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 543 online users. » 1 Member(s) | 540 Guest(s) Bing, Google, Chivalry
|
|
|
January 2018: SSPX Lays Groundwork for Pontifical Recognition |
Posted by: Stone - 12-06-2020, 08:21 PM - Forum: The New-Conciliar SSPX
- Replies (1)
|
|
From the Archived Catacombs:
New Article coming from the Menzingen General House priming the General Chapter -- mascots ABL to push roman thought.
The theme: "The Society of St. Pius X must seek pontifical recognition..."
Law is the principle concern and the faith is optional to put in the chaos of the conciliar Vatican.
Object: Get peoples mind off of the pre-1988 Menzingen to dwell on the 2018 conciliar Menzingen.
This is a reminder Bishop Fellay already set the stage and unveiled the new change of structure for the neo-sspx here thecatacombs.org/thread/335/bishop-fellay-unveils-sspx-prelature
For them, there is no going back.
Quote:Source: FSSPX.news
Jan. 16. 2018
What will happen at the General Chapter of the Fraternity of St. Pius X?
From July 11 to 21, will be held the fourth General Chapter of the Fraternity of St. Pius X.
Many Catholics are worried about the evolution of the Vatican. The discussions around the post-synodal exhortation Amoris laetitia or the attacks on priestly celibacy in the perspective of the announced synod on the Amazon leave the faithful perplexed.
Cardinals stand against other cardinals, bishops against bishops. Not many Catholics of good will today recognize that Archbishop Lefebvre was right. That is why the eyes of many - even outside the ranks of traditionalists - are turning to the General Chapter.
The Bulletin of the District of Germany met with the Secretary General of the Fraternity of St. Pius X, Father Christian Thouvenot, in charge of the preparation of the Chapter.
Mitteilungsblatt: We would like to inform the faithful of the progress of the 2018 General Chapter. Could you begin by introducing yourself and explaining your role at the General House?
Christian Thouvenot: I have been a priest since the year 2000 and has been Secretary General since 2008. My job is to follow the correspondence of the General House with the seminaries and the districts, as well as with the members, to keep to day the files of the members priests, brothers, oblates and seminarians. I take care of the register of the deliberations of the General Council and transmit its decisions to the superiors concerned. I also take care of the archives and the communication of the Fraternity.
The Brotherhood is led by a Superior General, assisted by two Assistants, all three elected?
Indeed, the Brotherhood is led by three superiors elected for a twelve-year term. Their attributions concern the smooth running of the fraternity, the organization of the apostolate, the nominations throughout the world, etc. They must be careful, according to the Statutes, to maintain and increase in the hearts of all members "a great generosity, a deep spirit of faith, an ardent zeal in the service of the Church and souls". They have their home in Menzingen, where they can rest between two apostolic races but also work, pray, study ...
The Brotherhood has had a good growth in recent years. You published some statistics recently. Can you tell us more?
The Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X is growing slowly but steadily. Everywhere, the works need support and renewal of their strengths. That is why it is important to always ask and pray for many priestly and religious vocations, especially many holy priests.
Let's come to the Chapter ...
Next July will be held the fourth General Chapter of the Fraternity of St. Pius X. This meeting is important since it elects the major superiors for twelve years, and verifies if the Society remains faithful to its statutes and its spirit. It is an opportunity to take stock of the apostolate, the development of the works, the life of community, the means of sanctification of the members. It will take place at the seminary Saint-Pie X, in Ecône. It brings together all the superiors of districts and seminaries, the bishops, as well as the oldest members. It will be preceded by a priestly retreat to prepare well.
What is the task of a Chapter?
As I told you, the Chapter aims to elect major superiors and verify the application of the statutes. On the occasion of the Chapter, all the members were able to write to the General Secretariat to express their opinion, their wishes or to express their difficulties. All these opinions will be the subject of summaries and discussions in the Chapter.
Who can be elected Superior General?
Can be elected any member priest, aged at least thirty years and having pronounced his perpetual engagement in the Fraternity. This represents a list of eligible 462 names! The Superior General is elected by a 2/3 majority, and the Assistants by an absolute majority of votes. The elections, in which the 41 capitulants take part, are held in secret ballots.
The statutes drafted by Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre provide that the Superior General must seek the pontifical recognition of the Society of St. Pius X. Will the question of a personal Prelature be discussed?
Indeed, our statutes provide that the fraternity makes "the necessary steps to become of pontifical right". This was the concern of Archbishop Lefebvre, against the unjust and illegal suppression of the Brotherhood in 1975, and at the time of the proposals of canonical recognition he formulated in 1987. But this question of our legal status is a consequence of the abnormal situation of the Church and the bad trial that is done to us. We are Roman Catholics, deeply united with the Pope and the hierarchy of the Church, but in the Catholic faith. We follow the pope, vicar of Christ and successor of St. Peter, not Luther or Lamennais. We recognize the magisterium, the authority of the Roman Pontiff and Councils, but in the continuity of Tradition, not in the novelties that corrupt the faith, the liturgy and the doctrine of the Church.
To answer your question, it is likely that the question of personal Prelature status will be asked at the Chapter. But it is the Superior General alone who leads the Fraternity and who is responsible for the relations of Tradition with the Holy See. Archbishop Lefebvre, in 1988, wanted to clarify this aspect.
In your opinion, what are the other important themes for the life of the Fraternity to which the General Chapter will have to respond?
The Chapter will examine all aspects of daily life, check the management of the property, will certainly address the issues of recruitment, perseverance, schools, missions, development of works and the application of the statutes in our communities .
The heart of the fraternity is the seminaries. What problems arise and need to be solved? You were previously in higher education, so you had to deal with students ...
The seminars are indeed at the heart of the life of the Fraternity, which is primarily a work of restoration of the Catholic priesthood, and therefore training to give the Church the priests it so badly needs. The priority is to provide a good level of training, and therefore to have a competent faculty. Which must also be able to accompany the vocations so that they climb one by one the steps of the altar and cultivate the priestly virtues.
The Sisters of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X also have their General Chapter this year ...
The Sisters of the Society of St. Pius X will effectively hold their own Chapter in the spring. They serve magnificently alongside priests and their religious life brings a lot to priory and schools where they are dedicated.
What can the faithful do for the Chapter?
The faithful are invited to pray now for the intentions of the Chapter, and more broadly for the development of the Fraternity as a work of Church, as its venerated founder has desired. In particular, I think of the members of the Third Order who share more closely our spirit and our intentions, who often dedicate themselves in the priory and bring daily suffrage of their prayers to this providential work.
|
|
|
2016: Bp. Fellay Unveils Personal Prelature |
Posted by: Stone - 12-06-2020, 08:16 PM - Forum: The New-Conciliar SSPX
- No Replies
|
|
From the Archived Catacombs:
Bishop Fellay unveiled, in part, his agreement with conciliar rome in two public venues: Aug. 24, 2016 Conference in New Zealand, and March 3, 2017 Sermon in Poland.
Between the two, in his own words, here is what he said:
- Rome is offering us a new structure, a new body, to correspond precisely to our reality.
- And what is our reality? There are priests, bishops, faithful, we have priors, schools, seminaries, and what Rome wants to do is to give us a structure that contains all this. Like a diocese.
- The name given to this reality is a personal prelature.
- But the reality is much better than what we find in canon law or what exists for the opus Dei. Because Opus Dei has no right to have a bishop. It is only at the Pope's pleasure to decide whether or not he gives him a bishop.
- For us, it is determined, it is written.
- At its head will be a bishop, chosen by the Pope from a list of three Society members, named by the Society.
- The Bishop will have authority over priests, over any religious wanting to join the new structure and over Catholics belonging to the new structure.
- It is also planned that the other bishops of the Fraternity will be auxiliary bishops in this Prelature. And everything that currently exists will be recognized worldwide.
- And the faithful too! They will be in this prelature with an absolute right to receive from Society priests all the sacraments and teachings, including marriage.
- The bishop will be able to set up schools and seminaries, to ordain (priests), to establish new religious Congregations.
- And it will also be possible to receive religious congregations, as in the dioceses: Capuchins, Benedictines, and all the others, Carmelites, everything.
- The structure will be like a super-diocese, independent of all local bishops. This is a Christian reality which is not under the authority of the bishops. It is autonomous. So, really, it's a very important thing."
- In other words, for you faithful, there will be no change from what you are already enjoying with the Society.
- The only difference will be that you will be officially recognized as Catholics.
- It is not a trap! As things stand you cannot imagine anything better than this offer, which is such that you cannot think it is a trap. It is not a trap , and if anyone makes us such an offer it can only be because he wishes us well. He wants Tradition to prosper and to flourish within the Church. It is impossible that such an offer could come from our enemies. They have many other ways to crush us, but not that way.
----------------------------------------------------
Bishop Fellay's remarks call for comment:
- A “new structure, a new body” means that Archbishop Lefebvre’s structure
for the Society will, essentially, be abandoned. Rome is creating a
completely new entity. Good-bye, dear SSPX.
- A “bishop chosen by the Pope” is extremely important. And the head of the “new structure” will presumably go on being chosen by the Pope. Ask the Fraternity of St Peter what that means. It meant in the 1990’s their own choice of Superior General being overridden by Rome, so that Rome’s own choice was forcibly installed (Fr. A. D.), to bring St Peter’s to heel.
- Note also how this bishop will be able “to ordain (priests)” but not
bishops. Rome will thus retain the whip-hand over the new entity.
- “There will be no change”? But of course there will! Rome will henceforth be in control.
- “You will be officially recognized” – but what Catholic needs any
recognition by such destroyers of the Church from her present
neo-modernist officials? Any such recognition can only be a bad sign.
- "You will receive the sacraments and teachings from the society priests" But what Sacraments and teachings? Already there are mergings of the traditional sacraments with the novus ordo and acceptances of Vatican II teaching.
- “Not a trap . . .”? This whole paragraph is truly remarkable." Need say more?
What is missing is the Faith! Where is it? It is not mentioned nor protected!
Notice how Bishop Fellay prefaces all his correspondence in the motto "Take us as we are"? The question is, what is your faith and conviction presently to take?
Bishop Fellay openly stated he already accepted and agreed to:
- The new and entire 1983 Code of Canon law.
- The new Profession of faith by Vatican II.
- The legitimacy of the novus ordo "ordinary mass".
- "Lumen Gentium" of the Second Vatican Council [in part is to whole].
- "95% acceptance" of Vatican II.
- Vatican II “deepens” and “enlightens” certain aspects of Church doctrine.
- “Religious Liberty of the Council is limited”.
- “The errors of the Council are not really from the Council but from the general interpretation of it.”
Vatican II Council is only “tainted with errors”.
But all's good...because they can "convert" the modernists inside the conciliar church through the modernist doctrines. As it is, Bishop Fellay wants his followers to believe, in his claim, the Crisis is "Recessing".
The hoax of the personal prelature is clear. It is to:
* Bury the SSPX and the work of Archbishop Lefebvre.
* Make the legal transformation of the SSPX into a conciliar work.
* Use it as a platform to promote the conciliar revolution.
* Stop the fight of Catholic Tradition; the enemy of modernism.
There is no respect when God is not respected.
But hasn't this been tried with the other 9-traditional communities going into modern Rome? Yes, and all to a foolish failure to where, as expected, they where converted into conciliarist thought.
And the recent example of the Franciscans of the Immaculata (here, here, here, here, and here)...all squashed under the pope who is benevolent, says Bishop Fellay, "it is not a trap".
Archbishop Lefebvre said "An inferior is not above his Superior". As with, in "A Letter from Archbishop Lefebvre, regarding Indult Masses":
“It is evident that by putting themselves in the hands of the current conciliar authorities, they are implicitly accepting the Council and the ensuing reforms, even if they have received some privileges which remain exceptional and provisory.”
What is the reason of the personal prelature?
Father Pfeiffer explains it well here: cor-mariae.com/index.php?threads/in-london-with-german-translation-partial-transcription.5949/
But there is more.
Here is a very good commentary of what a "Personal Prelature" is for the new sspx in contrast from the FSSP's "Society of Apostolic Life with Pontifical Right" from a member Order inside the Ecclesia Dei, Brother JR, FFV, the Superior General of the order "Franciscans of Life" (Fratres Franciscani Vitae): forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=685495&highlight=do+dioceses+give+money+to+the+vatican?
Quote:"Obviously, most are not exactly sure what a prelature is or does.
...A prelature is not a reward. Do you really know the circumstances of a prelature? I would rather be an FSSP [Fraternity of St. Peter] than belong to a prelature.
A prelature is governed directly by the pope. The FSSP is not governed by the pope. They have their own superior general.
The prelature will have statutes and constitutions handed to it by the Vatican. Prelatures do not get to write their own statutes, as do societies of apostolic life and religious communities. The statutes are written at the Vatican, given to the prelate to comment, edited, if the prelate has something good to contribute and then sent to the pope for final approval. He issues the constitution of the prelature. The FSSP writers its own statutes, votes on them and sends a copy to the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life. The Sacred Congregation reviews the constitution to ensure that it meets all the requirements of Canon Law and that there is no doctrinal error in it. The Sacred Congregation does not care if the constitution says that you will dance around the altar for morning and evening prayer, since such an action does not violate canon law, dogma or morals. They sign off on it and send it back to the Superior General of the FSSP. The SSPX will be in a closer relationship with the Holy Father, but it also has to make sure to cross its tees and dot its eyes.
