he has the right to express and publicly practice it according to his conscience. It is one of the rights contained in the Declaration of the Rights of Man, condemned by Pope Pius VI (1775-1799).
Now, it is clear that it is the Freemasons who drew up this document, against the Ten Commandments - their own answer, as it were, to the Ten Commandments - against the will of God, against the authority of God. It is, for all that, a very serious thing to believe, and rightly so, that it was the idea of the Liberals to introduce that into the Church. And when the head of the Church himself begins to propagate these ideas - and he has frequently praised the principles found in the Constitution of the Rights of Man; he did it at Berne before all the members of the Swiss government - that is serious, very serious, because that goes absolutely against the rights of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
We are not "free" in religious matters any more than we are free in moral questions; we do not have the right to follow whatever morality our conscience suggests; we do not have the right to follow whatever kind of faith conforms to our temperament and way of thinking. Faith and morals are imposed upon us by God, and Our Lord Jesus Christ is God. It is thus inadmissible to give the impression that all religions are equally good, that all moral teachings are equal.
We must not forget that the Conciliar reforms of the liturgy, the reforms of the Bible, the changes in the internal structure of the Church, of the constitution of the Church - all these things are a result of the ecumenical spirit. That is clear, since Protestants were present for the changes in the Mass - six Protestant ministers were photographed with Pope Paul VI who thanked them for having come to participate in the liturgical commission, which transformed our Catholic Mass! Everything was done in this ecumenical spirit: liturgical reforms, catechetical reforms, an ecumenical Bible - which is sold in the bookstore at the Vatican. There was then, a considerable Protestant influence.
And the Pope himself says that he is the spiritual son of Pope Paul VI, that he must continue the Council, to put the Council into practice. He has repeated this more than once.
"Well, the consequence of all this is that the abuses start to appear as, for example, catechetics in France. When it becomes too obvious that the consequences are disastrous, the Pope takes notice. He sends Cardinal Ratzinger to stop, to finally put a limit, a certain limit, to this destruction of the catechism. But since the principles are still there - the principles behind this catechetical reform have not changed - they find themselves in an ongoing contradiction. They do not have the courage to go to the logical conclusion. They ought to have suppressed these new catechisms, but since they, themselves, said that a change was necessary, to transform these things according to the modern spirit, to modern man's way of thinking, they are caught in contradiction.
The same is true of liberation theology. Liberation theology is Marxism pure and simple - communism, and that frightens the Pope a little. Yet, what is this liberation theology if not the conclusion, the putting into practice, of the Rights of Man; it is the Constitution of the Rights of Man that liberates him, liberates him from all authority, from the authority of God, from the authority of the States, from the authority of parents, of godparents ... And so the Pope, on the one hand, praises the Rights of Man and, on the other hand, opposes liberation theology. He find himself in a contradiction, and that is why one gets a strong impression that he conducts this battle against liberation theology without a firm conviction, and thus he does not follow through on it. All you need is for a few bishops to stand up and say: No, no, liberation theology is not that bad; besides, we must support the people, the rights of the people, the rights of man, etc., and the Pope backs off.
It is the same thing with the new catechetics in France. The bishops stood up, showed their displeasure, and Cardinal Ratzinger backed off as well. Why? Because they don't have real conviction, they are using false principles to combat the errors of liberalism, and so they are in a constant inconsistency. Until they go back to the principles of tradition, they will not succeed in stopping the progress and the consequences of the Council and the Conciliar reforms.
THERE IS ALSO another aspect of the situation of the Church which is very serious, an idea which is spread far and wide within the Church, the concept of the salvation of man: salvation which from now on is for all men in all religions. That is no longer the old conception of the Church, which demands Baptism, which restores the soul, which takes away Original Sin and provides a remedy for souls, which have fallen sick. The Holy Ghost comes as a remedy to save us, and the sacraments are to help us save ourselves, and give us health of soul. That is no longer what they believe, but rather, the Protestant notion is little by little entering the Church, the idea that the whole world is saved. Just look at the burial rites now: they are joyful ceremonies, the soul is evidently saved, there are no prayers said for it; instead they have chants of thanksgiving to God, or praise, etc. No more purgatory - that doesn't exist anymore.
And they no longer have the notion of asceticism, of a spiritual combat. The idea of a spiritual combat has practically disappeared in the Church, and they have done away with all the prayers, which made mention of the enemies of the Church, or enemies of our souls. All that has been suppressed in the liturgical prayers, or any notion of contempt for the world, for example: "contemnere terrestria et amare caelestia - to despise earthly things and to love heavenly things." That has been eliminated from the orations as if to say that we must not despise the world, that it is an error to eschew the world. Now in the spirit of the Church, to take no heed of the world is in the same spirit as Our Savior, Who said that He did not pray for "the world" since the world is under the influence of Satan. It was in this spirit that the Church spoke that way. All these things have been changed; now there is a completely different attitude.
You may have noticed this in the Pope's Wednesday conferences - I don't know if you read them - but, if you read them, you can see: for well-nigh five years almost ad nauseam, he has spoken of the theology of the human body; we have really had our fill of it, we must say. There is no ascetical theology in it, and for him it seems that marriage will be sublimated right up to heaven and become, I don't know, some sort of celestial mysticism. Incredible! Incomprehensible!
I don't think anybody understands what he says; so mysterious is all this theology of the human body. One searches in vain for the old asceticism. All he does is praise marriage, praise the union according to the flesh, without a single mention of concupiscence, it's unbelievable, since we must never forget that even after receiving Baptism, as St. Thomas says, we still have four profound wounds in our soul. He calls them the fomes peccati (remains of sin), which are: ignorance, malice, weakness and concupiscence; these are the four wounds which remain in us and of which we stand in need of a cure, and for this cure we need the merits of Our Lord. Well, all that is over with, finished. They say Baptism remits our sins and, most importantly, makes us members of the Christian community. There it is, exactly like the Protestants.
Now this different vision of Christian spirituality is exceedingly grave because it excludes once and for all the Cross, it excludes sacrifice, it casts aside the Cross and the Sacrifice and the Redemption of Our Savior.
ANOTHER GRAVE PROBLEM now undermining the Church is found in the new Canon Law. The new Canon Law is very serious for it goes much further than the Council itself.
In the Council they succeeded, for example, in avoiding the creation of two supreme powers in the Church: the Pope on the one hand, and on the other hand, the Pope and the bishops as two ordinary powers in the Church, which is contrary to the doctrine of the Church. There is only one supreme ordinary power in the Church and that is the Pope. The Pope communicates his supreme power in extraordinary cases like a council, but the Pope and the bishops are not an ordinary power in Holy Church. Besides, it is contradictory because the bishops could claim this power from the Pope if the Pope acts alone, saying: "We also have supreme power with you, therefore you must consult us." The Pope could say, "But I alone have the power" - "Yes, but we have it with you," and thus he would be in continual conflict with the bishops. That is inadmissible. Our Lord did not found the Holy Church in such a way that there would be a continual conflict between the Pope and the bishops.
Then another thing, which is very seriously flawed in the new Canon Law, is the definition of the Church. For me, that is perhaps what best characterizes the new theories of the Church since the Council: the Church is the "people of God." The Church no longer consists of clerics and the laity, with only the clergy exercising the ministry from which all the graces are communicated to the laity, while the laity must receive these graces from their ministry. No, now it is all one "people of God," everyone is admitted, according to his function, according to his capacities, to different ministries, as if there were no more distinction between the clergy and the laity.
This is extremely serious. It is, fundamentally, the destruction of the Church. Now one could say, "No, look at the following chapter and there is, all the same, a distinction made between the clergy and the laity." Yes, but that does not take away the contradiction. The error exists. It is there even if later on it is more or less "corrected" by an affirmation of the distinction between clerics and laypeople. Notice however that it is precisely this which becomes the leit motif of the following chapters, when they speak of the munus docendi - in the chapter on the Church's Teaching Office - the Teaching Office is given to the People of God, it is not given to the priests; the mission of sanctifying is given to the People of God; it is incredible! What power will they leave to the priests then? There remains only the power of jurisdiction; that is a little more difficult to change; so they published an article in L'Osservatore Romano on the powers which the laity now has in the new Canon Law, in which they said: you may have taken notice of the fact that the Teaching Office and the mission of sanctifying have been attributed to the People of God; as for the power of jurisdiction, that is a bit more delicate, what they say about that is less precise. There you are! These are grave errors. For example, with the Teaching Office and the mission of sanctifying, they make an absolute link between the role of a parent with respect to his children, and the role of the priest. The priest has a role: the Teaching Office and the mission of sanctifying with regard to his parish. The father of a family has a role: a teaching office and mission of sanctifying of his family. All this comes from a false vision of the Church. It will mean the definitive disappearance of the essential distinction between the priesthood of the faithful and the sacramental priesthood.
The priest has received a sacrament, the Sacrament of Holy Orders, which confers a character on the priest and which gives him alone the power to pardon sins, the power to pronounce the words of consecration at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and the power to administer the sacraments. It is really unbelievable to have made this kind of comparison between the priests and the faithful.
THERE IS ALSO MORE and more of this democratic spirit in the Church. You are aware of all the councils they have - although they are only "consultative" - but they still have them all the same: a parish council, a bishops' council - at least two councils in the parish and one or two for the bishop - there is the Synod of Bishops at Rome, which is now a recognized institution in Canon Law, so that the authorities, in practice, are obliged to take them into account, and it is no easy thing to govern when one is continually obliged to seek the counsel of a majority vote, or to hold a vote to see what the assembly thinks. Those in authority have their hands tied. Not that there was no such thing as consultation in the old Code of Canon Law, there were certain consultations which the bishop had to make, but they were much more discreet, much more reasonable than now. Now it has become an institution, which really limits the powers of the bishop.
All this means that the new Code of Canon Law, to my way of thinking, goes considerably further than the Council itself.
The giving of Holy Communion to Protestants - eucharistic hospitality, as they call it - is a dogmatic error. One does not have the right to give Communion to someone who does not have the Catholic Faith, that is a real rupture with what has always been most precious in the Church: the Body and Blood of Our Lord, and faith in Our Lord Jesus Christ. One does not give the Body and Blood of Our Lord except to someone who truly has the Catholic Faith, faith in Our Lord Jesus Christ, and not simply faith in the Real Presence while he perhaps denies the divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Before passing to the second point, which will be somewhat shorter than this one, I would like to make a little comparison between the preceding and what Mgr. Bugnini said. Last year there appeared an enormous book of his on the liturgical reform, published posthumously, by one of his confreres. I recommend, if you ever come across this book, that you read the general principles. They are very instructive, and absolutely incredible - right in these general principles Archbishop Bugnini says, this liturgical reform is a profound one, aiming at restoring to its true place - for him, according to what he says - the People of God. It is very curious to find here this notion of the People of God, which is in the new Code of Canon Law, published after the death of Archbishop Bugnini. He could not have gotten it from the new Code, so these ideas must have been around well before it. It is stupefying to read in the Documentation Catholique that the Lutheran - Catholic Commission of the Secretariat for Christian Unity, and thus an official Roman commission, said in effect that numerous points in the Council were drawn from the teachings of Luther, one of them being the notion of the People of God. They say it explicitly; so with this doctrine of the People of God, they are restoring the assembly to its true place, to give it an important role in the liturgy, implying that before the assembly did not exist, or that its role was minimal, that there was no participation; and that, now, thanks to the new liturgy, there is finally participation.
There comes to mind an objection made by a certain Benedictine Abbot at the conference which Archbishop Bugnini gave before twenty-four Superiors of Religious Orders - I myself was present at this conference - at Rome, before the publication of the New Mass. When he introduced to us his "normative mass," Archbishop Bugnini spoke to us precisely about this participation of the faithful, active participation, as if before Vatican II the faithful had never participated in the Mass. And so an Abbot got up and said, "Father, if I understand correctly, we should not say private Masses any more, since there is no congregation, and thus no participation by the people in our Masses." The response was, "Quite truthfully, we have not envisioned that." Incredible! As he himself said, this idea has inspired the liturgical reform, an idea which reverses the roles, giving the greater role to the assembly, and no longer to the priest and the sacrifice, the Sacrifice of Our Lord.
I HAVE BEEN ASKED to give you a few reflections on the spirituality of the priest. I cannot very well separate the spirituality of the priest from the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
To my mind there are not two different kinds of priestly spirituality, there is only one: that of his Mass, that of the Sacrifice of Our Lord, because the priest is essentially the man of sacrifice. I would say there is a transcendental relation between the priest and the sacrifice, and between the sacrifice and the priest. One cannot imagine sacrifice without a priest, and the priesthood without sacrifice. And so there is a relation there that is more than essential, transcendental really, a relation that goes beyond even the essence of the priest. So, we must go back to the idea of the Sacrifice. One can say that our sacrifice, the sacrifice which Our Lord has put into our hands, the sacrifice which Our Lord has left us, is a thing without limit, inexpressible, so divine and mysterious is it, that it surpasses everything we can imagine.
To think that we are really "other Christs," and that it is His words, His words that produce His presence, that we recite these words each morning, that it is not simply a narrative but also an action, and that we say, "This is My Body," we do not say, "This is the Body of Jesus Christ." But we say, "This is My Body," "This is the chalice of My Blood" - it is we ourselves who pronounce it! Consequently we are truly in the Person of Christ, it is truly Christ that we represent. It is no longer we who speak; it is Our Lord Who makes use of our lips, Who makes use of us to pronounce these words anew. There it is, I truly believe, the great program of the priest, the program of priestly life: his Mass. That is why the Mass is so important. And this program, it is not really complicated, it is very simple.