The FSSP gets to elect its superior general. A prelature does not get to elect the prelate. The prelate is appointed by the pope. Remember the word, "personal prelature". The personal refers to the pope. You're stuck with the prelate that the pope appoints. He can appoint any bishop, not just an SSPX bishop.
The FSSP does not have to own property; therefore, it does not have to raise funds to maintain and insure their property. The FSSP hires itself out to a diocese or a religious community who provide the property. If the collection plate is not enough to fix the leaky rood, the owner of the proper, usually the diocese, will bail them out with a loan or just pick up the tab. The prelature owns all of its buildings and is financially responsible for them. It gets no financial support from the diocese. If it needs to borrow from a bank, the diocese does not serve as its cosigner.
The prelature can have its own seminary. So can the FSSP. No difference there.
The FSSP has to ask for permission to enter a diocese, so does the prelature.
The FSSP does not have ordinary jurisdiction over those who attend their mass or belong to their parish. That jurisdiction belongs to the bishop where the person resides. This is a good thing. The FSSP is not responsible for the salvation of their souls. If these folks follow the wide road, because the priest suggested it, the person goes to heaven, regardless of what he did, because he was obeying. The priest may not be so lucky and neither will the bishop for allowing it to happen, provided he knows. However, the FSSP is not accountable, only the priest involved. The prelature has ordinary authority over the laity. Guess who is morally responsible for the laity . . . bingo! The prelature, not the local bishop, not the FSSP.
The FSSP is a society of Pontifical Right. This means that it has the same right of exemption as I do. Bishops cannot discipline a member of the FSSP. The laity has no right to comment or voice an opinion on anything that happens with the FSSP, unless it directly affects them. Remotely does not count. Directly we mean that the FSSP priest is being ugly to you. If the FSSP priests decide to have happy hour every day, that does not directly affect the laity, even though it may be shocked. That's a problem for the superior of the FSSP. If the SSPX decides to have a happy hour and there are complaints, the prelate has to deal with them and he has to inform the pope. The superior general of the FSSP does not have to report to the pope, unless the pope calls him in.
A prelature is like a diocese without physical boundaries. It certainly has many other boundaries and a lot more oversight from the Vatican.
The key here is that if Pope [Francis] truly did say that this is the only way to come back into the Church and the SSPX rejects it, we may be facing a schism, depending on how the Holy Father takes the rejection.
====================================
This is another misunderstanding. No community is allowed to refuse its members permission to celebrate the OF in principle. This was not just for the FSSP. The Franciscans of the Immaculate wanted to insert the same thing into their constitution and were told that it was unlawful to do so. The logic is that no community has the authority to command what the Church requires or prohibit what the Church allows in spiritual and sacramental matters. Even orders that have their own rite: Carmelite, Dominican, Carthusian and orders that have their own forms of the Latin Rite: Franciscan, Augustinian, Benedictine, Jesuit cannot prohibit the OF in the way that it is prescribed in the GIRM. What we are allowed to do is to decide that we will use this or that form for our conventual mass, not we cannot tell our priests that they cannot celebrate the OF. The conventual mass does not apply to the FSSP, because they are secular Catholics.
In the case of the EF, religious superiors and superiors of societies of apostolic life can prohibit it. Constitutions can prohibit it, because the EF is not the norm for the Latin Church as long as the pope says that it is extraordinary. The Pauline mass is the normal form of worship. Therefore, it cannot be prohibited. They can agree not to celebrate it. They cannot make it proper law. None of us can do that.
It was not the pope who intervened. It was the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life. All constitutions are reviewed by the Sacred Congregation to make sure that they do not violate law or doctrine. Many times, when people say, "The pope. . ." it's really a prefect acting in the name of the pope. Prefects have that authority.
==============================
Q. Yes religious who are of pontifical right get to write their own constitutions and elect their superior yet both of those need the approval of the pope to go into effect.
A. Not quite. I'm a superior general and I know. The constitutions are reviewed by the Sacred Congregation for the reasons that I stated above. The Holy Father does not see them. When the Sacred Congregation agrees to approve the constitution, it sends a letter to the pope asking for his endorsement. All the letter says it that it has reviewed the constitution and found no doctrinal errors or canonical violations and it asks to pope to kindly promulgate the constitution. The pope signs the paper and sends it back. We get that paper sent back to us. Popes do not have time to read constitutions of religious communities or societies nor are they interested in doing so.
===============================
The FSSP operates within the diocese; whereas the SSPX is its own jurisdiction. This presents a problem for things like getting married or placing your child in a Catholic school. In many places you must belong to the diocese and you must prove it with a letter from your pastor. An FSSP pastor can grant such a letter. The SSPX priest can only say that you belong to his congregation. But his congregation is under the jurisdiction of the SSPX, not the local bishop. The local bishop does not run that chapel.
====================================
The SSPX is being offered a prelature. A prelature gives it the autonomy that the SSPX wants, but it also restricts because its activities must follow a constitution given to it from the Vatican. It cannot write its own constitution, because it's a prelature, not community. There can be a constitution for the priests and religious, but those constitutions cannot contradict the constitution of the prelature.
A prelature has a defined apostolic mission that must be approved by the pope himself, not by a general chapter alone and not by one of the sacred congregations. We don't know how broadly or how narrowly Pope [Francis] will define the apostolic mission of the prelature.
Then we must look at size. The SSPX has about 500 secular priests, which is a very nice number. The average diocese has less than 300. Maybe the megadioceses have more. That looks good. However, those 500 priests are limited to working inside the prelature, not with diocesan structures. Therefore, they will not be allowed to participate in deanery meetings, diocesan synods, clergy councils or conferences of bishops where pastoral decisions are made. They will not be allowed to contradict those decisions made by the host diocese or the conferences of bishops. In other words, the SSPX can have its own pastoral practices within its jurisdiction, but it cannot tell the people of Diocese X that such and such a pastoral decision is a bad thing. They belong to the prelature.
Let's remember that 500 secular priests are a large number for a diocese, not for an international organization. The Salesians and the Franciscans each have more than one million members. How many Salesians or Franciscans are in the average diocese? My point is that we're thinking that the influence of these 500 men is going to turn the Church around. That's not realistic.
The Church will turn around and problems will be solved. New ones will replace the old ones. The SSPX will bring a much needed charism into the Church, but it will stand side by side with the many other charisms that exist in the Church, as it should be. The SSPX is not being regularized to compete with other secular priests or with religious communities. They are being regularized for their own good and for the unity of the Church.
We truly need to keep this in focus. Let's forget about ourselves and let's think about these men and the unity of the Church. My biggest problem with this whole process is the selfish attitude of some people. They're all excited because what they want and what they like is finally being regularized.
It is nice to get what we want and what we like. Make no mistake about that. But at the end of the day, the Church does provide for our spiritual and sacramental life, without the SSPX. What is of greater value here is that we have almost 1,000 men and women (clergy and religious) who are living outside the fence, but on the same side of the street. They are our brothers and sisters and we should love them enough to want them on our side of the fence where they will be safe and where we can share what each of us has to offer.
Finally, it is a great insult to the more than five million male religious and diocesan clergy to say to us that the SSPX are going to fix the Church, as if we had made no contribution for the good of the Church.
There has to be a balance in our thinking and a greater concern for the good of our brothers and sisters in the SSPX rather than our personal wants and wishes. As St. Francis said to our brothers, "The man who has not detached from his wants and wishes is like the man who cannot pass through the eye of the needle. He is still rich."
============================
The FSSP is a Society of Apostolic Life with Pontifical Right. It has the same legal rights and duties as I do, except that I belong to an order and we get more graces. But you can't regulate graces. You can regulate rights.
The charism of a society of pontifical right is not determined by the Holy See, nor does the Holy See impose limits on societies of pontifical right, quite the opposite. Pontifical right gives the FSSP what Trent defined as the Right of Exemption. Normally, this is only for religious men. But Pope John Paul II granted it to the FSSP. This gives it the freedom to write its own constitution, define its mission and charism, modify its mission and charism at any time and to be free from Church control. The only person who can dictate to a institute of pontifical right, is the pope. The only time in recent history that the pope has done this is with the Legionaires of Christ. That last time before that, was Pope Leo XIII when he founded the Franciscans (OFM). That was in 1878.
The FSSP is pretty free.. However its charism may have changed, it is completely under the control of the general chapter, not the Church. Only a pope can overrule a general chapter.
=======================
Once it [sspx] is regularized, it will have a canonical status and that means that it will also have rights. One of those rights is the right of its superior not to allow anyone to leave.
forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=683408&page=2
So what is the difference of the 1988 accord with the Fraternity of Saint Peter (FSSP) who left the SSPX and went in "communion" with modernist Rome who were allowed to form a "Society of Apostolic Life with Pontifical Right", and the present SSPX administration who held out for a number of years longer and eventually is given the same welcome and "reconciliation" with a gift of a "Personal Prelature"?
Nothing!
The oyster shell changes while the inside is empty of the faith. The Walrus consumed their substance.
Regardless of such goodies and attraction, have these priests and bishops not learned the lessons that modernism carries - a big apostate stick?
The new-sspx is toast.
Is that the end of it for the neo-sspx?
No, remember too that when the new-sspx, rather the conciliar-sspx, is officially assumed into the beast, they are obliged to financially, spiritually, and morally support the conciliar establishment by soliciting from their supporters and benefactors the yearly (and bi-yearly) "Peter's Pence" to fund rome's conciliar campaigns; including upcoming Assisi meetings, as well as all other ecumenical spendings, altar girls, clown masses, communion in the hand, rainbow vestments, the list goes on...as does infidelity goes on.
Your tithe effectively goes to promiscuity - the religion of Baal!
But let's have the 2001 Bishop Fellay remind us how bad it is to have a "Personal Prelature" instead of an "Apostolic Administration". Here is another duplicit eye opener:
Quote:"2) In the August 2001 issue of Communicantes (former Canadian SSPX Magazine), there was published an interview conducted by Fr. de Tanouarn with His Excellency Bishop Bernard Fellay in which His Excellency spoke of a canonical structure proposed by Rome:
“You have no doubt heard talk of this idea of an apostolic administration. The Society of St. Pius X would have become incorporated into an apostolic administration. What does this signify? The apostolic administration ordinarily is a diocesan structure, or quasi diocesan, in a time of crisis, over a given territory. Well! For us this territory would be the entire world. In other words, they offered us a structure that covered the entire world, a kind of personal diocese…”
Q. Fr. de Tanouarn intervened:
“Excuse me for interrupting, Your Excellency, you mean a personal prelature…”
Bishop Fellay responded (this author’s emphasis in bold):
“Not at all. The apostolic administration is better than a personal prelature. In the first place, a personal prelacy is not necessarily governed by a bishop. An apostolic administration, which is quasi diocesan, normally would be. Furthermore, and above all, the action of an apostolic administration is not limited to its members. The Opus Dei, which is the personal prelacy that exists today, is not subject to the local bishop in all that concerns its members, but it could not consider any external action without the consent of the bishop. With the apostolic administration, we avoid this restriction. We would be able to take an autonomous apostolic action without having to ask authorization from the diocesan bishop, since we would have a veritable diocese, whose distinctive characteristic is that it extends to the entire world. It is very important that such a proposition has been made, because after all, this juridical solution has never happened before, it is ‘sui generis’. Now that it has been established, it can represent for us, from a juridical point of view, a reference, a position of comparison. Especially since it is to the Society of St. Pius X that this possibility has been proposed, which shows just how seriously Rome sees our resistance. It’s not by vainglory that I say that, believe me: symbolically (first of all, it’s not a question of numbers) we represent something very important for Rome, and this also is new.”
"3) In an interview conducted by Brian Mershon of The Remnant and published on February 18, 2009, His Excellency Bishop Bernard Fellay was posed the following question (my emphasis in bold):
Q. “Do you foresee any oversight by territorial diocesan bishops once the Society is regularized?”
His Excellency answered (this author’s emphasis in bold):
“That would be our death. The situation of the Church is such that once the doctrinal issues have been clarified, we will need our own autonomy in order to survive. This means that we will have to be directly under the authority of the Pope with an exemption. If we look at the history of the Church, we see that every time the Popes wanted to restore the Church, they leaned upon new strength like the Benedictine Cistercians whom the pope allowed to act as best as possible during the crisis, in a status of exemption, in order to overcome the crisis.”
Source: The Society of St. Pius X and the Diocesan Bishops www.therecusant.com/sspx-diocesan-bishops
So who is kidding who? Rather, who is lying to who?
Of course none of this is a surprise, Bishop Fellay has been cooing up to the Diocesan bishops for quite a while.
See here, N.O. Diocesan Bishops become a new focus for the neo-sspx
God is not mocked!
|
|
|
Old-SSPX Condemns Indult Mass |
Posted by: Stone - 12-06-2020, 08:07 PM - Forum: The New-Conciliar SSPX
- No Replies
|
|
From Archived Catacombs:
In another twist of shameful modernism influencing souls, the SSPX former self condemns yet again its present new self accepting the legal reform of the "Indult - Extraordinary mass" as a secondary means to salvation subservient to the "Ordinary form of mass" - the NOM, also called, the mass of "Pope Paul VI".
Bishop Fellay had, with a Te Deum, accepted the reformed law of the conciliar church to place the entire SSPX congregation under the law of the 2007 Moto Proprio - "Extraordinary form of mass" - highlighting the NOM is the supreme rule of worship and the Ordinary form for use of all Catholics in the church. Thus, for the new-sspx, the legal footing to accept the "Extraordinary" mass is the SAME legal footing to accept the Indult mass. Hitherto, the conciliar-sspx accepts it can be taken away from them under disciplinary laws, if not by, absolute rule removing the faculties of the priests not to say the latin mass...
To accept the Extraordinary mass (as the neo-SSPX did), there is a cum conditione (with condition) stated by pope Benedict in his letter, you accept the new mass as valid and legitimate (being the ordinary/first place of worship) and you also accept Vatican II. They both go together. One created the other, and one affirms the other.
Contained in an except from the old-sspx article "The Indult Mass: should one attend it at all?", there lies the principles one should NOT attend also the "Extraordinary" mass of the conciliar church.
Quote:Excerpt [Angelus 1994]:
The case of attending the traditional Mass said under the "Indult"
Despite all the efforts of the official hierarchy since 1969, a few bishops, many priests, and a great number of the faithful have remained attached to the two-thousand-year old traditional rite of Mass. Time passed but the problem remained. In order to resolve it, Pope John Paul II gave to the diocesan bishops the faculty of making use of an indult so as to allow priests to say and faithful to attend the Mass contained in the Roman Missal edited in 1962; the missal moreover used by the Society of St. Pius X. That was the indult promulgated by the Congregation for the Divine Worship on October 3, 1984,15 an indult we shall see hereafter, made unacceptable through the intention of its legislators and by the conditions of its application. The consecrations of June 30, 1988, occurring, Pope John Paul II made use of this with regards to the traditionalists.
Now, what about attending a Tridentine Mass celebrated under the indult?
First of all, it constitutes a danger for the faith of the faithful, a danger which comes from the priests themselves who are celebrating it. Because to obtain this indult from the official hierarchy, these priests must fulfill the following conditions:
- That it should be very clear that these priests have nothing to do with those who place in doubt... the doctrinal soundness of the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI, in 1970 and that their position should be without any ambiguity and publicly known.[15] [Ed. This, the new-sspx had surrendered to as well by accepting the Moto Proprio of 2007 - Extraordinary mass - and promotes their masses as such throughout their publications.]
Thus is it necessary that these priests prove publicly by their behavior, their words and writings, shorn of ambiguities, that they admit "the doctrinal soundness" of the New Mass. No question in any way whatsoever of criticizing the Protestant and definitely non-Catholic look of Pope Paul VI's New Mass.
Cardinal Mayer, former president of Ecclesia Dei placed in charge of re-integrating the Traditionalists in the Conciliar Church, added the following condition: these same priests "can obtain" this indult "on the condition that they be in normal juridical standing with their bishops or religious superiors." 16 One remembers that dozens of priests have been unjustly put out of their churches or their religious houses for the simple fact of continuing to say without change the Tridentine Mass, except for a good number of those who were favored by certain circumstances (age, distance etc.). May we ask these indult favored priests at what cost or compromise with the integral Catholic Faith have they kept or obtained "normal legal relations" with the hierarchy? Compromise which, for example, could appear in the fact of giving hosts doubtfully consecrated during a previous conciliar Mass or even through the manner of celebrating the traditional Mass full of hesitations and mistakes, sometimes even cause of scandal. [This too has the same legal precedent. No priest can say the "Extraordinary mass" freely without permission in function and good standing with their diocesan bishop. So in fact, the extraordinary mass IS an Indult in every legal way to function. - See the pope's attached explanatory letter to all the bishops in the world the interpretation of that 2007 Moto Proprio. It leave the right of the bishops to exercise who what when how that "extraordinary form" will be said and where publicly.]
There is a danger too for the Faith, that comes from the proximity of the faithful who attend exclusively these indult Masses, because they also have to fulfill the conditions of not placing in doubt the "doctrinal soundness" of the New Mass.15 Characteristically, these type of faithful, unfortunately too often, are concerned with reconciling in thought and in action the truth with heresy, Tradition with the conciliar spirit. [ibid]
Secondly from the very nature of the indult: an indult is "a concession from the authority which dispenses its subjects from the obligation of keeping a law." 17 "The indult is an exception. It can always be withdrawn. It confirms the general rule" 18 which is the New Mass, the conciliar liturgy. Because, to use a special permission, is this not to recognize and legitimize ipso facto the general law, that is to say the legal suppression of the two thousand year-old traditional rite? [ibid]
Indeed, to obtain the indult of 1984, one must fulfill the following conditions:
- that it should be quite clear that those priests and those faithful have nothing to do with those who place in question the legitimacy of the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970.[15] [ibid]
Furthermore "this concession... should be utilized without prejudice to the observance of the liturgical reform (of Pope Paul VI) in the life of ecclesiastical communities"[15] of the Conciliar Church. [ibid]
Therefore no question of them advertising for the universal usage of the Traditional Mass. They must be made to recognize that this Tridentine Mass was validly, legally and legitimately abrogated or forbidden. No question either or calling the worth, always actual, of the words of the Pope St. Pius V:
By virtue of Our Apostolic authority We give and grant in perpetuity, that for the singing or the reading of Mass in any church whatsoever this Missal (that is to say, the Tridentine Mass), may be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment or censure, and may be freely and lawfully used.[19] [cf. this article for more on this topic: The legitimacy of Quo Primum today]
The third point to tackle is this: to attend the "indult" Mass is at least to approve implicitly and to encourage the work of the destruction of Catholic Tradition undertaken by the official hierarchy. To prove this assertion, let us look first of all at the intentions of some of those responsible, to see some precise facts. [ibid]
In the first place the intention of Pope John Paul II himself, using this indult to favor the winning over of "traditional Catholics" to conciliar Rome:
The Holy See has granted... the faculty of using the liturgical books in use in 1962... It is very evident that, far from seeking to put a brake on the application of the reform (of the New Mass) undertaken after the Council (by Pope Paul VI), this concession is destined to facilitate the ecclesial communion (that is to say their reinstatement in the Conciliar Church) of people who feel themselves attached to these liturgical forms.[20]
What now of the intentions and hopes of Cardinal Mayer, former president of the Ecclesia Dei Commission? He said:
There are grounds to hope that, with the concerted efforts on the part of all concerned a substantial number of priests and seminarians will find the strength to renounce a 'state of mind' which until now was full of prejudices, of accusations and of disinformation... We have good reason to believe that the charity with which the priests coming from Archbishop Lefebvre and returning into the Church will be received, will contribute greatly to the fulfillment of this hope that, following them, numerous faithful whom they had served up till then, would also return into the ecclesial communion (with the Conciliar Church) through their mediation. Sometimes a temporary solution may be necessary, such as allowing them the possibility of celebrating the Holy Mass[21] (of Pope St. Pius V). [ibid, always has been and continues today. See here The aims of the Ecclesia Dei: to Destroy Catholic Tradition ]
In the hands of the official hierarchy, the Tridentine Mass serves therefore as a temporary means and bait to attract the traditional priests and people and to destroy at the same time the work of Catholic restoration, started by Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop de Castro Mayer and their priests. Means and bait to attract the traditional Catholics now considered as schismatics because they are no longer considered as "being in communion" with the present-day Rome, of liberal and modernist tendency. It is to be further noted that the Commission Ecclesia Dei could be generous for a time in the concessions granted to priests - a question of making them bite at the bait. But if through their "mediation" more or less conscious, their faithful do not return into the conciliar fold, it is to be anticipated that they will be judged as useless instruments and will find themselves either in the obligation to fulfill other conditions to keep that permission, or even to simply see the aforesaid permission withdrawn. [ibid]
Let us now move on to some illustrating facts: having received the permission to celebrate the Tridentine Rite, the Fraternity of St. Peter now see themselves threatened to accept giving communion in the hand[22] and saying the Mass of 1965, 22 having already accepted by one of their superiors, "all the documents of the Vatican II Council."[23] Hundreds of priests, seminarians and faithful have been lured with the Tridentine Rite and now are made to forcibly return to the ranks and the spirit of the Council. [ibid] This work of destruction continues by the approval of Indult Masses close to our important Mass centers... A good method to empty these last ones or at least to prevent them from developing.
That is why, what can look like a concession is in reality merely a maneuver to separate from us the largest number of faithful possible. This is the perspective in which they seem to be always giving a little more and even going very far. We must absolutely convince our faithful that it is no more than a maneuver, that it is dangerous to put oneself into the hands of Conciliar bishops and modernist Rome. It is the greatest danger threatening our people. If we have struggled for twenty years to avoid the Conciliar errors, it was not in order, now, to put ourselves in the hands of those professing these errors.[18] [ibid]
To attempt to restore the traditional Mass without considering the historical context of the crisis of the Faith is to become a blind instrument in the hands of the conciliar hierarchy. [ibid]
What final conclusion can we draw from all this?
That the precept of attending Sunday Mass is obligatory for all Catholics who have reached the age of reason (seven years old) but that some may be excused particularly those who are only near Masses "of Pope Paul VI" or to traditional Masses said under the "Indult." Why? Firstly, because of the danger for the faith coming either from the priests who celebrate or from the faithful who attend them; secondly, legitimization is given to the new liturgy and finally an approval more or less implicit of the work of destruction of the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Tradition. [Therefore, by the principles laid out here, Catholics are oblige to refuse the "extraordinary form" of mass regardless it may be a latin rite mass, it is surrounded and imbued in acceptance of the norms and Canon laws of Vatican II.]
Source
|
|
|
SSPX priest in 2010 shows how one cannot attend SSPX Masses since 2012 |
Posted by: Stone - 12-06-2020, 08:02 PM - Forum: The New-Conciliar SSPX
- No Replies
|
|
Below is a translated excerpt from Fr. Chautard’s article, “ Le combat pour la messe “ (The Combat for the Mass) which can be found in the November 2010 issue of Le Chardonnet (the monthly bulletin of St. Nicolas du Chardonnet parish in Paris). Fr. Chautard is presently the rector of the SSPX University in Paris (L’Institut Universitaire Saint-Pie X).
Fr. Chautard’s explanation clearly shows why one should not attend SSPX Masses.
+ + +
Translated by: Unbrandable @ Cor-Mariae
Fr. Chautard:
“…But some do not hesitate to go to traditional Masses celebrated by priests (belonging to institutes) officially recognizing the full catholicity and legitimacy of the Council, of religious freedom, of the new Code of Canon Law, etc.
These faithful, and sometimes these priests, do not themselves adhere to the official directives of the said institutes. This scenario, unprecedented before 1984, more widespread in 1988, was further multiplied by the publication of the Motu Proprio Summarum Pontificum in 2007.
It was then realized – or at least remembered – that fidelity to the Mass of all Time did not automatically entail fidelity to the doctrine of all Time and that allegiance to the traditional Mass did not prevent allegiance to the Council and what comes from it. The combat for the Mass, formerly inseparable from the combat for the Faith, was no more, de facto.
A Change of Emphasis
From this day, the combat of the Society for the Mass was further refined to put the spiritual, moral and normally inseparable link between the combat for the Faith and the combat for the Mass, between the assistance at the Mass of all Time and the confession of the Faith of all Time. Without a doubt, we can argue about the congenital inconsistency between an anti-ecumenical, traditional Mass and modern errors like ecumenism. It is not only about that.
For breaking the link between assistance at Mass and communion in the same faith with the minister of this Mass and his hierarchy rests upon a profound misunderstanding of the nature of the Eucharistic cult.
In fact, assisting – in an active manner and not purely passive by civility– at the Mass of a priest (like at any other sacrament) amounts to professing the same faith of this priest and the authority he is under.
Christian antiquity had a clear awareness of this reality. Individualism had not yet penetrated the sanctuary and Christian piety. Every baptized person knew that assisting at Mass meant publicly manifesting his communion in the faith with the celebrant. Whatever the individual reasons, they knew that participation at Mass is always a public confession of adhesion to the faith of the celebrant who presides over the Sacrifice and therefore to the sacramental and liturgical confession of the Faith. That is why they refused to assist at the Mass of a heretical priest. It would have publicly signified their communion in the same faith.
Consequently, to say that assistance at a Mass does not entail of itself any adhesion to the doctrinal orientation of the minister or of his institute constitutes in itself a liturgical error and proof of an individualism foreign to Catholic faith and piety.
That is why the combat led by the Society for the Mass [translator’s note: and now led by the true Catholic Resistance], far from being finished, has taken henceforth a direction that is more doctrinal still, manifesting more the narrow link between the virtue of faith and the virtue of religion, between doctrine and liturgy, between the Lex Credendi and the Lex orandi.
Such is the course to follow in order to keep an authentic fidelity, complete, to the teaching of Jesus Christ and so as not to separate in our Christian life what must stay united: faith in Jesus Christ and the irremediable attachment to the inestimable treasure that He left us: His Sacrifice.”
laportelatine.org/district/prieure/stnicol/Chardonnet/Chardonnet262.pdf
|
|
|
SSPX's 2012 Doctrinal Declaration |
Posted by: Stone - 12-06-2020, 07:27 PM - Forum: The New-Conciliar SSPX
- Replies (6)
|
|
It has been nearly six years since Bishop Fellay signed and offered to Rome his Doctrinal Declaration. Since that time we have seen many changes in the SSPX: its [/url]re-branding, the SSPX in Argentina is formally recognized by the conciliar church, the SSPX asking the local diocesan priests to hear the marriage vows of SSPX parishioners, Fr. Paul Robinson preaching evolution with the full support of the SSPX, etc. to just name a few.