The first part of the Mass consists in teaching: "to teach all nations," that is our role. We have to teach precisely because we have the Teaching Office. Our Lord said to us, to priests, "Teach all nations." He did not say that to just anybody, He said that to His Apostles, and so we have this role and we must teach. That is what we do in the first part of the Mass, more especially than in the other parts. May we be solicitous that our teaching truly be the teaching of the faith, that our teaching truly be the teaching of the Church! And may I point out that the faith is essentially connected with Revelation, and Revelation is essentially connected with Tradition: Faith, Revelation, Tradition! And that is why, when we say we are traditionalists, we are right. We must be traditionalists; there can be no Catholics who are not traditionalists. Tradition is part of our faith. We should not forget that there was a time of prophecy, as St. Thomas says. There was a prophetical epoch which began with the first prophets, continuing right up to the Prophet Who is Our Lord Jesus Christ: He is the Prophet, there is none greater, none holier, none more perfect, than this Prophet.
Thus the prophetical epoch continued right up to Our Lord Jesus Christ. The Apostles were joined with Our Lord Jesus Christ to announce the Gospel. After the death of the last Apostle, the prophetical epoch came to a close, was finished; there is no other prophet, there can be no other prophet after Our Lord. Who could surpass Our Lord? Who could say: "I come after Our Lord to complete what Our Lord said"? Who could say such a thing? God Himself has come, who can make himself greater than God? There are no more prophets; the time of prophecy is finished, terminated.
St. Thomas goes on to say: "Then followed the dogmatic epoch," the time of definitions, that is, the time in which the contents of Revelation were defined, that which was revealed, that which is in the deposit of faith. And the Popes have no other role than to define what is in the deposit of Revelation - not to add a single truth, but simply to say: "This is in the deposit of revelation." That is where Tradition comes in: Tradition, from generation to generation, from Pope to Pope, from council to council, the tradition of the Faith, of what has been defined, and to the extent to which it is defined it is untouchable, one can no longer touch this truth, it is defined for all times.
When a Pope uses his infallibility, it is the deposit of faith, the treasure of our faith, there is thus a tradition, which we cannot avoid, which we must keep, hence the importance for us to always refer to the past, to refer back to what the Church had always taught. Now, this is the great error of Cardinal Ratzinger, the great error of those who are in the Church today, who say to us: "The Church is a living body and so it evolves, always changing, always in evolution, the Church is not a corpse." Truth is always the same. When I said to Cardinal Ratzinger, "Look, religious liberty and Quanta Cura are incompatible," "Oh," he said, "we are no longer in the times of Quanta Cura." We are no longer in the times of Quanta Cura, then tomorrow we will no longer be in the times of their own new truths - this is not possible!
Now in this first part of the Mass, which, I would say, is the model for our own teaching, we must refer back to that, to Tradition. The essence of what St. Paul said is: "Tradidi vos quod et accepi - I have passed on to you what I have myself received." Already in his time he said that, and he said: “If an angel himself says the contrary of what I have handed on to you, or if I say the contrary of what I have passed on to you, may I be anathema!" And that is serious! And so neither do we have the right to deny what was handed down to us.
THERE ARE TWO other parts of Holy Mass, the part with the consecration, the Sacrifice, and then the part where the priest communicates, which are united because we are united to our Victim, Our Lord.
First, the Sacrifice. I now make a distinction betweengratia sanans (grace healing) and gratia elevans (grace elevating), the grace which Our Lord gives us in Baptism, which He also gives us in the Sacrifice of the Mass. The augmentation of this grace has the aspect of "healing" and "elevating.” - Grace healing that is the sacrificial, penitential aspect, of compunction for our faults, of everything that heals us. It is the Blood of Our Lord, it is in the Sacraments, in the Sacrament of Penance ... then, there is "grace elevating” which lifts us up, the Holy Ghost Who elevates us with Our Lord Jesus Christ in contemplation, in the love of the Father, in the love of the Holy Trinity. In the Sacrifice of the Mass we find ourselves as it were on the Cross again with Our Lord. That is the sacrificial and penitential aspect, the healing aspect, but also the aspect of love, of charity, of the contemplation of Our Lord.
Next comes the third part: the communion of the faithful. Fundamentally we cannot give them more than Our Lord Jesus Christ, but we must prepare them, precisely by teaching, and then we are the doctors of their souls by the Sacrament of Penance, by the advice we can give. We must do this in such a way that souls receive Our Lord Jesus Christ under the best conditions, so that they can receive this gratia sanans and gratia elevans, and unite themselves with Our Lord the Victim, Our Lord Who praises His Father for eternity.
These are, in summary, the different aspect of the Most Holy Sacrifice, which are very important, essential, and which are an entire program of life, this is practically our entire program of priestly life. I wish that we could always gain a deeper understanding of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. There you can see the change on the perspective on the Mass: if one insists only on the meal, as the progressives do now, on the meat the table, the table of the eucharistic banquet the sharing of bread, the sharing of the word-they leave aside the aspect of the Cross, the sacrificial aspect which [...] us up to heaven. Let us not separate the aspect of Our Lord which lifts us right up to the bosom of the Trinity, in the midst of praise, the propitiatory aspect of sacrifice which covers us with the Blood of Our Lord, which heals us of out maladies, precisely this "healing grace." We ought not to forget that there is "healing grace" and "elevating grace"-there are these two aspects of grace.
I WILL FINISH THIS TALK with a few words on the new decree which has just come out. Is it a boon, or not? It would be difficult to say that it is not a good thing, since many people have asked Rome for this liberty, that those who say the Old Mass not be persecuted. I myself also during these years have not ceased asking of Rome: leave us this liberty! And so, faced with the insistence of many people, and mine also, they finally decided to do something. Unfortunately however they have added to it incredible conditions. It's absolutely unimaginable, after all this, to be interrogating people on their opinion: Do you reject the New Mass? If you reject the New Mass, then you don't have the right to say the old one. That surpasses the imagination. For as I said to my confreres, if one of you were asked, or, if for example, we take the Abbey of Fontgombault in France, the Benedictines, they like the Old Mass, but they have accepted the New Mass out of "obedience." Now they will surely ask for the Old Mass again. And they could ask them: "Why do you opt for the Old Mass?" "Ah, because we prefer the Old Mass. You see, the New Mass has certain features . . ." "Ah! You don't like the New Mass! Neither then shall you have the Old!"
That is ridiculous, because if we choose the Old Mass it is because we find it better than the new one. If you reject the new one, you don't have the right to the old one! They could quibble back and forth like that.
To my mind, this decree is a typical example of the present mentality at Rome, the progressive mentality. This is a progressive decree; it is not a traditional decree where Rome would act out of consideration for the holiness of the Mass, for the holiness of the faithful, for the apostolate and good of souls, the glory of God. No, it's not that. It's pure politics. They conducted a referendum ... a poll ... to see who were in agreement; because there was still a small group holding out, they decided to make a concession, but to also add some conditions. That is politics, the same kind they practice in democracies - it's not supernatural at all. Be that as it may, I think Providence has willed this nevertheless for now we have a foot in the door and never again will they be able to shut it! The old era is finished, now we have a foothold, and I think that the good God will permit, little by little, that there will be a return to Tradition. It has triggered the common sense of many of the faithful who say, "Finally this business is over with! Finally we can go to the Old Mass! Finally the dispute is over!"
They aren't really taking the conditions into account. There was even a radio station in Switzerland that said, "Pope Paul VI condemned Archbishop Lefebvre and now John Paul II has condemned Paul VI." That is not altogether accurate, but that is the impression the faithful will get from this decree.
Will we, in our priories, in our traditional groups, will we lose much support? Personally, I don't think so; on the contrary. For one thing, we must say, this decree will unfortunately be difficult for those priests who have charge of a parish, for example, to have the Old Mass when their faithful are divided. Some want the Old Mass, some want the New; some want Communion in the hand, some don't want Communion in the hand; some want Mass facing the people, some don't want Mass facing the people. That will cause interminable divisions. Thus it will be very difficult to have the Old Mass in this environment. And so I believe that many of our faithful, even if they were accustomed to going to an environment like that, where they see the faithful receive Communion in the hand, where they see the priest celebrate the Old Mass facing the people, they will say: No, no, we will go to those who keep Tradition in its entirety. I don't believe that we will suffer losses. If that is what they figured, I believe they are mistaken. If they calculated beforehand: we will isolate the Society, we will isolate their priests, we will drive the faithful from them - for my part, I believe they are mistaken; I believe, on the contrary, that we will have more support than ever. Already some have said to us, "Oh, now we will be able to come to you." Before they were afraid and thought it would be disobedience to the priests, to the bishops who said to them: "You disobey if you go to those Masses." Now that issue of disobedience is over, so now we can go there, the faithful believe.
That is why, after all is said and done, we must look beyond the actual text of the decree, and the divisions it will cause, and the difficulties it will cause with the bishops: look at it as the good God sees it. I believe it is providential, a first step on the road back to Tradition and so, I hope, God will see to it that other steps will follow. ++
[bolded emphasis - The Catacombs]
Source
|
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishp de Castro Mayer: 1983 Letter to Pope John Paul II |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-07-2020, 06:59 AM - Forum: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
- Replies (1)
|
|
From the Archived Catacombs:
THE PRINCIPAL ERRORS OF CONCILIAR ECCLESIOLOGY
On November 21, 1983, Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer sent an Episcopal Letter to John Paul II, summarizing the causes of the “self-destuction of the Church.”
Episcopal Letter: sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Episcopal-Manifesto.htm
In the letter, the two bishops mention the principal errors which are at the origins of the destruction of the Church and at the end of the letter there is an appendix which gives a more detailed explanation of the errors.
Excerpt from letter:
…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:
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 Counil of Trent, Session XXII.
6. Finally, and in a general manner, the free spreading of heresies, characterized by the suppression of the Holy Office…
Appendix to letter:
A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE PRINCIPAL ERRORS OF CONCILIAR ECCLESIOLOGY
I. A latitudinarist (indifferentist) and ecumenical conception of the Church.
The conception of the Church as "the People of God" is hereafter found in many official documents: the acts of the Council, Unitatis Redintegratio, Lumen Gentium; the new Code of Canon Law (c. 204.1); the letter of Pope John Paul II, Catechesi tradendae; the allocution in the Anglican Church at Canterbury; the ecumenical directory ad totam Ecclesiam of the Secretariat for the Unity of Christians. It [this conception] breathes a latitudinarist interpretation and a false ecumenism.
The facts manifest with evidence this heterodox conception: the authorizations for the construction of rooms which are destined for religious pluralism; the edition of ecumenical bibles which no longer conform to Catholic exegesis; the ecumenical ceremonies like those of Canterbury.
In Unitatis Redintegratio, it is taught that the division of Christians "is for the world an object of scandal and the obstacle of the preaching of the Gospel to all creatures . . . that the Holy Spirit does not refuse to make use of other religions as means of salvation." This same error is repeated in the document Catechesi tradendae of John Paul II. It is in the same spirit and with affirmations contrary to the traditional faith that John Paul II declared at the Cathedral of Canterbury, May 25, 1982, "that the promise of Christ inspires us with confidence that the Holy Spirit will heal the divisions introduced into the Church from the first times at Pentecost" as though the unity of the Credo had never existed in the Church.
The concept of the "People of God" leads to belief that Protestantism is none other than a particular form of the same Christian religion.
The Second Vatican Council teaches "a true union in the Holy Spirit" with heretical sects (Lumen gentium, 14); "a certain, though imperfect, communion with them" (Unitatis Redintegratio,3).
This ecumenical unity contradicts the Encyclical Satis cognitum of Leo XIII which teaches that "Jesus did not found a Church made up of a number of communities that were generically similar, yet separate and without those bonds of unity which make the Church one and indivisible." Similarly, this ecumenical unity is contrary to the Encyclical Humani generis of Pius XII which condemns the idea of reducing to a vague formula the necessity of belonging to the Catholic Church. It is also contrary to the Encyclical Mystici Corporis of the same Pope which condemns the conception of a "pneumatic" Church which would be an invisible bond unifying the separated communities in the faith.
This ecumenism is equally contrary to the teachings of Pius XI in the Encyclical Mortalium animos. Concerning this point it is timely to expose and reject a certain false opinion which is at the origin of this problem and of this complex movement by the means of which non?Catholics strive to obtain a union of Christian churches. Those who adhere to this opinion constantly cite these words of Christ: "That they all may be one . . . and there shall be one fold and one shepherd" (Jn. 17, 21 and 10, 16), and they claim that by these words Christ expresses a desire or a prayer which has never been realized. In fact, they claim that the unity of faith and of government, which is one of the marks of the true Church of Christ, in a practical manner, up to today, has never existed and today does not exist.
This ecumenism condemned by Catholic morality and law, now manages to permit the reception of the Sacraments of Penance, Holy Eucharist and Extreme Unction from "non?Catholic ministers" (canon 844, N.C.), and encourages "ecumenical hospitality" by authorizing Catholic ministers to give the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist to nonCatholics.
All these things are contrary to Divine Revelation which stipulates the "separation" and rejects the union "between light and darkness, between the faithful and the unbeliever, between the temple of God and that of sects" (II Corinth. 6, 14?18).
II. The Collegial-Democratic Government of the Church
Having undermined the unity of the faith, the Modernists of today strive to undermine the unity of government and the hierarchical structure of the Church.
The doctrine, already insinuated by the document Lumen Gentium of Vatican Council II, is taken up again, explicitly, by the new Code of Canon Law (c. 336). According to this doctrine, the College of Bishops united with the Pope, has an equal possession of the supreme authority in the Church, in a habitual and constant manner.