These do not include those events that are antecedent to the 2012 Doctrinal Declaration but which also speak to a shift away from the guiding principles of Archbishop Lefebvre, events such as the GREC meetings, the asking by Bishop Fellay of Pope Benedict XVI for the lifting of the excommunications in 2009 and the praise for the Motu Proprio of 2007.
But these antecedent events culminate in the Doctrinal Declaration. And by consequence, the fruits of the that Declaration are seen in the many errors and changes since that its signing in 2012. It is for these reasons that we are once again looking at that document. They say that hindsight is twenty-twenty. How much clearer things appear when in their proper context. The purpose of this thread is to serve as a reminder of WHY that Doctrinal Declaration has spewed so much error. And how the events that are unfolding and continue to unfold in the betrayal of the SSPX, the Chronology of its Suicide, are typified in this document:
Quote:Bishop Fellay's Doctrinal Preamble
Presented to Rome
15th April, 2012
Translated from the text on La Sapiniere.
I
We promise to be always faithful to the Catholic Church and to the Roman Pontiff, the Supreme Pastor, Vicar of Christ, Successor of Peter, and head of the body of bishops.
II
We declare that we accept the teachings of the Magisterium of the Church in the substance of Faith and Morals, adhering to each doctrinal affirmation in the required degree, according to the doctrine contained in No.25 of the dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council.(1)
III
1. We declare that we accept the doctrine regarding the Roman Pontiff and regarding the college of bishops, with the Pope as its head, which is taught by the dogmatic constitution Pastor Aeternus of Vatican I and by the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium of Vatican II, chapter 3 (de constitutione hierarchica Ecclesiae et in specie de episcopatu), explained and interpreted by the nota explicativa praevia in this same chapter.
2. We recognise the authority of the Magisterium to which alone is given the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, in written form or handed down (2) in fidelity to Tradition, recalling that "the Holy Ghost was not promised to the successors of Peter in order for them to make known, through revelation, a new doctrine, but so that with His assistance they may keep in a holy and expressly faithful manner the revelation transmitted by the Apostles, that is to say, the Faith."(3)
3. Tradition is the living transmission of revelation "usque as nos"(4) and the Church in its doctrine, in its life and in its liturgy perpetuates and transmits to all generations what this is and what She believes. Tradition progresses in the Church with the assistance of the Holy Ghost(5), not as a contrary novelty(6), but through a better understanding of the Deposit of the Faith(7).
4. The entire tradition of Catholic Faith must be the criterion and guide in understanding the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, which, in turn, enlightens - in other words deepens and subsequently makes explicit - certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church implicitly present within itself or not yet conceptually formulated(8).
5. The affirmations of the Second Vatican Council and of the later Pontifical Magisterium relating to the relationship between the Church and the non-Catholic Christian confessions, as well as the social duty of religion and the right to religious liberty, whose formulation is with difficulty reconcilable with prior doctrinal affirmations from the Magisterium, must be understood in the light of the whole, uninterrupted Tradition, in a manner coherent with the truths previously taught by the Magisterium of the Church, without accepting any interpretation of these affirmations whatsoever that would expose Catholic doctrine to opposition or rupture with Tradition and with this Magisterium.
6. That is why it is legitimate to promote through legitimate discussion the study and theological explanations of the expressions and formulations of Vatican II and of the Magisterium which followed it, in the case where they don't appear reconcilable with the previous Magisterium of the Church(9).
7. We declare that we recognise the validity of the sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments celebrated with the intention to do what the Church does according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Sacramentary Rituals legitimately promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John-Paul II.
8. In following the guidelines laid out above (III,5), as well as Canon 21 of the Code of Canon Law, we promise to respect the common discipline of the Church and the ecclesiastical laws, especially those which are contained in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by John-Paul II (1983) and in the Code of Canon Law of the Oriental Churches promulgated by the same pontiff (1990), without prejudice to the discipline of the Society of Saint Pius X, by a special law.
Notes--
(1) Cf. the new formula for the Profession of Faith and the Oath of Fidelity for assuming a charge exercised in the name of the Church, 1989; cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 749,750, §2; 752; CCEO canon 597; 598, 1 & 2; 599.
(2) Cf. Pius XII, Humani Generis encyclical.
(3) Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution, Pastor Aeternus, Dz. 3070.
(4) Council of Trent, Dz. 1501: “All saving truth and rules of conduct (Matt. 16:15) are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions, which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the Apostles themselves,[3] the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down to us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand.”
(5) Cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, 8 & 9, Denz. 4209-4210.
(6) Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, Dz. 3020: “Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding "Therefore […] let the understanding, the knowledge, and wisdom of individuals as of all, of one man as of the whole Church, grow and progress strongly with the passage of the ages and the centuries; but let it be solely in its own genus, namely in the same dogma, with the same sense and the same understanding.'' [Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium, 23, 3].”
(7) Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, Dz. 3011; Anti-modernist Oath, no. 4; Pius XII, Encyclical Letter Humani Generis, Dz 3886; Vatican Council II, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, 10, Dz. 4213.
(8) For example, like the teaching on the sacraments and the episcopacy in Lumen Gentium, no. 21.
(9) There is a parallel in history in the Decree for the Armenians of the Council of Florence, where the porrection of the instruments was indicated as the matter of the sacrament of Order. Nevertheless theologians legitimately discussed, even after this decree, the accuracy of such an assertion. Pope Pius XII finally resolved the issue in another way.
[url=http://redirect.viglink.com?key=71fe2139a887ad501313cd8cce3053c5&subId=6872759&u=http%3A//www.therecusant.com/doctrinalpreamble-15apr2012]www.therecusant.com/doctrinalpreamble-15apr2012
|
|
|
Doctrinal Evolution: Letter to Priest who left SSPX to join Conciliar Church |
Posted by: Stone - 12-06-2020, 02:31 PM - Forum: The New-Conciliar SSPX
- No Replies
|
|
Why such a Doctrinal Evolution of the Ecclesia Dei Communities?
[or, Why do traditional priests and bishops leave Tradition to join the Conciliar Church?]
Dominicans of Avrille| March 18, 2015
This text was written several years ago by a priest of the Society of Saint Pius X. It was addressed to those of his confreres who had left the SSPX in order to receive an official canonical status from the Conciliar Church [within the [i]Ecclesia Dei communities]. He was trying to find a reason that would explain their doctrinal evolution.[/i]
There is an important difference between the clear, consistent declarations made by Archbishop Lefebvre right from his early days on Liturgical Reform, Religious Liberty and Vatican II, and the position presently held by yourself.
To explain this situation, there are only three possible hypotheses:
1) either you never knew the real position of Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX, and you followed him not properly knowing why;
2) you understood his position but did not approve of it, and so you hypocritically gave the appearance of remaining with Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX; or
3) your doctrinal position evolved between the period “before”, and the period “after” the Episcopal consecrations.
1. The hypothesis that you may be ignorant seems to be psychologically impossible and even absurd. It is simply impossible for any of you not to have read even one work by Archbishop Lefebvre, not to have heard even one of his sermons, and not to have known his firm official position. Your ignorance in this matter must be categorically rejected.
2. The hypothesis of hypocrisy may well be possible. Nevertheless, it seems highly improbable given the number of persons involved and their moral character. Furthermore, the hypothesis of hypocrisy represents an insult so serious that I would accept it only after hearing an explicit declaration upholding this position by the individuals in question. That is why I reject this hypothesis as the explanation for your evolution.
3. Therefore, if you know Archbishop Lefebvre’s position on Liturgical Reform, Religious Liberty and Vatican II (we reject ignorance); if you are not a secret opponent and liar (we reject hypocrisy); then that only leaves the third hypothesis as the right one: your change of position can only be explained by a doctrinal evolution of your position.
But where does this doctrinal evolution come from?
Here, two hypotheses are possible: either the cause is of a purely intellectual order, or it is of a moral and psychological order.
A. The hypothesis that the evolution is purely intellectual seems to fall under the heading of miracles rather than factual history. One would have to imagine that there was a sudden change in thinking, an intellectual illumination, on the goodness of Liturgical Reform, on the truth contained in Dignitatis Humanae, or on the timeliness of Vatican II. A serious historian must reject such an unlikely hypothesis.
B. The only valid hypothesis is that of a moral and psychological order, in other words, one that originates from exterior circumstances. Only one conclusion is possible: it is your dealings with Rome and with diocesan bishops that have brought about this doctrinal evolution.
Indeed, all your Roman and diocesan contacts are in favour of the Liturgical Reform, of Dignitatis Humanae and of Vatican II. It is completely normal, obvious, and historically certain that once you negotiate with Rome and the bishops and once you demand certain concessions, you must then be silent, you must soften or altogether abandon your opposition to the Liturgical Reform, to Dignitatis Humanae and to the Council, or else you will find yourself in a position that will be psychologically unbearable. This is the one true cause of your doctrinal evolution: the moral weight of those with whom you dialogue and your own desire to achieve tangible results from these difficult negotiations where you are in a minority position. This situation forces you to make concessions, if only verbal concessions.
I do not claim that you are making these concessions out of cowardice. I simply claim that, once you have evolved beyond a certain point, you then start to think it possible and even necessary to temper your opposition in the hope of obtaining greater results. But, if I were to consider your present attitude objectively, I would be obliged to note that there has been a shift concerning points that have always been considered as vital in the combat for Tradition.
The conclusion is therefore extremely clear: in spite of your good intentions and your initial desire to remain faithful to Tradition, it was impossible for you to continue to firmly resist the Liturgical Reform, Religious Liberty and the Council, and at the same time to pursue negotiations with those who are firmly in favour of these three key points.
As things stand at present, negotiations and agreements with Rome and with diocesan bishops must necessarily end up, sooner or later, with the abandonment of the positions that were always held in Tradition and notably by Archbishop Lefebvre.
In other words, present-day Rome has but one goal: to lead all who negotiate with Rome towards the errors of the Council and Liturgical Reform. The truth is there for all to see: Rome is not in favour of Tradition. That is why they have not kept their promises. That is why Rome did not sincerely wish the negotiations to succeed.
* * *
The author of the above text has now “evolved” himself, as is shown in a statement in the December 2014 issue of a widely diffused publication:
« We wish with all our hearts for a speedy “reconciliation” that would benefit both groups and also the entire Church. The difficulties are objective and do not primarily depend on individuals, but we may always pray that Our Lord “gather His Church in unity”. That is what we fervently ask for every day. »
Conciliar Rome has not converted. The danger remains the same.
[Emphasis in the original.]
|
|
|
Second Sunday of Advent |
Posted by: Stone - 12-06-2020, 08:08 AM - Forum: Advent
- Replies (6)
|
|
SECOND SUNDAY IN ADVENT.
Taken from Fr. Leonard Goffine's Explanations of the Epistles and Gospels for the Sundays, Holydays throughout the Ecclesiastical Year, 1880
This day the Church not only makes mention in the office of the priest, but also in the Mass, of the two different Advents of Christ, that by His first gracious advent we may be gladdened . and by His last terrible coming at the day of judgment we may be impressed with salutary fear, with this intention she cries out at the Introit: People of Sion, behold the Lord shall come to save the nations; and the Lord shall make the glory of his voice to be heard in the joy of your heart. (Isai. XXX. 3o.) drive ear, O thou that rulest Israel: thou that leadest Joseph like a sheep. (Ps. LXXIX.) Glory etc.
PRAYER OF THE CHURCH. Stir up our hearts, O Lord, to prepare the ways of Thine only-begotten Son: that through this advent we may be worthy to serve Thee with purified minds: who Livest and reignest with God tin* Father, in union with the Holy Ghost. God for ever and ever. Amen.
EPISTLE. (Romans XV. 4 — 13.) Brethren, what things soever were written, were written for our learning, that through patience - and the comfort of the scriptures, we might have hope. Now the God of patience and of comfort grant you to be of one mind one towards another, according to Jesus Christ: that with one mind, and with one mouth, you may glorify God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Wherefore receive one another, as Christ also hath received you unto the honor of God. For I say that Christ Jesus was minister of the circumcision for the truth of God. to confirm the promises made unto the fathers. But that the Gentiles are to glorify God for his mercy, as it is written: Therefore will I confess to thee. O Lord, among the Gentiles, and will sing to thy name. And again he saith: Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with his people. And again: Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles, and magnify him, all ye people. And again, Isaias saith: There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise up to rule the Gentiles, in him the Gentiles shall hope. Now the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that you may abound in hope, and in the power of the Holy Ghost.
What does St. Paul teach in this Epistle?
The Jews and Gentiles who had been converted to the Christian faith were disputing among themselves at Rome, in regard to abstinence and the use of certain kinds of food, reproaching each other severely; the Jews boasted that the Saviour, according to promise, was born of their nation, thus claiming Him from the Gentiles, who, in their turn, reproached the Jews for their ingratitude in having crucified Him. To restore harmony St. Paul shows that each had reason, the Jews and Gentiles alike, to praise God, to whose grace and goodness they owed all; that each had in Him a Redeemer in whom they could hope for salvation; and he warns them not to deprive themselves of that hope by contentions. By these words the Apostle also teaches that we too, have great reason to praise God, and to thank Him for calling us, whose forefathers were heathens, to the Christian faith, and to guard against losing our salvation by pride, envy, impurity &c.
Why should we read the Scriptures?
That we may know what we are to believe, and do in order to be saved, as all Scripture inspired by God is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice; (Tim. III. 16.) that we may learn from what Christ has done for us, and the saints for Christ, to be patient in our sufferings, and to be consoled and encouraged by their example. To derive this benefit from the Scriptures, the Catholic must read them by the light of that Spirit through whose assistance they came into existence, who lives and remains for ever with the Church: that is, the light of the Holy Ghost must be sought, that their meaning may be read according to the sense of the Church and not be explained according to the reader's judgment. For he who reads the holy Scriptures by the light of his own private judgment, must, as experience shows, of necessity diverge from the right path, become entangled in manifold doubts, and at last, lose the faith entirely. For this reason the Catholic Church has very properly limited the reading of the Bible, not as has been falsely asserted, unconditionally forbidden it, but she allows the reading of those editions only, which are accompanied by notes and explanations, that the unity of faith may not be disturbed, and that among Catholics there may not be the terrible bewilderment of the human intellect which has taken place among the different heretical sects who have even declared murder, bigamy and impurity to be permissible on the authority the Bible. — We are to consider also, that Christ never commanded the Bible to be written or read, and that not the readers but the hearers and the followers of the word of God by which is meant those who hear the word of God in sermons, and keep it, will be saved.
Why is God called a God of patience, of consolation, and of hope?
He is called a God of patience because He awaits our repentance, of consolation, because He gives us grace be patient in crosses and afflictions, and so consoles us inwardly, that we become not faint-hearted; of hope, because He gives us the virtue of hope, and because He desires to be Himself the reward we are to expect after this life.
ASPIRATION. O God of patience, of consolation and of hope, fill our hearts with peace and joy, and grant that we may become perfect in all good, and by faith, hope and charity, attain the promised salvation.
GOSPEL. (Matt. XI 2 - 10.) At that time, when John had heard in prison the works of Christ, sending two of his disciples, he said to him: Art thou he that art to come, or do we look for another? And Jesus making answer, said to them: Go and relate to John what you have heard and seen. The blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead rise again, the poor have the gospel preached to them: and blessed is he that shall not be scandalized in me. And when they went their way. Jesus began to say to the multitudes concerning John, What went you out into the desert to see? a reed shaken with the wind? But what went you out to see? a man clothed in soft garments? Behold, they that are clothed in soft garments are in the houses of kings. But what went you out to see? a prophet? yea I tell you, and more than a prophet. For this is he of whom it is written, Behold, I send my Angel before thy face, who shall prepare thy way before thee.
Why was John in prison?
He was in prison, and lost his life, because he had rebuked king Herod for his adulterous marriage with his brother's wife. (Matt. XIV. 3-10.) Truth, as the proverb says, is certainly a very beautiful mother, but she usually bears a very ugly daughter: Hatred. St. John experienced, that speaking the truth very often arouses hatred and enmity against the speaker. — Let us learn from him to speak the truth always, when duty requires it, even if it brings upon us the greatest misfortunes, for, if with St. John we patiently bear persecution, with St. John we shall become martyrs for truth.
Why did St John send his disciples to Christ?
That they should learn from Christ, who had become illustrious by His teachings and miracles, that He was really the promised Messiah, the Saviour of the world, whom they should follow.
Why did Christ say to lite disciples of St. John: “Go and say to John, the blind see, the lame walk, &”?
That they should, by His miracles, judge Him to be the Messiah, because the prophets had predicted that He would work such miracles, (Isai. XXXV. 5—6.) Christ," says St. Cyril, proved that He was the Messiah by the grandeur as well as by the number of His miracles."
Why does Christ add: “And blessed is he who scandalized in me?”
Christ used these words in reference to those who would be scandalized by His poverty, humility and ignominious death on the cross, and who for these reasons would doubt and despise Him, and cast Him away; though "man," as St. Gregory says, -owes all tin- more love to the Lord, his God, the more humiliations He has borne for him."
What was our Lord's object in the questions he asked concerning St. John?
His object was, to remove from St. John all suspicion of failing in faith in Him; and to praise the perseverance with which, although imprisoned and threatened with death, he continued to till his office of preacher, thus constituting him an example to all preachers, confessors and superiors, that they may never be deterred by human respect, or fear of man, or other temporal considerations, from courageously fulfilling their duties. Our Lord commended also rigorous penance, exhibited by St. John's coarse garments and simple food, that we may learn, from his example, penance and mortification.
Why does Christ say that John is "more than a prophet?"
Because St. John was foretold by the prophet Malachias as was no other prophet; because of all the prophets he was the only one who with his own eyes saw Christ and could point Him out, and was the one to baptize Him: and because like an angel, a messenger of God, he announced the coming of the Saviour, and prepared the way for the Lord.
How did St. John prepare the way for the Saviour?
By his sermons on penance, and by his own penitential life he endeavored to move the hearts of the Jews, that by amending their lives, they might prepare to receive the grace of the Messiah, for God will not come with His grace into our hearts if we do not prepare His way by true repentance.
ASPIRATION. O Lord Jesus, by the praise Thou didst accord to Thy forerunner St. John, for his firmness and austerities, inflame our hearts with love to imitate his steadfastness and penance, that we may never do anything to please man which may be displeasing to Thee; grant us also Thy grace that we too, like St. John, may have those who are confided to our care, instructed in the Christian doctrine.
+++
CONSOLATION IN SUFFERING.
“The God of patience and of comfort, the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing”. (Rom. XV. 5, 13.)
What gives us the greatest consolation in adversities?
THE strong and fervent belief that each and every thing that happens to us, comes to us for our own good from God, and that whatever evil befalls us, is by the will or permission of God. Good things and evil, life and death, poverty and riches, are from God. (Ecclus. XI. 14.) If we have received good things at the hand of God, (Job. II. 10.) saith the pious Job in his affliction, “why should we not receive evil?"
We should be of the full persuasion that without the permission of God not a single hair of our head shall perish, (Luke XXI. 18.) much less can any other evil be done to us by man or devil; (Job. I.) we should have a steadfast confidence that if we ask Him. God can and will assist us in our sufferings, if it be for our salvation. Can a woman forget her infant, so as not to have pity on the son of her womb? And if she should forget, yet will I forget thee. Behold, I have graven thee in my hands; (Isai. XLIX. 15, 16.) we should hope for abundant reward in the future life, which we will merit by patience in our sufferings, For that which is at present momentary and light of our tribulation, worketh us above measure exceedingly an eternal weight of glory; (II Cor. IV. 17.) we should remember that all complaints and murmurs against the dispensation of God useless, and lead only to harm and shame; Who hath resisted Him. and hath had peace? (Job. IX. 4.) we should have a vivid remembrance of our sins, for which we have long since deserved the eternal punishments of hell, — hence the well known saying of St. Augustine: O Lord here cut, here burn, but spare me in eternity. No other way leads to the kingdom of heaven than the way of the cross, which Christ Himself, His sorrowing mother, and all the saints had to tread. Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and so to enter into His glory? (Luke XXIV. 26.) Through many tribulations we must enter into the kingdom of God. (Acts XIV. 21.) And we should not forget that sorrows and adversities are signs of God's love, and manifest proofs of being His chosen ones. Whom the Lord loveth He chastiseth, and He scourgeth every son whom He receiveth. (Heb. XII. 6. comp. 7-11)
PRAYER IN SORROW. O almighty, kind, and merciful God! who hast said: "Call upon me in the day of trouble. I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify me". (Ps. XLIX. 15.) behold relying upon Thy word. I take refuge in Thee in my trouble. Give honor to Thy name, therefore, and deliver me, if it be pleasing to Thee and beneficial for me, that all may know, Thou art our only help. Amen.
|
|
|
European Commission recommends online ‘services’ for Christmas |
Posted by: Stone - 12-06-2020, 07:59 AM - Forum: Pandemic 2020 [Spiritual]
- No Replies
|
|
European Commission recommends online ‘services,’ ‘banning of communal singing’ for Christmas
It should be said that the European Commission, in its inhuman regulations to take the joy and truth out of Christmas,
is exerting the power of an unelected executive body that is not famous for using its functions in favor of the common good.
December 5, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – The European Commission published a “communication” on December 2, calling all the member states of the European Union to work together on COVID-19 restrictions in view of the upcoming holiday season. Under the title “Staying safe from COVID-19 during winter,” it depicts a dire situation where – according to the document – “every 17 seconds, a person dies in the EU due to COVID-19.” Fear having thus been instilled, the communication suggests a number of measures to be taken all over the EU, including severe limitations on “ceremonies” and a ban on “communal singing.”
The word “Christmas” is drearily absent from the European Commission’s communication, but the mention of “ceremonies” unambiguously points to the feast of the Birth of Our Lord. Despite massive, mainly Islamic immigration, the majority of citizens living in the formerly Christian nations of Europe share at least a basic Catholic or Christian culture. “Ceremonies” during the “holiday season” – a euphemism used to avoid religious terms in the European Union that has formally rejected the mention of Europe’s Christian roots in its Charter – can hardly mean anything else than Holy Mass, and specially Midnight Mass, or the Protestant services that take place to celebrate Christmas.
This is how the unsigned document speaks about these religious gatherings: “In case of ceremonies, consider avoiding large services or using online, TV or radio broadcasts, allocating specific spots for close families (‘household bubbles’) to sit together, and banning of communal singing. The use of masks is particularly relevant during these types of gatherings.”
Yes, you read that correctly. For the whole of the European Union, even in places where a dramatic fall of “cases” – that is, positive tests, mostly on people who have few or no symptoms of the associated COVID-19 – of the Wuhan coronavirus is currently taking place, and hospitalizations and deaths are subsequently also diminishing, the European executive is suggesting that Catholic and other churches should ideally shut out the faithful from their celebrations and force them to join virtual “worship.” Which is, in fact, no worship at all; at most, an aid for private devotion when personal assistance at a service is impossible.
For Catholics, such interference from the secular authorities who presume to dictate how and when they should practice their faith is even more obnoxious. Holy Mass actualizes the Sacrifice of Jesus-Christ on the Cross, for the redemption of many, and allows them to assist at the Eucharistic miracle, by which Our Lord is truly present. Receiving Communion can only be done in person. In the Catholic faith, which is that of the Incarnation, the body cannot and should not be set in “remote” mode, and separated from reality by screens and internet, apart from serious reasons such as verified and actual contagiousness, as every responsible person is capable of working out independently. Body and soul belong together; they are one.
In a way, COVID restrictions are de-unifying the human person, once again tearing asunder what God made one.
And did not Christ say: “For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them”? This also marks the importance of personal, physical presence in Christian worship.
You also read correctly that a handful of technocrats in Brussels – the seat of the European Commission – has in substance told the whole of the European Union that “communal singing” is not good, and even dangerous and capable of sending people to their graves. The ban it suggests is not for people who are coughing and sneezing, but for all: it is heaping suspicion on one of the most joyful and natural expressions of public worship, that has been with us since the beginnings of Christianity and beyond, and in fact throughout the religious history of mankind.
Singing together bonds communities (and also armies, and revolutionaries, and sailors, and children, and mothers with their newborns, and monks, and nuns…): “To sing is to pray twice,” says the quote attributed to Saint Augustine, probably derived from these words from his Commentary on Psalm 73: “For he that singeth praise, not only praiseth, but only praiseth with gladness: he that singeth praise, not only singeth, but also loveth him of whom he singeth. In praise, there is the speaking forth of one confessing; in singing, the affection of one loving.”
And the European Commission is telling us not to sing? Putting a damper on what is left of European piety and faith and love of the traditional Christmas carols that are so varied and so touching?
It should be said that the European Commission, in its inhuman regulations to take the joy and truth out of Christmas, is exerting the power of an unelected executive body that is not famous for using its functions in favor of the common good. Fortunately, in this case, the binding force of a mere “communication” addressed to the European Parliament and the Council is inexistent. On the flip side, so many absurd and even dangerous rules have been imposed on the public in the EU in the name of fighting COVID-19, often copied from one country to the other, that its impact may well prove to be very real.
Further examination of the European Commission’s recommendations in view of “Staying safe from COVID-19 during winter” reveals their perfect alignment on a narrative that has been smoothly imposed in many European countries and beyond in the name of fear, to the detriment of the economy with millions at risk of losing their livelihood, and of health and psychological well-being as fear and lack of timely treatment for other illnesses are affecting an increasing proportion of the population.
“The latest epidemiological numbers indicate that the COVID-19 restrictions reintroduced since October are starting to reduce the transmission of the virus,” says the document. In France, at least, this is not true: contaminations and new cases of effective illness were already on a downward trend according to used water analyses when the second lockdown was implemented on October 28, and deaths followed suit, spiking ten days later.
Interestingly, the document notes “the buy-in of citizens and communities is critical to the success of any action.” COVID-19 measures are also the fruit of communications campaigns but need to take “pandemic fatigue” into account, says the Brussels Commission: “People are tired of taking the necessary precautionary actions, including physical distancing, reduced social interactions and economic restrictions. This makes essential restrictions more difficult to implement, and provides fertile ground for disinformation about the pandemic.”
It adds: “Pandemic fatigue is an expected and natural response to a prolonged public health crisis on the scale of COVID-19. It is therefore important for Member States to address and recognise this problem. The WHO Regional Office for Europe has developed guidance to support countries in developing multifactorial action plans to maintain and reinvigorate public support for protective behaviours.”