This doctrine-of a double supreme authority?is contrary to the teaching and to the practice of the Magisterium of the Church, especially in Vatican Council I (DS 3055), and in the Encyclical of Leo 11, Satis cognitum. The Pope alone has this supreme authority which he can communicate, in the measure which he judges expedient and in extraordinary circumstances.
To this grave error is attached the democratic orientation of the Church, with the power residing in the "People of God" such as it is defined in the new Code. This Jansenist error is condemned by the Bull Auctorem Fidei of Pius VI (CS 2592).
This tendency to cause the "base" to participate in the exercise of power is found in the institution of the Synodal and Episcopal Conferences, in the Priestly and Pastoral Councils, and in the multiplication of Roman Commissions and national commissions, as in the heart of religious congregations (concerning this, see Vatican Council 1, DS 3061; new Code of Canon Law, c. 447).
The source of the anarchy and disorder which today reign throughout the Church is to be found in this degradition of authority.
III. The False Natural Rights of Man
The Declaration, Dignitatis humanae, of Vatican Council II, affirms the existence of a false natural right of man in religious matters, contrary to the pontifical teachings which repudiate such a blasphemy.
Thus Pius IX in his Encyclical Quanta cura and the Syllabus, Leo XIII in his Encyclicals Libertas praestantissimum and Immortale Dei, Pius XII in his allocution, La Riesce, to the Italian Catholic jurists, deny that reason and revelation found a similar right.
Vatican II professes, in a universal manner, that "The Truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own Truth." This is formally opposed to the teaching of Pius VI against the Jansenists of the Council of Pistoia (DS 2604). The Second Vatican Council thus arrives at the absurdity of affirming the right not to adhere to, and not to follow the Truth, in order to oblige civil governments to no longer discriminate for religious motives, thus establishing a juridical equality between false religions and the true one.
These doctrines, which have already been condemned by Saint Pius X in the Pontifical Mandate, Notre Charge Apostolique, are founded on a false conception of human dignity which comes from the agnostic and materialistic pseudo?philosophers of the French Revolution.
Vatican II says that from Religious Liberty will emerge an era of stability for the Church. Gregory XVI affirms, on the contrary, that it is a supreme impudence to affirm that the immoderate freedom of opinion would be beneficial for the Church.
The Council expresses in Gaudium et Spes a false principle when it says that human and Christian dignity come from the fact of the Incarnation, which has restored this dignity for all men. This same error is affirmed in the Encyclical Redemptor hominis of John Paul II.
The consequences of the recognition by the Council of this false "Rights of Men" destroys the foundations of the social reign of Our Lord. They undermine the authority and power of the Church in its mission to cause Our Lord to reign in souls and in hearts, for the Church must direct the battle against the satanic forces which subjugate souls. The missionary spirit will be accused of exaggerated proselytism.
The neutrality of States in religious matters is injurious for Our Lord and His Church, when it is a question of States with a Catholic majority.
IV. The Absolute Authority of the Pope
Most certainly the authority of the Pope in the Church is a supreme authority, but it cannot be absolute and without limits, since it is subordinate to Divine Authority, which is expressed in Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the definitions already promulgated by the ecclesiastical Magisterium (DS 3116).
The authority of the Pope is subordinate and limited by the end for which this authority has been given to him. This end is clearly defined by Pope Pius IX in the Constitution Pastor aeternus of Vatican Council I (DS 3070). It would be an intolerable abuse of power to modify the Constitution of the Church and, in doing so, pretend to appeal to the rights of man against the Divine Right, as in religious liberty, as in the eucharistic hospitality which is authorized in the new Canon Law, as in the assertion of two supreme authorities in the Church.
It is clear that in these cases and in other similar cases, it is the duty for each member of the clergy and each faithful Catholic to resist and to refuse obedience. Blind obedience is a contrary sense and no one is exempt from his responsibility for having obeyed man rather than God (DS 3115). This resistance must be public if the evil is public and an object of scandal to souls (St. Thomas 11,11, 33,4).
The above statements are elementary principles of ethics. They regulate the relations of subjects with all legitimate authority.
Moreover this resistance finds a confirmation in the fact that henceforth those who hold firmly to Tradition and the Catholic Faith are penalized; those who profess doctrines which are heterodox, or who effect sacrileges are in no way troubled. That is the logic of an abuse of authority.
V. Protestant Notion of the Mass
The new notion of the Church, such as Pope John Paul II defined it in the Constitution which precedes the new Canon Law, evokes a profound alteration in the principal act of the Church, which is the Sacrifice of the Mass. The definition of the new ecclesiology gives exactly the definition of the new Mass: it is a collegial and ecumenical service and communion. The New Mass cannot be better defined and the New Mass, just as the new Conciliar Church, is a profound rupture with the Tradition and Magisterium of the Church.
It is a conception more Protestant than Catholic and it explains all that which has been unduly exalted and all that which has been diminished.
Contrary to the teaching of the Council of Trent in its twenty second session, contrary to the Encyclical Mediator Dei of Pius XII, the role of the faithful in the participation of the Mass has been exaggerated, and the role of the priest, now become a simple president, has been diminished. The importance of the Liturgy of the Word has been exaggerated, and the importance of the propitiatory Sacrifice has been diminished. The meal of the community has been exalted and the Mass has been laicized, to the detriment of the respect and the faith in the Real Presence by transubstantiation.
By the suppression of the sacred language, the rites have been infinitely multiplied. They have been profaned by worldly and pagan additions. False translations have been propagated to the detriment of the true faith and the true piety of the faithful.
And yet the Councils of Florence and Trent had pronounced anathemas against all these changes and they had affirmed that the Canon of our Mass goes back to apostolic times.
The Popes, Saint Pius V and Clement VIII, had insisted upon the necessity of avoiding changes and mutations, by perpetually keeping this Roman Rite consecrated by Tradition.
The removal from the Mass of that which is sacred, and its laicization have led to the laicization, in a Protestant manner, of the priesthood.
The liturgical reform in a Protestant style is one of the greatest errors of the Conciliar Church and one of the most ruinous for the Faith and grace.
VI. The Free Diffusion of Errors and Heresies
The situation of the Church, its state of searching, has introduced, in practice, the free-thinking of Protestantism. This is the result of the multiplicity of credos at the interior of the Church.
The suppression of the Holy Office, of the Index, of the Anti-Modernist Oath, has provoked among modern theologians a need for new theories which bewilder the faithful and induces them toward the charismatic movement, Pentecostalism and base communities. It is a true revolution, ultimately directed against the authority of God and the Church.
Grave modern errors which remain condemned by the Popes are now freely developing at the interior of the Church:
1. Modern philosophies which are anti-scholastic, existentialist, anti-intellectualist are taught in Catholic universities and seminaries.
2. Humanism is favored by the need of ecclesiastical authorities to be an echo of the modern world by making man the end of all things.
3. Naturalism-the exaltation of man and human values, is causing the supernatural values of the Redemption and grace to be forgotten.
4. Evolutionary Modernism is causing the rejection of Tradition, of Revelation, of the Magisterium of twenty centuries. No longer is there an unchanging Truth, nor any dogma.
5. Socialism and Communism: The refusal of the Council to condemn these errors was scandalous and legitimately causes the belief that today the Vatican would be favorable to a socialism or a communism more or less Christian. The attitude of the Holy See, both in its dealings the other side of the Iron Curtain and this side, during the past fifteen years, confirms this judgment.
6. Finally, the agreements with Freemasonry, the ecumenical Council of Churches, and Moscow, reduce the Church to the state of a prisoner. It becomes totally incapable of freely fulfilling its Mission. These are real treasons which cry to heaven for vengeance, just as are the praises uttered in these recent days to the heresiarch the most scandalous and the most noxious to the Church.
It is time that the Church recovered its freedom in order to advance the Reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the Reign of Mary without being preoccupied with its enemies.
|
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebvre: 1976 Ordination Sermon - 'We Do Not Accept This New Religion' |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-07-2020, 06:54 AM - Forum: Sermons and Conferences
- Replies (1)
|
|
[Powerful] Sermon of Archbishop Lefebvre at the Ordination of Thirteen Priests on the Feast of Sts. Peter and Paul
June 29,1976
In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
My dear friends, dear confreres, dear brethren…who have come from every country, from all horizons: It is a joy for us to welcome you and to feel you so close to us at this moment so important for our Fraternity and also for the Church. I think that, if the pilgrims have permitted themselves to make this sacrifice, to journey day and night, to come from distant regions to participate in this ceremony, it is because they had the conviction that they were coming to participate in a ceremony of the Church, to participate in a ceremony which would fill their hearts with joy, because they will now have the certitude in returning to their homes that the Catholic Church continues.
Ah, I know well that the difficulties are numerous in this undertaking which we have been told is foolhardy. They say that we are in a deadlock. Why? Because from Rome have come to us, especially in the last three months, since 19 March in particular, the Feast of Saint Joseph, demands, supplications, orders, and threats to inform us that we must cease our activity, to inform us that we must not perform these ordinations to the priesthood. They have been pressing these last few days. In the last twelve days in particular, we have not ceased to receive messages and envoys from Rome enjoining us to refrain from performing these ordinations.
But if in all objectivity we seek the true motive animating those who ask us not to perform these ordinations, if we look for the hidden motive, it is because we are ordaining these priests that they may say the Mass of all time. It is because they know that these priests will be faithful to the Mass of the Church, to the Mass of Tradition, to the Mass of all time, that they urge us not to ordain them.
In proof of this, consider that six times in the last three weeks-six times-we have been asked to re-establish normal relations with Rome and to give as proof the acceptance of the new rite; and I have been asked to celebrate it myself. They have gone so far as to send me someone who offered to concelebrate with me in the new rite so as to manifest that I accepted voluntarily this new liturgy, saying that in this way all would be straightened out between us and Rome. They put a new Missal into my hands, saying "Here is the Mass that you must celebrate and that you shall celebrate hence- forth in all your houses.” They told me as well that if on this date, today, this 29th of June, before your entire assembly, we celebrated a Mass according to the new rite, all would be straightened out henceforth between ourselves and Rome. Thus it is clear, it is evidence that it is on the problem of the Mass that the whole drama between Ecône and Rome depends.
Ordination: The Litany Of the Saints
Are we wrong in obstinately wanting to keep the rite of all time? We have, of course, prayed, we have consulted, we have reflected, we have meditated to discover if it is not indeed we who are in error, or if we do not really have a sufficient reason not to submit ourselves to the new rite. And in fact, the very insistence of those who were sent from Rome to ask us to change rite makes us wonder .
And we have the precise conviction that this new Rite of Mass expresses a new Faith, a Faith which is not ours, a Faith which is not the Catholic Faith. This New Mass is a symbol, is an expression, is an image of a new faith, of a Modernist faith. For if the most holy Church has wished to guard throughout the centuries this precious treasure which She has given us of the rite of Holy Mass which was canonised by Saint Pius V, it has not been without purpose. It is because this Mass contains our whole faith, the whole Catholic Faith: faith in the Most Holy Trinity, faith in the Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, faith in the Redemption of Our Lord Jesus Christ, faith in the Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ which flowed for the redemption of our sins, faith in supernatural grace, which comes to us from the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which comes to us from the Cross, which comes to us through all the Sacraments.
This is what we believe. This is what we believe in celebrating the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass of all time. It is a lesson of faith and at the same time a source of our faith, indispensable for us in this age when our faith is attacked from all sides. We have need of this true Mass, of this Mass of all time. of this Sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ really to fill our souls with the Holy Ghost and with the strength of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Now it is evident that the new rite, if I may say so, supposes another conception of the Catholic religion-another religion. It is no longer the priest who offers the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, it is the assembly. Now this is an entire program-an entire program. Henceforth it is the assembly also that replaces authority in the Church. It is the assembly of bishops that replaces the power of (individual) bishops. It is the priests' council that replaces the power of the bishop in the diocese. It is numbers that command from now on in the Holy Church. And this is expressed in the Mass precisely because the assembly replaces the priest, to such a point that now many priests no longer want to celebrate Holy Mass when there is no assembly. Slowly but surely the Protestant notion of the Mass is being introduced into the Holy Church.
And this is consistent with the mentality of modern man- absolutely consistent. For it is the democratic ideal which is the fundamental idea of modern man, that is to say, that the power lies with the assembly, that authority is in the people, in the masses, and not in God. And this is most grave. Because we believe that God is all-powerful; we believe that God has all authority; we believe that all authority comes from God. "Omnis potestas a Deo." All authority comes from God. We do not believe that authority comes from below. Now that is the mentality of modern man.
And the New Mass is not less than the expression of this idea that authority is at the base, and no longer in God. This Mass is no longer a hierarchical Mass; it is a democratic Mass. And this is most grave. It is the expression of a whole new ideology. The ideology of modern man has been brought into our most sacred rites.
And this is what is at present corrupting the entire Church. For by this idea of power bestowed on the lower rank, in the Holy Mass, they have destroyed the priesthood! They are destroying the priesthood, for what is the priest, if the priest no longer has a personal power, that power which is given to him by his ordination, as these future priests are going to receive it in a moment? They are going to receive a character, a character which will put them above the people of God! Nevermore shall they be able to say after the ceremony about to be performed, they shall never be able to say, "We are men like other men." This would not be true.
They will no longer be men like other men! They will be men of God. They will be men, I should say, who almost participate in the divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ by His sacerdotal character. For Our Lord Jesus Christ is Priest for eternity, Priest according to the Order of Melchisedech, because He is Jesus Christ; because the divinity of the Word of God was infused into the humanity which He assumed. And it is at the moment that He assumed this humanity in the womb of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary that Jesus became Priest.