This World Health Organization document is a 28-page publication with advice for governments and health authorities how to go about obtaining acceptance and cooperation (although compliance would be a better word) with restrictions in the fight against a long drawn-out “pandemic.” Not unsurprisingly, the word “liberty” is absent from the documents and “freedom” appears only in the phrase: “An ingrown urge for self-determination and freedom may grow as restrictions continue for a long time, impose inconveniences in everyday life, or continuously change in ways people feel they have little control over.” This, together with “demotivation” that appears “when dire circumstances drag on,” and “humans have to adopt a different style of coping,” is what leads to “pandemic fatigue” according to the WHO. But the WHO is there to help governments overcome this fatigue. It’s an interesting read for those who seek to “decrypt” present government actions and communication.
Returning to the European Commission’s document, it is also helpful to realize that it has, in its own words, “used anonymized and aggregated mobile network operators’ data to derive mobility insights and build tools to inform better targeted measures, in a Mobility Visualisation Platform, available to the Member States. Mobility insights are also useful in monitoring the effectiveness of measures once imposed.”
This means that moving around with a smartphone amounts to offering political powers, even at EU level, a tool to track movements and gatherings that are going against confinement or curfew rules. After anonymous surveillance, can individual surveillance be far behind? China already has the know-how, with facial recognition combined with artificial intelligence. In France, a new security law is proposing to allow drone surveillance: another way to severely curb public liberties and personal freedoms.
For Christmas, the European Union would like to see the definition of “clear criteria for small social gatherings, small events, e.g. maximum number of people allowed to ensure compliance with physical distancing rules and use of masks,” and the implementation of “a maximum number of people per household gathering:” in France, the “strong recommendation” is that Christmas dinners should be limited to six adults (children are not counted). One doctor went on record on television saying it would be best to cut the Christmas cake in two and make Grandpa and Grandma eat in the kitchen.
The Brussels Commission also thinks that “if considered, any temporary loosening of rules on social gatherings and events should be accompanied by strict requirements for people to self-quarantine before and after for a number of days (preferably at least seven).”
Speaking of France, the government has not gone to this length but it will introduce a 9:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. curfew as of December 15 (excepting Christmas and New Year’s Eve) which the Commission devoutly favors.
As a conclusion, the document stresses that “All reporting Member States are actively looking into communication around COVID-19 vaccination, and many are preparing dedicated communication plans. The Commission will work closely with Member States to support their communication efforts towards citizens on COVID-19 vaccines so that citizens can make informed decisions.”
Informed by the Member States’ communication efforts, that is!
[Emphasis mine.]
|
|
|
Calls for 'immediate suspension' of Pfizer vaccine over fears of sterilization |
Posted by: Stone - 12-06-2020, 07:37 AM - Forum: COVID Vaccines
- No Replies
|
|
Dr. Wodarg and Dr. Yeadon request a stop of all corona vaccination studies and call for co-signing the petition
2020 News | December 1, 2020
On December 1, 2020, the ex-Pfizer head of respiratory research Dr. Michael Yeadon and the lung specialist and former head of the public health department Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg filed an application with the EMA, the European Medicine Agency responsible for EU-wide drug approval, for the immediate suspension of all SARS CoV 2 vaccine studies, in particular the BioNtech/Pfizer study on BNT162b (EudraCT number 2020-002641-42).
Dr. Wodarg and Dr. Yeadon demand that the studies – for the protection of the life and health of the volunteers – should not be continued until a study design is available that is suitable to address the significant safety concerns expressed by an increasing number of renowned scientists against the vaccine and the study design.
On the one hand, the petitioners demand that, due to the known lack of accuracy of the PCR test in a serious study, a so-called Sanger sequencing must be used. This is the only way to make reliable statements on the effectiveness of a vaccine against Covid-19. On the basis of the many different PCR tests of highly varying quality, neither the risk of disease nor a possible vaccine benefit can be determined with the necessary certainty, which is why testing the vaccine on humans is unethical per se.
Furthermore, they demand that it must be excluded, e.g. by means of animal experiments, that risks already known from previous studies, which partly originate from the nature of the corona viruses, can be realized. The concerns are directed in particular to the following points:- The formation of so-called “non-neutralizing antibodies” can lead to an exaggerated immune reaction, especially when the test person is confronted with the real, “wild” virus after vaccination. This so-called antibody-dependent amplification, ADE, has long been known from experiments with corona vaccines in cats, for example. In the course of these studies all cats that initially tolerated the vaccination well died after catching the wild virus.
- The vaccinations are expected to produce antibodies against spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2. However, spike proteins also contain syncytin-homologous proteins, which are essential for the formation of the placenta in mammals such as humans. It must be absolutely ruled out that a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 could trigger an immune reaction against syncytin-1, as otherwise infertility of indefinite duration could result in vaccinated women.
- The mRNA vaccines from BioNTech/Pfizer contain polyethylene glycol (PEG). 70% of people develop antibodies against this substance – this means that many people can develop allergic, potentially fatal reactions to the vaccination.
- The much too short duration of the study does not allow a realistic estimation of the late effects. As in the narcolepsy cases after the swine flu vaccination, millions of healthy people would be exposed to an unacceptable risk if an emergency approval were to be granted and the possibility of observing the late effects of the vaccination were to follow. Nevertheless, BioNTech/Pfizer apparently submitted an application for emergency approval on December 1, 2020.
CALL FOR HELP: Dr. Wodarg and Dr. Yeadon ask as many EU citizens as possible to co-sign their petition by sending the e-mail prepared here to the EMA.
Nachtrag: Wegen teilweiser Überlastung der Server hier der Inhalt der E-Mail und die Kontaktadressen zum späteren Selbst-Versenden:
An: press@ema.europa.eu; petitionEMA@corona-ausschuss.com
Betreff: Co-signing the petition of Dr. Wodarg, Germany, and Dr. Yeadon, UK (submitted on 1-Dec-2020)
Dear Sir or Madam, I am hereby co-signing the petition of Dr. Wodarg and Dr. Yeadon to support their urgent request to stay the Phase III clinical trial(s) of BNT162b (EudraCT Number 2020-002641-42) and other clinical trials. The full text of the petition of Dr. Wodarg and Dr. Yeadon can be found here: https://2020news.de/wp-content/uploads/2...hibits.pdf I hereby respectfully request that EMA act on the petition of Dr. Wodarg and Dr. Yeadon immediately. Regards
|
|
|
Archbishop Lefebvre: 1976 Excerpt - No Insults in Defense of the Truth |
Posted by: Stone - 12-06-2020, 07:28 AM - Forum: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
- No Replies
|
|
Archbishop Lefebvre:
Quote:"We should pray also for the faithful who maintain Tradition that they may always preserve a strong, firm attitude, but not an attitude of contempt for persons, insult to persons, insult to bishops. We have the advantage of possessing the truth - we are not at fault - just as the Church has the superiority over error of having the truth: that superiority is hers. Because we have the conviction that we are upholding the truth, that the truth must make headway, that truth must convince, it is not our person. It is not outbursts of anger, or insults to people, which will give added weight to truth. On the contrary, that could cast doubt upon our possession of the truth. Becoming angry and insulting shows that we do not completely trust in the weight of truth, which is the weight of God Himself. It is in God that we trust, in Truth which is God, which is Our Lord Jesus Christ. What can be surer than that? Nothing. And little by little that truth makes, and will make, its way. It must. So let us resolve that in our expressions and attitudes we shall not despise and insult people, but be firm against error- absolute firm, without compromise, without relaxation, because we are with Our Lord. It is a question of Our Lord Jesus Christ. The honor of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the glory of the Blessed Trinity is at stake, not the infinite glory in heaven, but the glory here below on earth. It is truth; and we defend it at any cost, whatever happens ." (Archbishop Lefebvre, "A Talk to the Seminarians at Econe," September, 18, 1976, A Bishop Speaks)
|
|
|
Archbishop Lefebvre: 1974 Conference on the Crisis of the Church and the Priesthood |
Posted by: Stone - 12-06-2020, 07:25 AM - Forum: Sermons and Conferences
- Replies (1)
|
|
CRISIS OF THE CHURCH AND THE PRIESTHOOD
Tourcoing, France
January 30, 1974
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I must thank my brother Michael for introducing me, and I also thank all those who, like him, have generously given their time to getting the lecture room ready and sending out the invitations to which you have responded in such numbers. Thank you. I should like also to thank his Worship the Mayor of Tourcoing, who has graciously come to this lecture, and to express all the joy it gives me to be once more among my fellow-citizens, or, shall I say, fellow members of the department since some come from beyond the boundaries of the township, and I have given many lectures both in France and abroad on the subject of which I shall treat this evening.
First of all, however, I should like to speak of my relations with the various traditionalist movements. It is a question which I believe I should clarify straight away, since I have not come here at the request of any group. The fact that it was my brother who introduced me is sufficient proof of that. I can but encourage those who are working in defense of the Faith, for the preservation of the Catholic Faith. That is why, in fact, I encourage such movements. Nevertheless, I do not want to be linked with any particular group. I am anxious to remain wholly independent.
There has, for example, been an attempt to persuade me to say that it was I who took the initiative in the purchase of the minor seminary at Flavigny. That is not true. I had no responsibility for the purchase of the minor seminary at Flavigny. It was Fr. Coache who took the initiative. He asked me whether he had my backing. I told him that there was indeed a lack of junior seminaries in France today and that I could not but rejoice if there were a good one.
Before coming to the heart of the matter I should also like to make it clear to you that the judgments I shall pass on the documents before me and other documents do not imply that I am passing judgment on their authors. The judgment of persons I would rather leave to God. It seems to me, however, that faced with the documents given us, even those coming from Rome, important documents touching our faith, we cannot remain indifferent. We are bound to judge in accordance with tradition, in accordance with the faith of the Church, in accordance with the magisterium of the Church, whether a particular document is in true conformity with the orthodoxy always taught us by the Church. But it is not my wish to pass judgment on persons.
The Holy Office, when judging a document, does so on the basis of the meaning of the words and expressions used in the document. Cardinal Ottaviani, while still Prefect or at least Secretary of the Holy Office, was reproached with failing to summon to Rome the writers whose books were being judged. He replied: “There is no need to know the author of a work to say whether the views held in the work are good or bad.” A pharmacist need not know the source of a poison to decide whether a particular ingredient is harmful. I should like to adopt the point of View of the Holy Office in judging the documents on their content.
Lastly, I want to say that I have not come to take up a collection for the seminary. Obviously, I should gladly accept whatever you choose to give me, but Providence supplies all my financial needs to a truly amazing extent. I give special thanks to St. Joseph, who is our provider. I have not even come seeking recruits for the seminary, vocations as seminarians, vocations as lay Brothers, for we have Brothers also in our Society. We now have nuns as well, and postulants are beginning to come forward. If God sends them, Deo gratias. But it is not for that that I have come. I can say in all sincerity that if I agree to give lectures, it is to defend, guard, and rekindle our faith. I believe that we are living at a time when our faith is everywhere attacked and is in real danger. Our faith, we must admit, is in danger from within the Church. Nowadays we are sent publications and instructions no longer in conformity with orthodoxy, which do not correspond to the Catholic Faith. We have always been taught the Faith taught by all the councils. We cannot remain indifferent to this tragic situation. I should like to take a specific example of the situation, the one which seems to me most dramatic, the one which touches the depths of our heart and of our Christian and Catholic Faith, that of the priesthood. If the Church is affected, if the Church is in danger, the priesthood is the first to suffer the consequences. Nothing can touch the Church without immediately reaching him who is at the heart of the Church-the priest. It is for that reason that I should like to begin by speaking of this crisis in the Church and its nature.
St. Paul said to Timothy in his first Epistle: “Depositum custodi-keep that which is committed to thy trust” (6:20-21). Even at that time what was that trust if not the truths which St. Paul had been able to impart to Timothy. Guard these truths, treasure them. “Devita profanas vocum novitates-Take heed of new words,” or simply “Vocum novitates.” Take heed not only of new ideas, but even of new words. Beware of whatever savors of false knowledge; beware of false doctrine, for those who speak thus lose the faith. “Circa fidem exciderunt.” They err in matters of faith. Hence we too must be wary in all that we receive, in all that is put into our hands today.
Let us then speak of this crisis in the priesthood-the fact of crisis. I think you know as much about it as I; I do not need to go into details. We could give statistics, we could cite facts, but these facts, unfortunately be it said, have been shown on television. For the past ten years the priest has been much talked about, and in many ways. Unquestionably, there are ill-informed ways of speaking of the priest. But unfortunately, we must admit the grievous fact that there are priests who are leaving the priesthood and giving up their sacerdotal duties. Some are doing so with the permission of the authorities, some without; for some the circumstances have been truly painful; others appear to have lost the faith in what they can profess. Some, the majority as I believe, are priests who are suffering from the crisis in the Church, since the priest, specifically the man of God, the man of the Church, cannot but suffer when he sees his Mother attacked as she is and going through a crisis that has rarely been as grave as that which we are experiencing today.