The grace in which these young priests are going to participate is not the sanctifying grace in which Our Lord Jesus Christ gives us to participate by the grace of baptism; it is the grace of union-that grace of union unique to Our Lord Jesus Christ. It is in this grace that they are going to participate, for it is by His grace of union with the divinity of God, with the divinity of the Word, that Our Lord Jesus Christ became Priest; that Our Lord Jesus Christ is King; that Our Lord Jesus Christ is Judge; that Our Lord Jesus Christ ought to be adored by all men: by His grace of union, sublime grace! grace which no being here below could ever receive-this grace of the divinity itself descending into a humanity which is Our Lord Jesus Christ, anointing Him, after a fashion, like the oil that descends on the head and consecrates him who receives this oil. The humanity of Our Lord Jesus Christ was penetrated by the divinity of the Word of God, and thus He was made Priest. He was made Mediator between God and men.
It is in this very grace, which will place them above the people of God, that these priests are going to participate. They too will be the intermediaries between God and God's people. They will not merely be the representatives of the people of God; they will not be the functionaries of the people of God; they will not merely be 'presidents of the assembly.' They are priests for eternity, marked by this character for eternity, and no one has the right not to respect them; even if they themselves did not respect this character-they have it always in themselves, they will always have it in themselves.
![[Image: layinghands.jpg]](https://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Images/layinghands.jpg)
Ordination: The Clergy joins with the Archbishop in laying hands on the Ordinands
This is what we believe, this is our faith, and this is what constitutes our Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It is the priest who offers the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass; and the faithful participate in this offering, with all their heart, with all their soul, but it is not they who offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. As proof, consider that the priest, when he is alone, offers the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the same manner and with the same value as if there were a thousand people around him. His sacrifice has an infinite value: the sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ offered by the priest has an infinite value.
This is what we believe. This is why we think that we cannot accept the new rite, which is the work of another ideology, or a new ideology. They thought that they would attract the world by accepting the ideas of the world. They thought they would attract to the Church those who do not believe by accepting the ideas of these persons who do not believe, by accepting the ideas of modern man-this modern man who is a Liberal, who is a Modernist; who is a man who accepts the plurality of religions, who no longer accepts the social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ. This I have heard twice from the envoys of the Holy See, who told me that the social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ was no longer possible in our time; that we must accept definitely the pluralism of religions. That is what they told me. That the Encyclical Quas Primas, which is so beautiful, on the social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ, which was written by Pope Pius XI, would never be written today by the Pope. This is what they said to me-the official envoys of the Holy See.
Well, we are not of this religion. We do not accept this new religion. We are of the religion of all time; we are of the Catholic Religion. We are not of this 'universal religion' as they call it today-this is not the Catholic religion any more. We are not of this Liberal, Modernist religion which has its own worship, its own priests, its own faith, its own catechisms, its own Bible, the 'ecumenical Bible'-these things we do not accept. We do not accept the 'ecumenical Bible.' There is no 'ecumenical Bible.' There is only the Bible of God, the Bible of the Holy Ghost, written under the influence of the Holy Ghost. It is the Word of God. We do not have the right to mix it with the words of men. There is no 'ecumenical Bible' which could possibly exist. There is only one Word- the Word of the Holy Ghost. We do not accept the catechisms which no longer uphold our Creed. And so on and so forth.
We cannot accept these things. They are contrary to our Faith. We regret infinitely, it is an immense, immense pain for us, to think that we are in difficulty with Rome because of our faith! How is this possible? It is something that exceeds the imagination, that we should never have been able to imagine, that we should never have been able to believe, especially in our childhood-then when all was uniform, when the whole Church believed in Her general unity, and held the same Faith, the same Sacraments, the same Sacrifice of the Mass, the same catechism. And behold, suddenly all is in division, in chaos.
I said as much to those who came from Rome. I said so: Christians are torn apart in their families, in their homes, among their children; they are torn apart in their hearts by this division in the Church, by this new religion now being taught and practised. Priests are dying prematurely, torn apart in their hearts and in their souls at the thought that they no longer know what to do: either to submit to obedience and lose, in a way, the faith of their childhood and of their youth, and renounce the promises which they made at the time of their ordination in taking the anti-Modernist oath; or to have the impression of separating themselves from him who is our father, the Pope, from him who is the representative of Saint Peter. What agony for these priests! Many priests have died prematurely of grief. Priests are now hounded from their churches, persecuted, because they say the Mass of all time.
We are in a truly dramatic situation. We have to choose between an appearance, I should say, of disobedience-for the Holy Father cannot ask us to abandon our faith. It is impossible, impossible-the abandonment of our faith. We choose not to abandon our faith, for in that we cannot go wrong. In that which the Catholic Church has taught for two thousand years, the Church cannot be in error. It is absolutely impossible, and that is why we are attached to this tradition which is expressed in such an admirable and definitive manner, as Pope Saint Pius V said so well, in a definitive manner in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
Tomorrow perhaps, in the newspapers, will appear our condemnation. It is quite possible, because of these ordinations today. I myself shall probably be struck by suspension. These young priests will be struck by an irregularity which in theory should prevent them from saying Holy Mass. It is possible. Well, I appeal to Saint Pius V-Saint Pius V, who in his Bull said that, in perpetuity, no priest could incur a censure, whatever it might be, in perpetuity, for saying this Mass. And consequently, this censure, this excommunication, if there was one, these censures, if there are any, are absolutely invalid, contrary to that which Saint Pius V established in perpetuity in his Bull : that never in any age could one inflict a censure on a priest who says this Holy Mass.
Why? Because this Mass is canonised. He canonised it definitively. Now a Pope cannot remove a canonisation. The Pope can make a new rite, but he cannot remove a canonisation. He cannot forbid a Mass that is canonised. Thus, if he has canonised a Saint, another Pope cannot come and say that this Saint is no longer canonised. That is not possible. Now this Holy Mass was canonised by Pope Saint Pius V. And that is why we can say it in all tranquillity, in all security, and even be certain that, in saying this Mass, we are professing our faith, we are upholding our faith, we are upholding the faith of the Catholic people. This is, indeed, the best manner of upholding it.
And that is why we are going to proceed in a few moments with these ordinations. Certainly we should desire to have a blessing as was given in the past by the Holy See-a benediction came from Rome for the newly-ordained. But we believe that God is here present, that He sees all things, and that He also blesses this ceremony which we are performing; and that one day He will certainly draw from it the fruits which He desires, and will aid us in any case, to maintain our Faith and to serve the Church.
We ask this especially of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary and of Saints Peter and Paul today. Let us ask the Most Blessed Virgin, who is the Mother of the Priesthood, to give these young men the true grace of the priesthood; to give them the Holy Ghost in Whose giving she was intermediary the day of Pentecost.
Let us ask Saint Peter and Saint Paul to maintain in us this faith in Peter. Ah, yes, we believe in Peter, we believe in the Successor of Peter! But as Pope Pius IX says well in his dogmatic constitution, the Pope has received the Holy Ghost, not to make new truths, but to maintain us in the Faith of all time. This is the definition of the Pope made at the time of the First Vatican Council by Pope Pius IX. And that is why we are persuaded that, in maintaining these traditions, we are manifesting our love, our docility, our obedience to the Successor of Peter.
In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
![[Image: 13priests-and-subdeacons.jpg]](https://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Images/13priests-and-subdeacons.jpg)
The 13 new priests and 13 new Sub-deacons with Archbishop Lefebvre
![[Image: crowd.jpg]](https://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Images/crowd.jpg)
After the ceremony, the faithful come for the first blessings of the new priests.
[Emphasis - The Catacombs]
Source
|
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebvre: 1976 Sermon on the Feast of Corpus Christi |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-07-2020, 06:44 AM - Forum: Sermons and Conferences
- Replies (1)
|
|
Sermon of Archbishop Lefebvre
On the Feast of Corpus Christi, 17 June 1976 at Ecône, Switzerland
In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
My dear brethren,
If there is a feast which ought to be dear to our hearts, to the heart of the priest, to the heart of the seminarian, to the hearts of the Catholic Faithful, it is indeed the Feast of the Most Blessed Sacrament. What in our holy religion is more grand, more beautiful, more divine than the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist? What could Our Lord Jesus Christ have done to manifest His charity, His love for us more efficaciously, more obviously, than by leaving us under the appearances of bread and wine His Body, His Blood, His Soul and His Divinity? These things we have just sung in the Epistle, in the Gradual, in the Alleluia, in the Gospel. We have affirmed our faith in the Holy Eucharist—this faith which today is turned to doubt, this faith which is turned to doubt by the attitude, by the lack of respect that men have for the Most Holy Eucharist, for Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself present under the appearances of bread and wine. We then should affirm more than ever our faith in the Most Holy Eucharist.
That is why we are happy to gather here today, around Jesus in the Eucharist, and to manifest to Him our faith in His Divinity, and our adoration. It is for this that already for centuries and centuries in the Church this custom, this tradition has existed, of adoring Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist publicly—in the villages, in the cities, in the small cities as in the great ones—in the religious houses and in monasteries. Everywhere the Eucharist is honored; everywhere on this day of the Feast of the Most Blessed Sacrament, or of Corpus Christi, the Most Blessed Sacrament is honored in a public manner. The Council of Trent declared that we must honor Our Lord Jesus Christ publicly so that those who see, and who observe the faith of Catholics in the Most Holy Eucharist, might be attracted as well by this homage rendered to Our Lord Jesus Christ, and that finally they might believe in the Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ present in this great Sacrament. And the Council of Trent added, Let those who refuse to admit the Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ be struck, struck by a punishment of God—by the blinding of their hearts—if they refuse to honor Our Lord Jesus Christ.
This is what the Council of Trent said, to encourage this custom and this tradition, already ancient, of honoring Our Lord Jesus Christ publicly in the streets of our cities, in the countryside, as we are doing here today. That is why in a little while we shall make the procession, with all our faith, repeating to Our Lord Jesus Christ, Yes, we believe, O Jesus, that You are present in the holy Sacrament. We believe it today twice, three times, four times as strongly, for all those who no longer believe, for those who despise You in Your Sacrament, for all those who commit sacrileges. We shall perform this act of faith, asking Our Lord Jesus Christ to increase our faith.
It is this that is the foundation and the proof of our holy Catholic Religion, as the Scripture says so well. Could there be a religion in which God were nearer to man, than in the Catholic Religion? It is because it is the true religion; because God does not believe that He is humiliating Himself in coming to us, and in giving Himself to us in His Flesh and in His Blood. God does not humiliate Himself, He remains God. It is we who must manifest our respect, our adoration, for God. It is not because God acts in simplicity, in love, in charity towards us that we should despise Him. On the contrary, we should thank Him for this immense charity, this infinite love, this divine love of remaining among us!
Think, my dear brethren, try to recall the stages of your life in which you have felt this presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist. Ah, I am sure that the day of your First Communion-remember this moment, this blessed moment of your First Communion!—you thanked God for being able to receive His Body and His Blood. How well you were prepared by your parents, by the priests, who loved you, and who led you to the holy altar with an infinite respect for your hearts, for your souls, which were about to approach, which were about to become temples of the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ! And since that day, how many times you have approached the holy altar to ask special graces which you needed—for yourselves, for your families, for the sick, perhaps for members of your family who were abandoning Our Lord Jesus Christ. Then you have made a more fervent communion, you asked Our Lord, Save them, these souls, do not abandon them. Do this by love for them; manifest Your mercy. And then no doubt when there was a celebration in your family, or a birthday, or a celebration which involved one of your children, you again felt sentiments of love and of gratitude towards Our Lord Jesus Christ—and not only in these special circumstances, but throughout your life.
Imagine a Christian life without the Eucharist! What would we be, without Our Lord Jesus Christ, without this extraordinary gift that God has given us? How we would be orphans, how we would feel alone, as if abandoned by God! But with the Eucharist, when we need to speak to Him, to see Him, to tell Him that we love Him, when we need special help, we can enter our churches, kneel down before Our Lord Jesus Christ, perhaps alone—alone before the Blessed Sacrament, and ask God: Come, come to my aid, succor me, I have a problem, a cross to bear; come to the aid of my family, come to the aid of my children. . . and then you left, you went out of the church comforted.
And you felt these same things, I am sure, after each Sunday Mass. How beautiful it is, the Sunday Mass, with all the faithful gathered around Our Lord Jesus Christ, participating in His Passion, participating also in His Body and in His Blood, returning to their homes with peace in their souls, joy in their hearts, strength in their souls, and ready to suffer if they must with Our Lord Jesus Christ, to bear their trials better. How often it is our job as priests to assist the dying. How often it is our job to carry Communion to the sick. What a joy for these souls who were suffering to receive their God from the hand of a priest who came to bring them Communion! What a comfort, what a source of courage for them!
Our Lord Jesus Christ accomplished in this Sacrament an extraordinary miracle of His love, and consequently we too ought to manifest our love for Him. The Sacrament of the Eucharist is truly the Sacrament of charity. Jesus could not have done more for us. It is the Sacrament of our Faith, first of all, the mysterium fidei — mysterium fidei — it is the mystery of our Faith—I would say the test, the test of our Faith. It is thus that true Catholics, that true Christians are recognized—if they have a profound, a real, an efficacious faith in Our Lord Jesus Christ present in the Holy Eucharist. It is thus that the Faith of Christians is recognized. Consequently this Sacrament is truly the mystery of our faith.
It is also the mystery of our hope. Our Lord Himself says so: "If you eat My flesh and drink My blood, you shall have eternal life in you. If you eat My flesh and drink My blood, you shall have this eternal life, and one day I shall raise you up." He will be our resurrection. The Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ present in our own poor bodies is a gauge of our resurrection. It is already eternal life that we possess within us. This eternal life will no longer leave us, even at the hour of our death. There will remain in our souls this germ of the resurrection of our bodies for eternity, because we shall have received Holy Communion, because we shall have been united to Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. It is Our Lord Himself who says so, and this Gospel has been chosen by the Church specifically for the Mass of the Dead. Et ego resuscitabo eum in novissimo die. "And I shall raise you up on the last day."
Mystery of faith, mystery of our hope, mystery of charity. This is what I have just explained to you, but I should like to insist a little more on this efficacy of the charity produced by the Sacrament of the Eucharist, and which we so need. Even among ourselves, among us who believe—who have the Faith— who wish to remain Catholic and Roman until the last hour of our lives. We especially ought to live in charity. This Sacrament is the sign, the symbol of charity, by the charity of Our Lord.
But why did Our Lord choose these elements of bread and wine? You know, for it is a comparison which is often made, but which always needs to be recalled to mind. The bread is the fruit of grains which are milled together, crushed, and united to make bread. These grains must be united in such a manner that they form but one loaf of bread. The Eucharist, the Eucharistic bread, is precisely this image of the union of all the faithful, in this species of bread which our eyes behold, and which is the fruit of this union of grains of wheat. It is the same for the wine. One must also unite all the grapes of the vine to produce wine. It is in this union that wine is made, that wine is produced. And so Our Lord wished to choose these elements precisely to show us that we ought to be united, united also so as to transform ourselves in Our Lord Jesus Christ.
If we have not charity in us, if we are not united among ourselves, Our Lord Jesus Christ will not be able to act efficaciously in us, it is not possible. Our Lord Jesus Christ cannot enter a soul that has no charity. And how painful it is sometimes to think that some persons who nourish themselves daily on the Eucharist are not yet entirely dominated by this virtue of charity. They have to criticize, to cause divisions, to make rash judgments, to manifest their antipathy towards persons for whom they ought to manifest only friendship.
Well, let us make a resolution today on this Feast of the Blessed Sacrament—we who wish to keep this tradition, who wish to keep this faith in the Holy Eucharist—to keep as well the fruits of the Holy Eucharist. It does not suffice to keep the faith in it, it does not suffice to say that we are attached to the tradition of faith and hope in the Eucharist, but it is necessary too that we feel, that we have in ourselves all the fruits, these fruits of charity, which are so good, which manifest in such an obvious manner the presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ in our souls.
And this I say especially to you, my dear future priests, who are going to be ordained in a few days, and to you, dear seminarians who are present: this charity you need. It must manifest itself in you. How could the faithful who will have recourse to your ministry really think that you are priests, that you are those whom God has chosen to consecrate the Holy Eucharist, so that He is present on the altar in His Body and in His Blood, the greatest manifestation of charity . . . how could they conceive that those who are the instruments of charity of God would not manifest this same charity towards the faithful and towards those Christians who come to receive it? And that by your patience, by your condescendence, by your love, by your humility, by your simplicity. You will listen to those who will come to see you, your heart will be full of mercy for them.
You will love to hear confessions. The ministry of confession is one of the most beautiful manifestations of the charity of the priest. An if you remain for hours in the confessional, is this not what the holy Cure of Ars and all holy priests have done, who spent their lives in the confessional? Extraordinary manifestation of their charity, of this charity which is found in the Holy Eucharist. These things you will do, I am certain, my dear brethren, my dear seminarians, because that is what all the faithful who hope in Ecône expect from you. That is what the priest is— the holy priest is a priest who is charitable above all, who has his heart wide open to all those who come to consult him, to all those who seek consolation from him, and courage and firmness of faith. You then will be such priests as these, filled with this charity of Our Lord, and you will ask this particularly of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary.
We cannot think of the Eucharist without thinking of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, for if the Virgin Mary had not pronounced her Fiat, we would not have the Holy Eucharist either. It is because she pronounced her Fiat that today we have the joy, the happiness of possessing Our Lord Jesus Christ in our tabernacles, on our altars. Let us then ask the Most Blessed Virgin Mary to give us this charity which she knew so well, which she saw in her Son, Jesus.
In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
[Emphasis - The Catacombs]
Source
|
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebvre: 1975 Sermon - The Mystery of the Cross is of Great Importance |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-07-2020, 06:40 AM - Forum: Sermons and Conferences
- No Replies
|
|
Sermon by His Grace, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, on the Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross
September 14, 1975
In the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.
My dear friends,
Behold, here you are, back after your vacations; back from your families to re-enter the Seminary. Apart from yourselves, it is to the twenty or so of your confreres who will return at the end of this week, since they have already made their retreat, and to the new students who will arrive at the beginning of the month of October, that I address these words: words of welcome, and words which would also hope to signify that which you come to seek at the Seminary; words which would hope to express to you that which, for you, ought to be the essential in your ascent toward the priesthood, or in the pursuit of the religious life which you have come to seek. My dear brothers, for you as well the reminder of the place which the mystery of the Cross ought to occupy in our spirituality, in our Christian life, is of the greatest importance.
Throughout the history of the Church, the Saints souls truly desirous of deepening their Christian life, of considering what God has done for us, the great mystery of the love of God for our souls — these souls have always found the solution, and the means of increasing their spiritual life and of giving it a profound reality, in the mystery of the Cross. This was particularly so in the Christian Middle Ages; and in our own day, one can still find the traces of this deep devotion, this complete devotion of the soul to the mystery of the Cross. It can be seen in the construction of those magnificent cathedrals, those magnificent churches: the Cross dominates. It dominates the altar. The Cross is the sign which serves to give the form to our cathedrals, to our churches. The Cross is found at crossroads everywhere: everywhere, the Cross of Our Lord Jesus Christ has been raised. Saint Angela of Foligno, Saint Francis of Assisi, Saint Ignatius, and Saint Bernard, among others, manifested in their writings, and, I should say, in their flesh as well, the love that they had for the Cross of Our Lord Jesus Christ. For, in fact, the mystery of our sanctification, the mystery of our justification, cannot be explained without the Cross of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
And today, more than ever, we need to meditate upon this mystery, because at all times, and particularly perhaps in our own age, man wants to eliminate the Cross. He does not want to look at it; he does not wish to have it before his eyes. Why? Because the Cross represents sacrifice ... sacrifice. And yet it is only thereby — by the Cross, by sacrifice — that the Christian soul can regain life. "Mors mortua tunc est," the liturgy says. "Death did then die, when He died Who was the source of life." "Quando mortua vita fuit." When He who is Life died, then death itself died. Life triumphed. And that is the entire summary of the spirituality of the Cross. We must die to ourselves to find life. That is the spiritual life, that is our justification. Holiness is nothing else! It is very simple indeed, summed up in two movements of our soul: the hatred of sin and the desire of God. Die to sin to live unto God. That is the Cross; it is nothing more than that! It is the symbol of death to sin so as to live in God.
And there is the entire explanation of the spiritual life, of our interior life. We must ever pursue the sinfulness within us, and consequently sacrifice ourselves: sacrifice ourselves, know how to die to ourselves, extinguish our evil tendencies, our evil instincts, our desires of evil, our desires to disobey God. We must know how to destroy them to live in God, to liberate ourselves from sin. "Liberati a peccatis, servi facti estis justitiae," says Saint Paul. Delivered from your sins, you have become the servants of holiness, the slaves of sanctity. "Servi facti estis justitiae."
Men speak today of 'liberation.' Everywhere they have this word so much on their lips: liberation, liberation, liberation! What liberation? Liberation from Our Lord Jesus Christ! They want no more of Our Lord Jesus Christ; they want no more of His Cross! They want no more of His sacrifice because His sacrifice reminds us that we must sacrifice ourselves, that we must die to our sins to have life. And that, men who seek rather their pleasure and their satisfaction can neither see nor hear nor understand. They want nothing to do with the Cross. And that is why so many crosses have disappeared in our day.
Now, where shall we find a living Cross, the Cross ever filled with that charity, with that holy spirit which we need to combat our evil tendencies so as to live the life of Our Lord Jesus Christ? At the holy altar — in our churches — in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass! And that is why the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass has so much importance and has always been at the center of our sanctification, at the center of the pre-occupations of the Church. It is there that we find Our Lord! This is not a Cross which is simply an historical remembrance of the death of Christ. No, it is the living Cross. Calvary renewed! The only difference between the altar and Calvary is that, on Calvary, Our Lord offered a bloody sacrifice, and that, on the altar, He offers Himself in an unbloody manner. That is the only difference! It is truly Calvary that is renewed each time the priest ascends to the altar and offers the Sacrifice of the Mass. It is them that we must find the source of our sanctification: in the Holy Mass.
And, all the words of the Liturgy express precisely this desire of expiation, of the remission of sins. To expiate, to remit our sins is one of the principal ends of Holy Mass. And even to expiate the sins of the souls in purgatory! That is why the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass has such great efficacy for the souls in purgatory! Alas, that is what the Protestants denied and still deny; that is why priests ordained today; ordained recently, have a tendency to deny. This is very serious.
We ought to have the conviction that in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is found the source of all graces which we can receive. And that is why we have the need, why we feel the need of keeping the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, of leaving it untouched, so precious it is. For we would risk otherwise to cut off the source of our graces. If we changed the spirit of the Sacrifice of the Man, and if we came to make of it a simple communion, a simple thanksgiving, a simple meal, we would cause this source of grace which is the sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ, His sacrificial oblation, to disappear. And that which the priest performs is a sacrifice; it is a sacrificial action which the priest performs on the altar. It is not only a recalling of the memory of the Last Supper or of the memory of the Cross. Oh, no! It is much more than that! There is unfathomable mystery in the Sacrifice of the Mass. That is why we ought to be attached to it with our whole soul, with all our heart: because it is there that we find indeed that which the love of God has done for us ... that which the love of God has done for us.
For if there is a testimony of the love of God for us, it is certainly Our Lord Jesus Christ crucified on the Cross for us. What more could Our Lord have done, what more could God have done, than immolate Himself on the Cross for us, to redeem us from our sins? Shall we be insensible to the sacrifice of Our Lord, of the Son of God? One can still find marked on old crucifixes of another age these words: "Can you say that I have not loved you, when you see Love carved upon this Cross?" Love carved upon the Cross! That is the crucifix: love manifested, love alive upon the Cross. Thus one can understand the desire that all holy souls have felt ever to have the crucifix before them, to find in the crucifix the support of their spirituality, the source of their spiritual life.
And how those souls desired to assist at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass; to participate therein so as to re-live Calvary, to re-live what the Blessed Virgin lived; and thus to unite themselves to the sufferings of Our Lord Jesus Christ! Compassion — Our Lady of Compassion is the patroness of our religious. Why? Because Christian souls ought to suffer with Our Lord. A soul that would not wish to suffer with Our Lord would not be a Christian soul. And we should not only suffer with, but also, as it were, think with Our Lord. That is to say, desire with Our Lord to suffer for the remission of the sins of the world: all the injuries; the sacrileges, the sins which are so numerous in the world. And finally, we should complete the Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Saint Paul says this very thing: we ought to complete in the flesh the Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ. And that we should also desire.
0h, it is a desire that will cost us dearly ... that will cost us dearly, that will make us suffer — for if we wish to complete the Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ, it will be necessary to suffer with Him, to be immolated with Him. And it would be too easy to say: "Since I am a Christian, God will bless me and exempt me from all suffering. I shall lead a life without suffering, without sacrifice, because I love God, God must love me, and therefore the Good Lord should certainly not want me to suffer!" That is, indeed, poorly to comprehend the mystery of the Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ. If Our Lord has shown us the example of suffering, then on the contrary, we should almost have the desire to suffer with Him, the desire to sacrifice ourselves with Him! And when the thorn of pain pierces us, we should be happy, and find in this sacrifice our joy, our happiness, in associating ourselves — as God wants us to associate ourselves — to the Passion of His Son for the redemption of the world and for the redemption of our sins. Is this not but another mark of love from God, His desire that we be united in suffering with Our Lord Jesus Christ?
That is the Christian life; that is the Catholic teaching. That is our faith, the object of our faith, the reality of our faith. That is what all Christian generations have understood: those generations of holy fathers and mothers of families who suffered, who suffered in a Christian manner; who accepted their sufferings, who accepted their difficulties with joy; who were examples to their children. In suffering and in pain, they knew how to support it with Our Lord Jesus Christ. These were the generations of Christian families which bore so many vocations. It was in that that vocations were born: in the example which their parents could give of knowing how to live with Our Lord Jesus Christ, to suffer with Our Lord Jesus Christ, to pray with Our Lord Jesus Christ; to assist at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass with such faith, with such piety, in the spirit of self-oblation as victims with Our Lord Jesus Christ.
How beautiful it is, this Christian, this Catholic doctrine! How completely it transforms our life! How completely it transforms our life here below! And it is that which prepares us for life eternal "O crux, ave, spes nostra!" We refer to the Cross as our hope, for in fact, the Cross is only a road, a way: the way to eternal life, to glory. But it is necessary to pass by way of the Cross! One must take up the Cross and bear it after Our Lord to arrive at eternal life. This via crucis should be ours throughout the course of our life so as to arrive at life eternal.
There, my dear friends: there is our faith. That is what you should be pursuing here. You should have the Cross ever before your eyes. Your most precious desire should be to assist at, to participate in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It should be this that fills your heart, your soul, with that balm that causes all the little difficulties you may have — in your studies, with your health, in the difficulties of community life that causes all that to disappear before the joy that you have to unite yourselves with Our Lord Jesus Christ, before the joy that you have to live with Our Lord Jesus Christ; before the thought that, one day, God willing, you will ascend to the altar and will offer the Sacrifice of Our Lord; that you will renew the sacrifice of Calvary and that you will offer yourselves as well as victims with Our Lord on the altar for the redemption of the sins of the world; that you will preach this doctrine of the Cross, that you will preach Jesus and Jesus Crucified; as Saint Paul says. Saint Paul had no other preaching "nisi Jesum et Jesum crucifixum." That was the preaching of Saint Paul. It will also be, I am sure, your own preaching. And as model of this participation, you will present to the world the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, Our Lady of Compassion.