We should do well then to define more clearly and distinctly the essence of this crisis in the priesthood. It seems to me that the priest is being deprived of his Mother-the Church. There is, at least, a tendency to distort the nature of his Mother the Church, to take away or distort what he holds most dear, the sacrifice of the Mass and its liturgy. Lastly, his catechism is taken away. Tell me what is left to the priest if his Mother the Church is taken away, if his sacrifice of the Mass is taken away, if his catechism is taken away. What is left for the priest?
What was the priest’s ideal, what was the seminarian contemplating on entering the seminary, at least in our day? To serve the Church, to serve his Mother Church. Why? Because he believed the Church to be the sole way of salvation, the only way by which souls might be saved. Then it was worth while to consecrate his life to the Church for the sake of saving souls. But if one no longer has faith in that Church, if one believes that all religions save souls, in that case what is the good of serving the Church? Leave souls to their religion, leave to each his conscience. The sacrifice of one’s self is not worth while if all religions alike ensure the salvation of souls.
The nature of the Church is being distorted. The Church is no longer presented as a society necessary for salvation, as the way necessary for salvation. She is presented as a useful means of salvation-a very different thing. It involves changing the very definition of the Church, and that is an extremely serious matter, for it cuts at the root of the whole missionary spirit of the Church.
Why have missionaries crossed oceans, why have they exposed themselves to the fatal maladies of the tropics, if not to save souls, if their presence is not needful for the salvation of souls, but merely useful to social progress and development, to social justice and material progress? It was not for that that the priest became a priest, not for that that the missionary crosses oceans. It was to convert
souls, for he was convinced that many souls are lost if they do not know our Lord Jesus Christ.
Moreover, it is not true that one can be saved through other religions. I say advisedly through other religions, not within other religions. It is untrue that one can save one’s soul through other religions; one can save one’s soul only through the Catholic Church, through our Lord Jesus Christ. No other name under heaven has been given us for our salvation. That is what St. Peter told us: “There is no other name under heaven than that of our Lord Jesus Christ.” It follows that there is no means other than His Church, which is His mystic Bride to whom our Lord has given all His graces. No grace in this world, no grace in the history of humanity, will be bestowed unless it be through the Church and through the Blessed Virgin Mary. Then souls cannot be saved within other religions? Yes, they may be saved. How are they saved? They are saved by the baptism of desire though unexpressed.
As you know, there are three kinds of baptism: baptism of water, baptism of fire, baptism of desire. Baptism of desire may be explicit as in the case of the catechumens whom we had in Africa and of others still there-people, adults who ask to be baptized and so have the explicit desire for baptism, and who may be saved even before receiving the baptism of water.
Sometimes in Africa we had fine catechumens who would say to us: “But Father, I have never been baptized. If I die now, I shall go to hell.” We used to reply: “No, if you are well disposed in your heart, good; if you love God and seek to do His will, if you desire baptism, you already have the grace.” Clearly, that grace will be fuller and more abundant on the day they receive baptism unless there is some obstacle such as a mortal sin to which they continue to cling.
Thus there exists the baptism of explicit desire for the catechumens, and the baptism of implicit desire, which lies in the act of doing God’s will. Those souls, whether Protestant, Buddhist, or Moslem, who have implicitly this sincere desire to do the will of God may have the desire for baptism and so receive supernatural grace, the grace of eternal life, but this comes through the Church. Hence, through this implicit desire, baptism unites them with the soul of the Church, and it is through the Church, never through their religion, that they can save their souls.
False religions are contrary to the Holy Ghost, they cannot be the channel of the Holy Ghost. Read what the Church states in her official documents: here is a document taken from the little book probably well known to many of you-Father Dumeige’s La Foi Catholique. This is what this document prepared for Vatican Council I has to say:
Quote:The Church is a society wholly necessary for obtaining salvation. By that all may understand that Christ’s Church is the necessary society for obtaining salvation. Its necessity is as vital as that of sharing, and being united with Christ and His Mystical Body. It is wholly necessary, not only by virtue of our Lord’s precept, but as a necessary means, since, in the order of salvation designed by Providence, the communication of the Holy Spirit, the participation in truth and in life cannot be attained save in the Church and through the Church, whose head is Christ. That is the doctrine of the Church.
“Moreover it is a dogma of faith that none may be saved outside the Church.” One either has the faith or one has not. It was not I who invented the fact; these are not my personal ideas, this is the teaching of the Church. Now, however, in all the documents given us we gather the impression that one may save one’s soul in all religions, that all religions lead to the salvation of humanity, that we are all traveling together on the road to salvation. These notions are wholly untrue, and they are destroying yet again the missionary spirit of the Church. It is hardly surprising that there are no more missionary vocations.
In the same way as the Church is being distorted and that the priest no longer knows just why he has been ordained, so the definition of his faith has been distorted. This is a matter which may be difficult to understand, but is yet of capital importance in holy Church. A definition of faith exists, it is unalterable. Now there is an attempt at changing even the definition of faith.
Faith is the acceptance by the intelligence of the truth revealed by the Word of God, by reason of the authority of God who reveals it. We believe a truth coming to us from outside, from the Word of God, a truth which must be believed because of the authority of God who reveals. That is the definition of faith. What is being done to faith now? It has become an inner feeling. That is the modernist definition of faith condemned by Pope St. Pius X.
Faith is not a personal feeling, it is not something purely subjective, adhesion of the soul to God each on his own account, each following his individual conscience-that is not faith. It is precisely this conception which altogether destroys all the authority of God, all the authority of the Church. Since, however, faith comes to us from without, we must submit to it; all are bound to submit to it. “He who believes shall be saved, but he who does not believe shall be condemned” (Mk. 16:16). It was our Lord who said that. The Faith is altogether imposed, it is imposed on us from without, it is not a purely personal feeling, an affection for God, a sentiment for the deity.
Now, that is just what the modernists thought, and what unhappily many are thinking today, who are beginning to transform the concept of faith. It provided some explanation of the idea that all religions save, because each has a faith according to his individual conscience, and all faiths save. Consciences vary, one believes after this manner, another after another. It matters little, provided the conscience is directed towards God and is united with God. It is utterly untrue. Look, that is exactly what the anti-modernist oath, which was taken by all the older priests here this evening, tells us. Moreover, we read it during the Council:
Quote:I hold with certainty and sincerely confess that faith is not a blind sentiment of religion welling up from the depths of the subconscious under the impulse of the heart and the motion of a will trained to morality; but faith is a genuine assent of the intellect to truth received by hearing from an external source. By this assent, because of the authority of the supremely truthful God, we believe to be true that which has been revealed and attested to by a personal God, our Creator and Lord. [/url][url=http://redirect.viglink.com?key=71fe2139a887ad501313cd8cce3053c5&subId=6872759&u=http%3A//www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10moath.htm]www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10moath.htm
That is the meaning of faith, and it is wholly different. It would be well to reiterate these things. We are forgetting them.
Unfortunately, I must present you with a document published in recent weeks by the official Catechetics Commission of the French episcopacy from its headquarters in the office of the Archbishopric of Paris. This is what those persons have to say on the subject of faith. Believe me, I am not making it up, merely reading it aloud.
First, on the subject of truth: “Truth is not something received ready-made, but something in the making.” Truth, then, is something in the making like something in the process of creation. Man does not receive the truth, he builds it up. Look at the complete difference in outlook. To receive the truth of God, of the Word of God, of the Church, of the magisterium of the Church is one thing-something which has always been stated. We received our catechism and studied it as something coming to us from God. We believe in it because it is the authority of God which reveals it. But truth is not self-creating, it does not create itself from the subconscious, from ourselves; it is not we who create truth. This is terrible. Is it not? Such questions are serious, very serious.
From all this there follow consequences very important to our faith, for example: “For we shall then perceive that it is something very different from an intellectual adhesion or belief in the things believed, but rather an actual and active life of relations between God and Man.” It is no longer faith; it is Modernist faith. I infinitely regret that these should be documents issuing from official commissions of the episcopate. I deplore it. You have heard what I have just read you about the Faith which has always been taught us, and this is what is said in these documents! It is deeply regrettable! Either we believe or we do not believe. We either believe in the authority of God, or we do not.
It is the same for the dogma of our salvation. This is the entry on salvation: “Salvation-two catechetical schemata.” Salvation-Redemption, that is the traditional salvation, and here is the traditional entry: “We have lost the grace of God, but Christ has redeemed us by His cross and has entrusted to His Church the means of salvation.” Good-that is indeed what we have always been taught, that it is the Church which saves us.
“Let us hope that other men may be saved likewise.” Let us hope and pray, and one might have added “and let us pray that, in order that other men too may find salvation, there may be vocations to set out to save them,” whence comes the missionary spirit of the Church.
There follows a new schema contrary to the former which speaks of Salvation-Covenant. “The future of humanity.” Of humanity? We are already somewhat bewildered. What exactly does that mean? “The future of humanity is union with God, sealed by Jesus on Easter day; while we still knew not God, the community of believers answers for it in History.” This is what the author of the schema has to say:
Quote:These two schemata seek to embrace the general outlines of two concepts of salvation. They are deliberately summary so that they may not be regarded as creeds embodying all the essentials. Let us say once again-only schemata are in question, and the catechist may be assured of the suitability for our times of a presentation of salvation akin to that of the second schema; all the same he should beware of despising those who recognize themselves in the first schema.
It is a very serious matter. We are given a schema on salvation which is no longer that taught by the Church for two thousand years.
Vague terms: “the future of humanity,” “union with God”- what do these mean? We have been told of truth which is self-creating, which grows within us. Once again we find all the modernist errors condemned by Pope St. Pius X. I am sorry to be obliged to record the fact, but record it we must. We must not be afraid to affirm it, because little by little we shall become Protestants and modernists. Without a shadow of doubt we shall be slowly but surely poisoned. Ultimately, we shall come to find ourselves, as the majority of the faithful and the bishops found themselves to be Arians in the time of Arianism-without being aware of it, we shall find ourselves Protestants and modernists.
The priest’s greatest sorrow is the distortion of his Church. The second wound he suffers is that fundamentally he is deprived of his very raison d’étre. What, in all religions, is the real raison d’étre of the priest? Priest and sacrifice-the two ideas are absolutely essential and inseparably linked. There is no sacrifice without a priest, there is no priest without a sacrifice. The idea of the priest is meaningless apart from sacrifice-the idea of sacrifice cannot be understood apart from the priest. This is true of all religions, but most especially of our holy religion.
It was God himself who was concerned to give us this sacrifice, to put it into our hands and institute a special sacrament which confers a character on the priest, a character which associates him with and gives him a share in the priesthood of our Lord to offer the sacrifice. The unique sacrifice of the cross is still made on our altars. It is the same Priest and the same Victim who offers Himself on our altars. Our Lord is the true Priest; we ourselves are but priest-instruments who have received this character. We are but instruments of the one Priest who is our Lord to offer the one Victim who is also our Lord, present on the altar.
You can see the importance of preserving these fundamental ideas. What does the seminarian regard as the most beautiful of all things: the call to mount the steps to the altar. Throughout our time in the seminary we lived for that-to go from minor orders to become subdeacons, then deacons. Soon I shall ascend the steps of the altar, I shall offer the Body and Blood of Our Lord. By pronouncing the words of consecration I can bring God down upon the altar as, by Her Fiat, the Virgin Mary brought down Her Son into her womb. I shall have the same power as the Most Holy Virgin Mary when She uttered Her Fiat.
When we ourselves speak the words of consecration, Jesus comes down from heaven under the species of bread and wine. It is a miraculous, unbelievable honor for such poor creatures as we. Then it is worth while to be a priest to go up to the altar, to offer the Divine Sacrifice, to continue the sacrifice of the cross. That is the liturgy. That is the Mass. To give Holy Communion-what can a priest do better than give Holy Communion? There is nothing better he can do than give our Lord Jesus Christ, present in the Eucharist. Therein lies the very reason for his celibacy. We need seek no further.
It is often said that a priest’s celibacy is for the furtherance of his ministry. The priest is overburdened by the cares of his ministry. Night and day he must hold himself at the disposal of the faithful. Therefore he should be a celibate and a virgin. But it is not only that. If that were all, the doctors here could say the same. They too are called out night and day. They too work all day long if they would fain devote themselves to their patients. Probably they have even less time than the priest. The same is doubtless true of many other people here who come from different walks of life. There is something else: it is the greatness of his priesthood. It is his intimate nearness to God. It comes essentially through the power conferred on him to speak the words of consecration and bring our Lord down upon the altar.
That is the inmost reason for the priest’s virginity. Just as it is meet and right that the Virgin should have been a virgin because she was so closely linked with the mystery of the Trinity and the mystery of the Incarnation, it was fitting that she should be a virgin. Well! The same is true of the priest who is so closely bound to God, so near to God, so near to our Lord Jesus Christ that it is fitting that he too should give his whole life and all his activity for God.
If the priesthood is thus defined, the true value of the priestly vocation is understandable. On the other hand, if the sacrifice of the Mass is being slowly but surely distorted to make it no more than a meal, just a meal in memory of the Last Supper, it is no longer worthwhile to be a priest. It is not worthwhile because the president of an assembly can preside at a memorial meal. Indeed, we need do no more than delegate one of us to be responsible for this memorial. There is no more need of the sacerdotal character since there is no more sacrifice. In that case the Real Presence is no longer necessary either. Why is the Real Presence of our Lord necessary? Precisely because the victim must be offered. If there is to be a sacrifice, the victim must necessarily be present. But if there is no longer a sacrifice, there is no more need of a victim. If there is no longer a victim, there is no longer need of the Real Presence of our Lord; a spiritual presence is amply sufficient. If the sacrifice is changed into a meal, we have adopted Protestant thinking in its entirety.