In the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
Source
|
|
|
|
| January 3rd - St. Genevieve and Blessed Stephanie Quinzani |
|
Posted by: Elizabeth - 12-07-2020, 12:16 AM - Forum: January
- No Replies
|
 |
Saint Genevieve
Virgin
(422-512)
Saint Genevieve was born at Nanterre, near Paris. Saint Germanus, when passing through that village, noticed this little shepherdess and predicted her future sanctity. At seven years of age she made a vow of perpetual chastity. After the death of her parents, Paris became her abode, but she often traveled on works of mercy in which she was assisted by the gifts of prophecy and miracles.
At one time she was cruelly persecuted. Her enemies, jealous of her power, called her a hypocrite and tried to drown her, but when Saint Germanus sent her some blessed bread as a token of esteem, the outcry ceased. Ever afterwards she was honored as a Saint.
During the siege of Paris by Childeric, king of the Franks, Genevieve went out with a few followers and procured grain for the starving citizens. Childeric, though a pagan, respected her, and at her request spared the lives of many prisoners. When Attila and his Huns were approaching the city for another incursion, the inhabitants, instead of taking flight, asked her aid; and listening to her exhortations they undertook prayer and penance, thus averting the impending scourge, as she had foretold would be possible. Clovis, when converted from paganism by his holy wife, Saint Clotilda, made Genevieve his constant adviser, and, in spite of his violent character, became a generous and Christian king.
Saint Genevieve died in 512, at the age of eighty-nine. When in 1129 a pestilence broke out at Paris, in a short time it swept off fourteen thousand persons, and, in spite of all human efforts, daily added to its victims. At length, on November 26th, the reliquary of Saint Genevieve was carried in solemn procession through the city. That same day only three persons died; the rest recovered, and no others were taken ill. This was but the first of a series of miraculous favors which the city of Paris has obtained through the relics of its patron Saint.
Blessed Stephanie Quinzani
Virgin
(1457-1530)
Blessed Stephanie was born near Brescia, Italy, in 1457, of fervent Christian parents. She was brought up in the village of Soncino, where there was a Dominican monastery well known for its preachers, eminent in doctrine, eloquence and sanctity. One of them knew her family and taught their little daughter the Ave Maria and other prayers. He told her that when he died he would make her his heir. A few years later, when Blessed Matthew Carreri died, she felt her heart painfully wounded, and suddenly saw the deceased man, who told her this was the heritage he had promised her. Suffering was to be her lot, and her existence was one of those of which people say: It is more admirable than imitable.
Our Lord appeared to Stephanie when she was seven years old, accompanied by His holy Mother, Saint Dominic, Saint Thomas Aquinas and Saint Catherine of Siena, and told her He wanted her to be a Dominican like those great Saints. She promised she would enter a monastery, or at least be a member of the Third Order of Saint Dominic. Later in her life it was this latter path that she adopted, and she was given the habit of the Third Order. When she was about eleven years old, on the feast of Saint Andrew she saw that Apostle with a large cross, and he said to her: My daughter, this is the road to heaven. Love God, fear God, honor God, embrace the cross, and flee the world. She began then to practice great austerities; even while working in the fields with her parents she wore a hair shirt and a rope cincture full of knots. She fasted perpetually. At the age of fifteen, on Good Friday, Our Lord told her she would endure in each of her members part of what He Himself had suffered. Her head afterwards bore traces of a crowning with thorns, and many persons saw her, every week on Fridays, suffering a kind of agony.
For forty years, she also endured the worst moral sufferings. She was in darkness, aridity, abandonment. This martyrdom of the soul was a worse torment for her than that of the body. An Angel said to her: There are several means which cause a reasonable creature to rise to perfect love of God, but one of the principal ones is the life of suffering, a life steeped in sorrow and bitterness which must be accompanied and followed by thanksgiving and resignation to the divine Will. Affliction is the road to perfect love and perfect transformation. She was given Saint Paul to be her guide and instruct her in the secrets of mystical theology, that is, of the interior life under the immediate direction of God.
Blessed Stephanie could read in souls, and one day prevented a woman from poisoning fourteen persons, as she had resolved to do. She warned her not to accomplish that crime; otherwise, she herself would accuse her. She applied herself to the works of mercy and cared for the sick and the poor. She had to earn her bread by manual work; she begged in addition for alms for the needy. She became known to the nobility of Italy, who wanted to give her residences and keep her in their own regions; she remained nonetheless in Soncino, in a very poor dwelling. She was helped by the wealthy when she established a monastery in Soncino. This monastery, where about thirty young Sisters labored to attain religious perfection, and which she directed, was exempted from all taxes. She fell ill towards the end of the year 1529 and died on January 2, 1530, at the age of seventy-three years, saying, Lord, into Thy hands I commend my spirit! Many miracles at her tomb made known her sanctity. She was beatified in 1740 by Pope Benedict XIV.
|
|
|
|
| January 2nd - St. Macarius of Alexandria |
|
Posted by: Elizabeth - 12-07-2020, 12:13 AM - Forum: January
- Replies (1)
|
|
Saint Macarius of Alexandria
Hermit
(† 394)
Saint Macarius when a youth left his fruit-stall at Alexandria to join the great Saint Anthony; that patriarch, advised by a miracle of his disciple's sanctity, named him the heir to his virtues. For a time he remained in the Thebaid with his fellow hermits, but later he went to the desert of Scete. He had a cell there and others in two distinct places, but his principal dwelling place was the desert of the Cells. All of these cells were for him a source of mortification, being without window, or too short for him to lie down.
The life of this solitary was one long conflict with himself and with the demons. I am tormenting my tormentor, he replied to a hermit who met him in the heat of the day, bent double with a basket of sand. Whenever I am slothful and idle, I am pestered by desires for distant travel. When he was quite worn out he returned to his cell. Since sleep at times overpowered him, he kept watch standing for twenty days and nights; then, being about to faint, he entered his cell and slept, but thereafter slept only at will.
When for six months the demons tormented him with temptations, he would go to a marsh and remain naked in the water until his body was covered with noxious insect bites and boils, and he was recognized only by his voice. Once, when being thirsty he received a present of grapes, he passed them untouched to a hermit who was toiling in the heat. This one gave them to a third, who handed them to a fourth; in this way the grapes went the round of the desert and finally returned to Macarius, who thanked God for his brethren's self-denial.
Macarius saw demons assailing the hermits at prayer. They put their fingers into the mouths of some and made them yawn. They closed the eyes of others, and walked upon them with contempt when they fell asleep. They placed vain and sensual images before many of the brethren, and then mocked those who were captivated by them. None vanquished the devils effectively save those who by constant vigilance repelled them at once. He called some of the solitaries to come to him and asked them if they had not thought about buildings, journeys or other such things. They acknowledged their fault, seeing he had perceived the vain thoughts which distract souls during prayer, caused by the illusion of the devils, and which the vigilant reject as foreign to their purpose.
After being many years Superior, Macarius, desiring humiliation and spiritual progress, fled in disguise to Saint Pachomius to begin religious life over again as his novice. Soon the brethren were going to their Superior to tell them of the extraordinary mortifications of the newcomer. Saint Pachomius prayed, and then, instructed by a vision, addressed Macarius by his name, saying he had long wanted to know him. And he thanked him for having given such excellent examples to his religious. Then he bade him return to his former brethren in religion, who loved him as their father, to pray for Pachomius' monks as well.
At the age of seventy-three, Saint Macarius was driven into exile and brutally outraged by Arian heretics. He died in the year 394.
|
|
|
|
| January 1st - The Eternal Father, The Circumsion of Our Lord and St. Fulgentius |
|
Posted by: Elizabeth - 12-07-2020, 12:05 AM - Forum: January
- No Replies
|
|
The Eternal Father
The entire life of the Father in the Holy Trinity is to speak His Son, His Word; it is to engender, by a unique, simple and eternal act, a Son resembling Himself, to whom He communicates the plenitude of His Being and His perfections. In this Word, infinite like Himself, in this unique and eternal Word, the Father never ceases to recognize His Son, His own image, the splendor of His glory. This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased. These words, pronounced on Mount Tabor at the time of the Transfiguration, are the greatest revelation God has made to the earth; they are an echo of the very life of the Father. The Father, in His character of Father, lives by engendering His Son; this generation has neither beginning nor end. In eternity we will behold with astonishment, admiration and love, that procession of the Son engendered in the bosom of the Father, procession which is eternal: Thou art My Son; this day I have engendered Thee. The today is the perpetual present of eternity.
It is an excellent thing in the spiritual life to keep before the eyes of the heart, this testimony of the Father; nothing is more powerful to sustain our faith. And let us then say, Yes, Father, I believe it, and I want to repeat it: this Jesus who is in me through faith, through grace, through Holy Communion, is Your Son. Because You have said it, I believe it. And because I believe it, I adore Your Son, to render Him my homage and through Him, in Him, to render to You also, O Heavenly Father, in union with Your Spirit, all honor and all glory. Such a prayer is very agreeable to our Father in heaven; when it is true, pure and frequent, it makes us the object of the Father's love. God envelops us in the complacency which He finds in His own Son Jesus. It is Our Lord Himself who tells us so: The Father loves you, because you have believed that I have come from Him — that I am His Son. What happiness for a soul to be the object of the Father's love, this Father from whom every perfect gift comes down to rejoice hearts!
The Circumcision of Our Lord
Circumcision was a sacrament of the Old Law, and the first legal observance required of the descendants of Abraham by Almighty God. It was a sacrament of initiation in the service of God, and a promise, an engagement, to believe and act as He had revealed and directed. The law of circumcision continued in force until the death of Christ. Our Saviour having thus been born under the law, it became Him who came to teach mankind obedience to the law of God,to fulfill all justice, and to submit to it. He was circumcised that He might redeem those who were under the law, by freeing them from the servitude of it, and that those who were formerly in the condition of servants might be set at liberty and receive the adoption of sons in Baptism, which, by Christ's institution, succeeded to circumcision. (Cf. Gal. 4:5)
On the day when the divine Infant was circumcised, He received the name of JESUS, which was assigned to Him by the Angel before He was conceived, and which signifies SAVIOUR. That name, so beautiful, so glorious, the divine Child does not wish to bear for one moment without fulfilling its meaning. Even at the moment of His circumcision He showed Himself a SAVIOUR by shedding for us that blood of which a single drop is more than sufficient for the ransom and salvation of the whole world.
Saint Fulgentius
Doctor of the Church, Bishop
(468-533)
Born in Africa of illustrious and Catholic parents, Fulgentius was an excellent student of languages and of various other practical disciplines. His father had died while still young, and Fulgentius soon became the support of his mother and younger brother. He was appointed at an early age procurator of his province at Carthage; but this elevation in the world's esteem was distasteful to him, and he was enlightened by the Spirit of God to see the vanity of the world.
At the age of twenty-two, having read Saint Augustine's treatise on the Psalms, he resolved to embrace monastic life, and began to prepare for it by mental prayer, fasting, and other penances practiced in secret. When he was accepted into a monastery by a holy bishop named Faustus, his mother hoped to change his mind; but when she arrived he remained firm and did not accept to see her. Such are the austerities of the Saints, called to accomplish much for God. He later renounced all his goods on behalf of his mother and younger brother.
After six years of peace, his monastery was attacked by Arian heretics, and Faustus, Fulgentius and the other monks were driven out, destitute, into the desert. Fulgentius entered another monastery on his Superior's advice, and there he shared the duties of the Superior, to the latter's great consolation, until that house was attacked by barbarians. In the refuge to which he then repaired he was persecuted, held captive, and tortured by an Arian priest, but sought no vengeance when authorities offered him support if he would enter a complaint. Fulgentius and his Superior, who was with him, decided to build another monastery in the province they had abandoned.
For a time Fulgentius remained there, but he desired solitude and set out on a journey to the holy places of Rome. There the imperial splendors he beheld spoke to him of the greater glory of the heavenly Jerusalem, his final goal. And at the first lull in the persecution, he returned to his African cell in the year 500.
Elected bishop of Ruspe in 508, he was summoned to face new dangers, and was shortly afterwards banished by the Arian king, with some sixty other Catholic prelates, to Sardinia. Though the youngest of the exiles, he became the spokesman of his brethren and the support of their orphaned flocks. By his books and letters, which are still extant, he confounded both Pelagian and Arian heresiarchs, and strengthened the Catholics in Africa and Gaul. He prayed for all his compatriots in exile: You know, Lord, what is most expedient for the salvation of our souls; assist us in our corporal necessities, that we may not lose the spiritual goods. On the death of the Arian king, the bishops returned to their flocks. Saint Fulgentius was welcomed amid the greatest joy, after eighteen years of exile. He labored with his fellow bishops in the synods as their chosen leader, and re-established discipline. When he felt his end was near, he retired to an island monastery, where after a year's preparation he called for his clergy and religious, and with their aid distributed all his goods to the poor. He died in peace in the year 533.
|
|
|
|
| December 7th - St. Ambrose |
|
Posted by: Elizabeth - 12-06-2020, 11:45 PM - Forum: December
- Replies (1)
|
|
Saint Ambrose
Bishop of Milan and Doctor of the Church
(340-397)
When in the year 369 Saint Ambrose, the young son of a Roman Senator, was sent by Probus, the Prefect of Italy, to the large province of Liguria Emilia in Italy, the officer said to him, Go and act not as a judge, but as a bishop. Ambrose, though not Christian, had already resisted by his probity the corrupting influence of the Roman youth of his day. In Liguria he showed himself to be clement as directed, and his great erudition also became well known to the inhabitants of the region. In the year 374 he was already governor of the province, at the moment when at Milan, in this same region, a bishop was needed for that great see. Since the heretics in Milan were many and fierce, he went to preserve order during the election of the new prelate. Though he was still only a catechumen, it was the Will of God that the provincial governor be chosen by acclamation. Despite his protestations and his subsequent flight from Milan when they were not accepted, he was found, baptized and consecrated for the archiepiscopal see.
Unwearied then in every pastoral duty, full of sympathy and charity, gentle and condescending in matters of indifference, he was inflexible in questions of principle. He manifested his fearless zeal when it was necessary to brave the anger of the Empress Justina, by resisting and foiling her impious attempt to give one of the churches of Milan to the Arians. He distributed all that he had of gold and silver to the poor, and confided all financial administration of his archdiocese to his brother, Saint Satyrus, who came to reside with him in Milan. To master theology, he studied the Sacred Scriptures and the Fathers of the Church, and conferred with learned Christians concerning the rules of ecclesiastical discipline. He was very active, and took such great care of the catechumens' instruction that no one could surpass him in that duty.
His zeal in rebuking and bringing to penance the great Emperor Theodosius, who in a moment of irritation had cruelly punished a sedition by the inhabitants of Thessalonica, is a well known fact of history. The Saint met him at the door of the cathedral to prevent his entering, and said to him that if he had imitated David in his crime, he must now imitate him in his penance. Later the chastened and humble Emperor said that in his life he had known but one true bishop — Ambrose.
Saint Ambrose was the friend and consoler of Saint Monica in all her sorrows, and in 387 had the joy of admitting to the Church Saint Augustine, her son. He died in 397, full of years and of honors, and is revered by the Church of God as one of her greatest Doctors.
|
|
|
|
| On the New Code of Canon Law: Bp. Fellay vs. Archbp. Lefebvre |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-06-2020, 08:37 PM - Forum: The New-Conciliar SSPX
- No Replies
|
|
Translated and adapted from here.
The New Canon Law code according to Archbishop Lefebvre and according to Bishop Fellay
On the occasion of the Chrism Mass on Holy Thursday in Ecône, Bishop Fellay delivered a sermon which seems to us particularly important in the current crisis of the FSSPX and especially in view of the next chapter. The site "La Porte Latine" retranscribed it and gave it this title oh so revealing "Necessary dependence on God and nature of obedience to the Roman authorities." We could not be clearer! But the obedience of which Bishop Fellay speaks is not in the clouds. For the superior of the SSPX, this obedience is embodied in obedience to the new code. And that's the key to his sermon. In this article, we give you some reflections of various reactions that we could find on this question (forum of Fidelity) and especially the words of Mgr Lefebvre about the new code. At the end of the article, you can read again the study that a priest had done on this new code in 2014. This study brings all the nuances on this serious question.
Excerpt from Bishop Fellay's sermon and key passage:
"We seek precisely the intention, why this law, and we know that the final intention, the one that dominates everything, is the salvation of souls.Why are there laws in the Church? and even all the laws in the Church for one thing, save, save souls. and of course that's the great principle, even in the new canon law, it is expressed this principle. But be careful because that it is true that this situation which lasts, and which lasts and which continues, can make bad habits take place. And so we must examine ourselves, we must be careful to put ourselves in this state of dependence of the good God, and also, whenever possible, authorities." (Bishop Fellay, Ecône Thursday-Saint 2018)
On the contrary, what Archbishop Lefebvre said in 1983 on the occasion of the promulgation of the new Code:
[Before one begins to read these great, clear words of the Archbishop, please keep in mind the praise his private theologian at the Second Vatican Council, Fr. Berto, said of him: "Archbishop Lefebvre is a theologian, and by far superior to his own theologian, and God grant that all the [Council] Fathers might be theologians to the same degree as he is! He has a perfectly sure and refined theological habitus, to which his very great devotion to the Holy See adds that connaturality that allows him, even before discursive thinking intervenes, to discern intuitively what is and what is not compatible with the prerogatives of the Rock of the Church." www.thecatacombs.org/thread/99/abl-private-theologian-vatican-ii
In 1983:
"I was reading the new Canon Law these days, which is explicit in the presentation of Canon Law: the new code is made for the purpose of conveying conciliar ecclesiology in a canonical language. does that mean that the new code is designed to put the conciliar ecclesiology into legal and canonical language, so they say a few lines later that this is a novelty. If there is a conciliar ecclesiology, what is it that ecclesiology, suddenly, in 1963 or 4, at the time when the Church was discussed, the Church is suddenly discovered at the Council? Did not the Church exist for 2000 years? Did she never define herself? Did she not know herself? ... is unbelievable! And so the purpose of the new Canon Law is to pass the principles, the spirit - they even speak of the spirit of the Second Vatican Council."
In 1983:
Then, the new Canon Law professes above all collegiality, is it not, in the reports. Collegiality in the relations between churches, local churches and universal churches, and between authorities, between bishops and the pope. Well, in the new Law, there are two supreme powers of the Church. There is the power of the pope who has the supreme power, and then the pope with the bishops.
In 1983:
For lack of time, I am unfortunately limited to brief indications, but it is certain that the statements of the Council, like the practical guidelines for the ministry of the Church, find in the new Code, exact and punctual correspondences. I would only like to invite you to try to compare Lumen Gentium Chapter III with Book II of the Code. "
In 1983:
" Blind obedience is a contradiction and no one is exempt from responsibility for obeying men rather than God. It's too easy to say: - Me, I obey. If he is mistaken, well I am wrong with him ... But as said Mgr - I prefer to be wrong with the pope, than to be in the truth against the pope! ... So, we must translate this: - I prefer to be against Our Lord Jesus Christ with the Pope, rather than being with Our Lord Jesus Christ against the Pope! ... It's stupid! ... We are for Our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, in the As the pope is really the vicar of Christ and acts as vicar of Christ, and gives us the light of Christ, we are of course ready to close our eyes and follow him everywhere. But since this light is no longer that of Our Lord Jesus Christ,Everything is new, new code of canon law, new missal ... everything is new, new ecclesiology - it does not go anymore, that ... This resistance must be public if the evil is public and is an object of scandal, that's what Saint Thomas says."
In 1983:
"It is marked in the speech of the pope, in the constitution which presents the new code of canon law, It is itself who says these things." People of God, Communion, Service, Collegiality, Ecumenism. characteristics of the new ecclesiology of Vatican II, it is clear that it is the continuation of the work that was done by Vatican II in the liturgy, in the catechisms and in the Bible, the ecumenical Bible, the famous TOB, Ecumenical Translation of the Bible. So what do we need to think of this? Well, it's that this canon law is unacceptable. There is no new Ecclesiology in the Church. We are not going to give a new definition to the Church, if ... So we were wrong for 2000 years. The Church did not know what it was for 2000 years. Suddenly, it has become ecumenism, collegiate, communion. Communion of what, who, with whom, with what? "
In 1983:
"Take, for example, the fact that the new law no longer requires a mixed Protestant Catholic household to sign a pledge that children will be baptized Catholics is a serious breach of faith, a serious violation of the faith (.. Previously, the law required that there be a written undertaking by both spouses, both Protestant and Roman Catholic, to have the children baptized in the Catholic religion, otherwise the marriage could not take place. the Church. "
In 1983:
"Another thing that touches the faith in the new canon law is to be able to give this Eucharistic hospitality as they have called it in an improbable way, we can call here a sacrilege in the final, Eucharistic hospitality: A Protestant provided that he believes in the real presence according to the Catholic faith can receive Holy Communion.
++++
Quote:Study of Abbe Du Châtelet on the new code (published in 2014)
The new 1983 Code is the result of two sources: a legitimate evolution of the discipline and the innovative principles that were already being felt before the Second Vatican Council.
Evolution of discipline
In 1986, Father Coache, Doctor of Canon Law, published the results of his studies on Canon Law in two parts: Initiation to Canon Law, already published between 1958 and 1960, and Commentaries on the New Code (from 1983). ). These are the reasons why he thought it necessary to revise the 1917 Code:
"For it was necessary to update the canon law; it is obvious that the Church is alive and the discipline must change according to the times, places and evolution of humanity. (...) The Jesuit Father Regatillo published in 1953 a large book of 720 pages to interpret (after official answers from Rome), complete or correct a large number of guns since the publication of the Code. Annoting myself this book, from 1953 to 1965, I completed it on a large number of pages because of the new laws, various decrees and precisions of the Roman Congregations published during these twelve years. Pius XII, by himself, has largely advanced the law by his speeches and his decrees, in liturgical matters for example. It was therefore necessary that one day or another the Code be updated.
"Moreover, the Code of Canon Law, despite the excellence of the work accomplished under St. Pius X and Benedict XV and despite its remarkable qualities, is not perfect. It contains obscurities, some contradictions of detail, and, above all, a much too complex complexity, especially in view of the canonical impediments to marriage and ecclesiastical penalties; a simplification was therefore desirable "(Abbé Coache, Is the canon law amiable? pp. 218-219).
Innovative principles
The main reason for the recasting of the Code is to be found in the Second Vatican Council. We read indeed in the Apostolic Constitution promulgating the Codex Iuris Canonici of 1983:
"What constitutes the essential novelty of the Second Vatican Council in continuity with the legislative tradition of the Church, especially with regard to ecclesiology, is also the novelty of the new Code (§ 21). "
"Among the elements that characterize the real and authentic image of the Church, we must highlight the following:
"- the doctrine according to which the Church presents itself as the people of God (see Const. Lumen Gentium, 2) and the hierarchical authority as service (see ibid 3);
"- the doctrine which shows the Church as a communion and which, therefore, indicates what kinds of reciprocal relations must exist between the particular Church and the universal Church and between collegiality and primacy;
"- the doctrine according to which all the members of the people of God, each according to his modality, participate in the triple function of Christ: the priestly, the prophetic and the royal functions. To this doctrine is connected that concerning the duties and the rights of the faithful and in particular of the laity;
"And finally the commitment of the Church in ecumenism (§ 22). "
"It remains to be hoped that the new canon law will become an effective means for the Church to progress in the spirit of Vatican II (§ 27). "
Ecumenism
Outside the Church, means of salvation - According to the principles of Vatican II, there are, outside the Catholic Church, structures and means of salvific (see previous article).
"This Church, constituted and organized in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him" (1983 Code, 204 § 2).
Now "this Church" is, according to the first paragraph of this canon 204, the people of God: "The faithful of Christ (...) are constituted as people of God". The faithful of Christ and therefore the Church of Christ would remain in the Catholic Church and would not be identical to it! This is one of the major mistakes of the Council.
As a result Protestants and Orthodox, as it is said in various parts of the Code (eg Can. 844 and 1124 mentioned below) would have no other reproach to be done than to be "in full communion" With the Catholic Church. If they are not in the Catholic Church, they would not be outside the Church of Christ. The reason for this is that "many elements of sanctification and truth remain outside its structures, elements which, properly owned by God's gift to the Church of Christ, call for Catholic unity by themselves" (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 8). [See Fr. Hesse's comments about this section of Lumen Gentium here].
What remains of the dogma of faith: "Outside the Catholic Church no salvation"? What path can those who submit to this new law take?
[u]Around the sacraments [/u]
The Church, faithful to tradition, has always refused to give the sacraments to those who are not Catholics. They must first reject their mistakes: "It is forbidden to administer the sacraments of the Church to heretics and schismatics, even if they are in good faith and ask them, before, having rejected their errors, they are reconciled with the Church "(Code of 1917, 731).
Everything else is the spirit of the new Code: no prior rejection of schism or heresy is required. It is enough to hold true the doctrine of the Catholic Church concerning such sacraments and to be well disposed to it. But how can the doctrine of the Church be held true if we do not have the Catholic faith? How to be supernaturally well-disposed - what is necessary for salvation - without the foundation faith of all supernatural life? Moreover, to have "faith" only in these sacraments without believing all the truths which the Church teaches as revealed by God is to question and reject the authority of God who reveals these truths; it is to remain in the path of perdition. In addition, allowing the reception of the sacraments in these conditions opens the door to all sacrilege. Let's read: "In case of danger of death or if,
We must note the same breach of faith in the other direction: Catholics have every facility to receive the sacraments of non-Catholic ministers.
It is the ecumenism of the Second Vatican Council applied in the concrete of everyday life. All these official laws will lead little by little to the loss of faith. What a responsibility before God for those who promulgated them and for those who apply them!
On Marriage
The Church is attentive to the good of faith which is first; it passes before the good of marriage and founds it: "The Church," says the Code of 1917, "forbids everywhere very strictly a marriage to be concluded between two baptized persons, one of whom is a Catholic, the other enrolled in a heretical or schismatic sect "(mixed marriage). And pointing out the importance of faith for salvation, this canon continues: "If there is danger of perversion of the Catholic spouse and children, such a union is also prohibited by divine law itself" (Can. ). God forbids these marriages as soon as there is danger for the faith!
The new Code no longer knows this divine prohibition: mixed marriage is only "prohibited without the express permission of the competent authority". The reason is that the non-Catholic party is no longer a danger for the Catholic party, since it lacks only "full communion with the Catholic Church" (can 1124).
The Church, however, can give an exemption to this kind of union. The 1917 Code sets out precise and demanding conditions: "urgent", "just and serious" reasons are needed; the catholic spouse must give "the guarantee of averting the danger of perversion of the Catholic spouse" and the two spouses must give "that to baptize all their children and to assure them the only Catholic education"; in addition, there must be "the moral certainty that these guarantees will be executed"; these must be written (can 1061).
The new Code requires only promises from the Catholic side and still weakly:
"The Catholic party will declare that it is ready to ward off the dangers of abandoning the faith and sincerely promise to do its utmost (no more!) To that all children be baptized and educated in the Catholic Church ". The other party will only be "informed in time of these promises to be made by the Catholic party, so that it is established that it really knows the promise and obligation of the Catholic party"; nothing is required of her; for nothing, what will it impose? ... (can 1125).
This applies to weddings with disparity of worship (with a Muslim for example) (can 1129)!
When we measure the importance of the pure faith of any alloy for the education of the baptized within families, we discover how this new Code opposes the Catholic faith and the honor due to God. He hurls souls into the path of perdition ...
Democracy
At Vatican II, the innovators defined the Church as "people of God". This idea obsesses them if one judges by the insistence to consider each part of the Church like people of God: the diocese, the prelature (or the abbey) territorial, the vicariate (or the prelature) apostolic and the apostolic administration are each "a definite portion of the people of God" (1983 Code, 369-371).
The egalitarian and democratic spirit tends to diminish the difference between clerics and lay people, between pope and bishops, between bishops and priests, between men and women. The following will show it.
The Church is "people of God" - These are not just words.
- Powers are given to the people. Since the Church is a people of God, each member participates in the triple power given by Jesus Christ to the apostles (to teach, to baptize, to command): "The faithful of Christ are those who, as incorporated into Christ through baptism, are constituted as a people of God and who, for this reason, are participating in their own way in the priestly, prophetic and royal function of Christ, are called to exercise, each according to his own condition, the mission that God has entrusted to the Church for to do it in the world "(204 § 1).
In contradiction with all tradition, powers and mission are thus given first to the people and not first (and exclusively) to the hierarchy. It is not true that the faithful are in charge of exercising "the mission that God has entrusted to the Church" nor that they have received the powers to this end. Jesus Christ did not say to everyone but to the Apostles alone: "All power has been given to me on earth. Go, teach all the nations, baptize them ... and teach them to observe all that I have commanded you "(Mt 28:19).
Consequently, the hierarchy, placed in second rank, is diminished, obliterated. It is still shown as follows.
- The hierarchy comes from the people. Indeed, after the general norms, the Code begins a second book entitled "The people of God". This first deals with the faithful of Christ, their rights and obligations. It is only in the third part that he deals with clerics or sacred ministers. The 1917 Code orders things to take place: in the book "People", after the general rules concerning them, the Code deals first with clerics, then with religious, and lastly with laity. The new Code reverses the pyramid.
- Moreover, the clerics are taken "among the faithful", no doubt because of a "divine institution", but the first thing that remains is the equality between the two: "By divine institution, there is in the Church, among the faithful, the sacred ministers who in law are called clerics, and the others who are called laymen "(Can., 207).
In short, the faithful are constituted as a people of God, empowered and charged with mission (can., 204); clerics are taken from among the faithful (can. finally, because of baptism, there exists among all the faithful "as to dignity and activity, a true equality by virtue of which all cooperate in the edification of the Body of Christ, according to the proper condition and function of each person. (Can 208).
It is obvious that the whole law will be affected by this egalitarianism. This false spirit infects all the Code and vitiates it at the root.
This is why R. Paralieu can quietly write: "by treating, under the same title, Christians in general, the faithful and then the clergy, there is already in the new canon law a reversal of the ecclesiological perspectives" (Practical Guide of the Code of Canon Law, Tardy, 1985, 93).
And a serious thing for the life of the Church, this egalitarianism poses an obstacle to the passage of grace. Indeed, by the divine institution, grace passes through the hierarchy and descends to the faithful. If we overthrow the pyramid, where could grace pass? (Archbishop Lefebvre's conference in Ecône in 1986) Would not submitting to this Code be suicidal?
Rights of the faithful and dignity of man
- The rights of the faithful are very numerous as they should be in a democratic society: the right to missionary activity proper (canons 211 and 216); to give their opinion on the good of the Church (Can 212); to spiritual goods (213); to worship according to their rites and to follow their own form of spiritual life (Can. Christian education (Can., 217); to claim their rights before ecclesiastical authority (Canon 221); etc.
The laity have very extensive functions. Lay people are invited to acquire and teach the sacred sciences (229). They are admitted to the ministries of reader and acolyte, can "preside at liturgical prayers", baptize (can. 230) and attend weddings (can. 1112). They (women not excluded) can give communion or bring it to the sick (can., 230, 910 and 911). A layman can exhibit the Blessed Sacrament (can 943) and even be part of the ecclesiastical courts (can 1421) (even a woman, since the Code does not exclude it)! Lay people can preach (can., 230 and 766). This is the opposite of the old Code which forbade it (can 1342).
- The rights of the human person are part of the doctrine to be taught. The Church must teach the principles of morality and "make a judgment on every human reality to the extent that the fundamental rights of the human person or the salvation of souls require" (Can., 747). And the rights of God? The preachers of the divine word "will also communicate to the faithful the doctrine taught by the magisterium of the Church on the dignity and freedom of the human person" (Can., 768).
Collegiality
The Code reproduces the error of the Council on the double head (Pope and College) as the subject of the supreme power: "The College of Bishops, whose head is the Supreme Pontiff and whose Bishops are the members by virtue of the sacramental consecration and by the hierarchical communion between the chief and the members of the College, in which the apostolic body is perpetuated, is also in union with its head and never without him, subject of the supreme and full power over the whole Church "(can. 336).
Democracy in the Mass
Without resuming the contested definition of the new Mass, the new Code goes in the same democratic spirit: "In the Eucharistic Synaxis, the people of God are convened in assembly under the presidency of the Bishop or priest under the authority of the Bishop, acting in the person of Christ, and all the faithful who attend, clergy or laity, contribute to it by taking an active part, each according to his own mode ... "(Can 899 § 2).
Democracy in marriage
The new Code defines marriage as "a community of all life" ordered primarily "for the good of the spouses" and only "as well as for the generation and upbringing of children" (Canon 1055). The 1917 Code, precise, says: "The first end of marriage is the procreation and education of children; the secondary end is mutual help and the cure for concupiscence "(Can 1013).
By insisting more on the welfare of the spouses than on the generation, it is not difficult for this Code to affirm that the equality of the spouses extends to the whole community of married life: "Every spouse has equal duty and rights. with regard to the community of married life "(1135). This is not at all in keeping with the tradition expressed by the 1917 Code. The latter recognizes equality only with regard to conjugal acts: "An equal right and duty belong from the beginning of marriage to everyone. spouses with respect to the acts proper to conjugal life "(Canon 1111). For the rest the woman is subject to her husband: "Unless otherwise determined by a special right, the woman becomes a participant in the husband's state, for all canonical effects" (can 1112) .
As for the penalties
In this regard, Father Coache highlights the change of spirit of the new Code: the transition from the primacy of the object to the primacy of the subject.
"If the preceding law is much less broad than the new one, it must be said, remembered and emphasized that it is just as merciful; the difference comes from the method which seems to us really defective in the modern Right, and always because of the same spirit: lessening of the sense of the authority, the sin, constant need to defend the man against the law to pretend to safeguard his dignity . Traditional law establishes the law - and thus, in criminal law, criminal law - with clarity, objectivity; the law marks and specifies the sanctions for the committed crimes, explaining in a rather clear way what are the external causes which can excuse of the sentence (for example the age below puberty, drunkenness in some cases, the external violence ...) or even inner causes that are easily judgeable (eg. ignorance of the law or punishment); traditional law is therefore objective; but beside this he multiplies the rules, the principles and the counsels which lead to indulgence in the interpretation or the application of the law (eg canons 2218, 2219, 2223, etc.).
"On the contrary, the new Law, to free - wrongly - the subject of the law or intervention (even benevolent) of the Superior, multiplies the cases or situations where the offender is safe from punishment, but so subjective that the law can no longer be found there ("serious relative fear", "influence of a necessity", "serious inconvenience", "chance that one could not have foreseen" (sic) or still "belief that one of these circumstances presents itself"!); there is no more judgment possible; it is no longer law, it's romance or marshmallow! With such principles there are no more applicable sanctions; it is no longer goodness or mercy, nor even benevolence towards the culprit, but paradoxically mockery, if not complicity. (Abbot Coache, Is Canon Law Friendly?
Judgments
From Father Coache
"There is a New Canon Law as there is a New Religion, New Priests and a New Mass. This New Canon Law, published in 1983, is the emanation of the New Religion in what it has official; apparently he brakes or reproves the excesses of a whole post-conciliar spirit; however, it also crystallizes an entire spirit from the Second Vatican Council, gathering and codifying the authorizations, laws and decrees published since the Council. (Is Canon Law Friendly? 215)
"Does this new canon law oblige? Certainly not, by virtue of this principle, that error has no right and that it is better to obey God than men. A document like this, even if it is official, when it is tainted from one end to the other by a obviously false mind and by a certain number of laws which contradict Faith and Tradition, has no legal value. It can not be a document of the Church since the Church can not be rediscovered in her eternal Truth; there is not there, in this judgment on our part, "free examination", but a simple statement of human reason; the leaders of the Church, the Pope himself, are bound by Faith and Tradition; if they derogate from it, they condemn themselves and their actions are worthless. This is a finding and a conclusion. Theologians will try to explain.
From Archbishop Lefebvre
"The new Code is designed to bring conciliar ecclesiology into legal and canonical language. (...)
"And so the purpose of the new Canon Law is to make (...) pass the spirit of Vatican Council II. And this spirit of the Second Vatican Council is dominated by this ecumenism, because the new ecclesiology is constructed, is forged on the Protestant ideas to avoid the objections of the Protestants. Protestants can not support the primacy of the pope, so we tried to drown the primacy of the pope, the superiority of the pope, in collegiality. And you now have two subjects of supreme power. Go and understand something ... How can there be two subjects of supreme power? ... "(Archbishop Lefebvre, Ecône, January 18, 1983)
"Then we will have to keep the old Canon Law, taking the fundamental principles and comparing it with the new Canon Law to judge the new Canon Law. Just as we take Tradition to judge also the new liturgical books. (Archbishop Lefebvre, Ecône, March 14, 1983)
"It is impossible for us to accept the Canon Law as it stands, because it is precisely in the line of Vatican II and in line with the reforms of Vatican II. The pope himself says so. He is in this new ecclesiology, which does not correspond to traditional ecclesiology and therefore indirectly affects our faith, and is likely to lead us, at least in a number of essential points of law, to heresies, favoring heresy. , like the liturgical reform that promotes heresy too. That is why we refuse liturgical reform too. (...) It's the same for catechisms, new catechisms. We refuse new catechisms because they diminish our faith. "
To base his judgment, Archbishop Lefebvre quotes Professor Michiels and concludes:
"The foundation of the supernatural life which is given over to the Church, entrusted to the Church, its foundation, is faith. Then one realizes that the duty of the Law will be to determine all that regards the faith. So the Law (...) will therefore make that faith be preached, explained, will show how it is to be received, by catechumens in particular, will determine the exercise of faith, the outward profession of faith, the defense of faith and his revenge, as it were, his defense against those who would attack the faith. All of this, the Law must do it, the Canons must express it. (Archbishop Lefebvre, Ecône, March 15, 1983)
Practical decisions within the Society of Saint Pius X (note: one year after the death of Archbishop Lefebvre!)
This new Code, to say the least doubtful, does not oblige. Thus, the 1917 Code is based on principles (doctrine and morals). However, in certain particular areas, such as canonical censorship and impediments to marriage, certain measures of the new Code are retained. They are retained, not because of their belonging to this Code which does not oblige, but for extrinsic reasons, as are a legitimate evolution of the discipline (pointed out by the abbot Coache) and the good of the souls.
Let us therefore be deeply attached to the law of God and not to the ravings of the innovators: "Blessed is the man who did not walk in the counsel of the wicked, who does not stand in the way of sinners and who does not sit in the pulpit, but whose will is in the law of God, and meditates day and night (Psalm 1).
Abbot Olivier du Châtelet
|
|
|
|
|
![[Image: MgrLefebvre.jpg]](https://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Images/MgrLefebvre.jpg)
![[Image: litanies.jpg]](https://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Images/litanies.jpg)
![[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fcatholic4lifeblog.files...rs.jpg&f=1]](https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fcatholic4lifeblog.files.wordpress.com%2F2014%2F08%2Fholy-sacrifice-of-the-mass-propers.jpg&f=1)
![[Image: 52.jpg]](https://www.thefrenchhistorypodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/52.jpg)
![[Image: 180px-Quinzani.jpg]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/56/Quinzani.jpg/180px-Quinzani.jpg)
![[Image: painting-of-eternal-father-by-challe.jpg?w=200]](https://divinerhythm.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/painting-of-eternal-father-by-challe.jpg?w=200)
![[Image: circumcision_of_jesus_001.jpg?itok=ky9lkfr6]](https://fsspx.uk/sites/sspx/files/styles/dici_image_full_width/public/news/circumcision_of_jesus_001.jpg?itok=ky9lkfr6)
![[Image: O8gnGNinqGqrjpv375Iot2v9HzHeEpUjJvzP6xcd...y0AZ4FwRNQ]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/O8gnGNinqGqrjpv375Iot2v9HzHeEpUjJvzP6xcdP5w5FiAi0sbg74lf0rgnLEtcaHQmciiFtXVLOdZJ2xO6JJRtb9yklVu_geysvIF9s06r4NNmTUJIttViGXD5DBI8zS2by0AZ4FwRNQ)
![[Image: St-Ambrose-detail-window-Antwerp-Belgium-Roman.jpg]](https://cdn.britannica.com/33/188433-050-55BC5A37/St-Ambrose-detail-window-Antwerp-Belgium-Roman.jpg)