So much must be admitted-the facts are there yet again. I am not inventing anything; I will give you a few examples. Here, for example, is the little booklet on Masses for small or special groups issued by the Conference of Swiss Bishops and the Swiss Commission on the Liturgy. This is how it speaks of the Mass:
Quote:The Lord’s Supper brings about, above all, communion with Christ. It is the same communion as that effected by Jesus during His earthly life when He sat down to table with sinners, a communion continued since the day of the Resurrection in the eucharistic meal. The Lord invites His friends to gather together and He will be among them.
No! That is not the Mass. That meal to which our Lord invites us, promising to be in our midst as in that far-off meal in Palestine, is not the Mass. No, we are sharing in His Body and His Blood present on the holy altar and we are offering them. Our Lord offers Himself to God as a Victim for the salvation of souls and it is thus that the Redemption continues, that the expiation for our sins continues. For, if there is no longer a sacrifice, if blood is no longer shed, there is no more remission of sins. A simple memorial does not suffice for the remission of sins.
Here are other examples in plenty. Take, for example, the Strasbourg Evening School of Theology: “We must realize today that we are faced with a real cultural mutation. A particular manner of celebrating the memorial of the Lord was bound up with a religious universe which is no longer ours.” In the light of this, it is obvious that the definition of the Mass has entirely changed. This idea of change, that today we are utterly different, that we no longer have a single idea resembling those of our forebears, is surely an absurdity. Are we really men wholly different from those born a century ago? We are surfeited with having the idea dinned into us with intent to change our faith. If all things change, if the world changes, if humanity changes, if conditions change as claimed here: “The memorial to our Lord has been bound up with a religious universe which is no longer ours”-it is quickly said, and everything disappears: “a religious universe which is no longer ours.” So we must begin from zero.
Begin, and we come to what the Dean of the Faculty of Theology at Strasbourg says concerning our Lord’s Real Presence:
Quote:In the same way we speak of the presence of an orator or of an actor, thereby implying a quality other than a simple topographical “being there.” To sum up, someone may be present by virtue of a symbolic action which he does not perform physically, but which others accomplish by faithful interpretation of his most deep-seated intention. For example, the Bayreuth Festival doubtless realizes a presence of Richard Wagner superior in intensity to what is shown in works or occasional concerts dedicated to the musician. It is in such a perspective, I believe, that we should regard the eucharistic presence of Christ.
An author’s play is staged and the writer’s presence likened to the presence of our Lord in the Eucharist. Well! A Dean of the Faculty of Theology in the University of Strasbourg! How can you expect seminarians listening to that sort of stuff to keep the faith-I did not invent this; I am inventing nothing.
Here is another document from the Centre Jean-Bart, official center of the Archbishopric of Paris; there are incredible statements, for instance Christ’s Eucharist Today (no out-of-date publication, it is dated March 17, 1973): “Is not the Mass our Lord’s Supper, an invitation to communion?” There is no more mention of sacrifice.Then: “At the heart of the Mass lies a story”-There is a story. The same thing is stated in the Swiss Bishops’ little booklet. “There lies a story.” No, it is not a story. The Canon is not a story. Look at old missals. Above the “Communicantes” you will see “Infra actionem.”
Out of curiosity, look at your missals. ‘Infra actionem-during the action.” What does that mean? It means that the priest performs an act, a sacrificial act. Transubstantiation is an act, the sacrifice is an act, not merely a narration. That is why the priest bends forward and prepares himself for that wonderful action which finds its consummation at the moment when our Lord will be present on the holy altar. It is at that moment that our Lord offers Himself to His Father and expiates our sins. It is an act, not a narration. Now, “at the heart of the Mass there is a story.” No, it is not a story.
What we are celebrating then is a memorial of our redemption. Memorial, a word which it is essential to understand. It is not a question of commemorating a past event, as though meeting simply in remembrance. Neither is it a question of the renewal of that event. Christ died and rose again once and forever-that can never happen again. “Can never happen again”? Is not our Lord able to perform a miracle and repeat for us His sacrifice on Calvary? They would seem to say that it is impossible. The sacrifice on Calvary took place once and forever. That is utterly false, the sacrifice of Calvary is really there, bloodlessly renewed on the altar. That is the only way in which it differs from the sacrifice on Calvary. In the one, our Lord offered Himself in a bloody manner, in the other He offers Himself in an unbloody manner on our altars. But His Blood is present, His Body is present. If one no longer believes that, one no longer believes in anything in Holy Church. For it is all there, all Christian spirituality is contained in the sacrifice of the Mass.
We must never forget that. Perhaps there has been too much talk of the Eucharist, Communion, and not enough of the sacrifice of the Mass. I believe we should go back to the fundamental ideas, to that fundamental idea which has been that of the whole tradition of the Church, the sacrifice of the Mass, which is the heart of the Church. Communion is but the fruit, the fruit of the sacrifice; the communion of the faithful, communion with the Victim who offers Himself and is offered. We must go back to these essential principles.
Firstly, if we abandon those essential principles there is no longer any reason for the priesthood. For the priest, if he no longer has his sacrifice to offer, has no more reason for existence. There is no reason for being a religious. Why? What is a religious? A religious is a person who offers his whole life and all he does in union with the Victim who offers Himself on the altar. The best proof is that whenever one makes his solemn profession, whenever there is a profession, or a renewal of profession, it is always at the altar. It is always in union with the holy Victim, and it is that which is the joy and consolation of both monks and nuns, the knowledge that publicly and officially, within the Church and received by the Church, they have offered themselves completely and for all their lives with the Victim who offers Himself on the altar. If there is no longer a Victim offering Himself on the altar, there is no longer any reason for being a monk or a nun.
For you, too, faithful Christians, it is the meaning of your Christian life. What is the meaning of your life? What is the meaning of your baptism? It is the offering of your selves, the offering of your whole lives, wholly, with our Lord Jesus Christ as the Victim on the altar. That is the consolation of your lives. It is that which has power to sustain you in your trials. Go into the hospitals and talk with the dying, with those preparing to meet death. Unless you speak to them of the sacrifice of our Lord, unless you unite their sacrifice with that of our Lord, you may talk of what you please, they will not understand. But speak to them rather of our Lord offering Himself on the cross, on the altars. Say to them: “Unite your suffering and your pain with those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and at the same time you will save your soul and those of others.” Then the sick will understand that suffering is worthwhile.
Among those who have been in prison and in concentration camps, how many have returned to the faith when they thought they were suffering and were offering themselves with the Victim who offers Himself on the altar. You see, if that is not so, if there is no cross in our lives, if there is no longer the sacrifice of the cross and the sacrifice of the altar, there is nothing left in our Christian lives, it is finished. That is of the utmost importance: in some way all Christian spirituality hangs upon the sacrifice of the altar. We have no right, then, to say that Holy Mass is only a meal.
Well, we must look things in the face. Our altar of sacrifice, a stone altar, a massive altar on which to offer the sacrifice, has been transformed into a table, a mere dining table. In many cases, the relics of martyrs preserved within the altar stones have been removed. At least there was an altar stone which actually represented the stone of sacrifice since the sacrifice is offered on an altar of stone. And why the relics of martyrs? Because they offered their blood for our Lord Jesus Christ. Is not this communion of the Blood of our Lord with the blood of the martyrs an admirable evocation encouraging us to offer our lives with our Lord’s as did the martyrs? But now the relics of the martyrs are removed.
If the Mass is a meal, it is easy to understand the priests turning towards the faithful. One does not turn one’s back on one’s guests at a meal. If, however, it is a sacrifice, the sacrifice is offered to God, not to the faithful. Hence it is understandable that the priest should be at the head of the faithful and turn towards God, towards the crucifix; he is offering the sacrifice to God. When, for their instruction, he must speak to the people, it is natural that he should turn to the faithful. So soon, however, as he speaks to God, it is he who acts, from the moment of the Offertory it is he who, with his priestly character, goes into action-it is not the faithful.
There too there is a confused notion. The priesthood of the faithful is being confused with that of the priest. The priesthood of the priest is essentially different from that of the faithful. That was stated by the cardinals in their commentaries on the Dutch Catechism. They required the Dutch Catechism to go back to that notion: the ministerial priesthood. There are ten points on which they asked the makers of the Dutch Catechism to alter the text. Nothing at all has been changed. The Committee of Cardinals’statement on the new catechism was printed at the back of the edition, but it very soon disappeared. Now the Dutch Catechisms have been translated into all languages and there is no sign of the emendations made and required by the cardinals, emendations on capital points, points fundamental to our faith.
“Beware of diminishing the greatness of the ministerial priesthood which, by its sharing in the priesthood of Christ, differs from the general priesthood of the faithful not only in degree but in essentials.” That is what the cardinals say. Now, it must not be forgotten that most catechisms have been compiled under the influence of the Dutch Catechism, the new catechism.
There are many more serious matters that we have no right to minimize. If there is a tendency to regard the sacrifice of the Mass as a meal, it is natural to take Communion in the hand. If it is a meal, it is a morsel of bread which is distributed, a memento, a memorial. But when we know that our Lord is present! When we know who our Lord is! We cannot indeed know, we have no means of telling! Reflect that all the angels of heaven bow before our Lord, that at the very name of Jesus every knee is bent whether in heaven, on earth, or in hell. Yet we, we are afraid to kneel in the presence of Him whose name, if it be but spoken on the Day of Judgment, will bring to their knees all humanity, all the souls in heaven, all the angels, and all those in hell. We should think of these things.
Lastly, a final wound is inflicted on the priest. His catechism is taken from him. As I have just spoken of this I will not stress the matter. But the catechism has been transformed, and it has been done under the inspiration of the Dutch Catechism. Not long ago I read in an investigation carried out by the Péleren (Pilgrim) a questionnaire addressed to mothers of families. They were asked what they thought of the new catechism, of the new methods, and of the new teaching given to their children. Well, I believe I am not mistaken in saying that for every nine or ten replies sent in, only two were at all favorable to the new method and the new catechism. All the other replies from mothers were unfavorable. “We find,” they said, “that our children no longer know anything. They no longer know even their prayers, they do not know how to make their confession, they remember nothing.” That is the considered opinion given to the Péleren by mothers of families. It is a serious matter.
Now such complaints are reaching us daily. It was once my intention to give my seminarians a year of spiritual training before entering the seminary, a full year of spiritual preparation as it might have been conceived in the past, that is asceticism and mysticism. We would speak to them of the Virtues, of the gifts of the spirit, of the beatitudes, and kindred subjects such as the presence in them of the Holy Spirit and supernatural grace. We discovered, however, that they no longer have any knowledge of fundamental concepts.
We finally decided that it would be essential to give these young men, who have come here with intent to become priests and the longing to become true priests, a straightforward course on the catechism during their year of spiritual preparation. We had to do a revision of everything. All our ideas have had to be reconsidered. It is unthinkably, inconceivably serious. Do we realize or not that our faith is eternal life?
During the rite of baptism, when the priest baptizes, he asks the godfather: “What does faith bring you? Faith brings you eternal life.” Has eternal life meaning for us? Or does it mean nothing? If faith truly brings us eternal life we have no right to lessen the meaning of our faith with a “Well, well” or “We are told we should do that. We have been told that we must think on these lines. What would you have me do-I do not understand the matter.” You have no right to speak in that way. You were brought up in the faith. One has no right to change the faith. St. Paul himself said, that if an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached do not hearken. That is what St. Paul said to the faithful. Let me say yet again that I am not defending my personal ideas but the whole tradition of the Church. We have no right to minimize our catechism. We must return to our age-old catechisms; we must, otherwise our children will know nothing, and they will lose the faith. We have no right to let our children abandon the Catholic Faith. We must teach them the true catechism.
That is the position regarding the priesthood today. But how is it possible that things should have come to this pass? It is incredible! How can one think of putting into the hands of children catechisms which no longer give a true reflection of the traditional faith?
I am sorry that I have not brought you the Canadian catechisms to show you what those catechisms are like. It is an aberration, an abomination. Obviously, most catechisms and pamphlets on the catechisms go into lengthy details on sexual life. One might really imagine that children need to be taught nothing else. And the way! The way is calculated to give them a kind of obsession. On every page of these catechisms and the two or three pamphlets which deal with these matters one sees in capital letters: Sex, Sex, Sex everywhere. It is on every page throughout the book-and is enough to breed an absolute obsession in the child. When one reflects that at the end of these books there is an Imprimatur: “Bishop Couderce, Bishop of Saint-Hyacinth, President of the Episcopal Commission for Catechetics,” I must confess that for me it is a mystery past understanding.
How have we reached such a point. Well, I believe we must go back to the beginning. We could obviously go back to original sin. We could also go back to the devil. He clearly has a hand in it, of that there can be no shadow of doubt. To achieve such action in the Church, to accomplish the self-destruction of which the Holy Father has spoken, the devil must be in it. It could not happen otherwise. He’s there. You can be sure of that.
I believe, however, that we must go back to all those errors which popes have condemned over the last two centuries. Above all we have experienced liberalism, Communism, Marxism, socialism, Sillonism, modernism, and all the other “-isms” repeatedly condemned by the popes. During these two centuries we have had acts of condemnation by the Holy Fathers. Take, for example, Pope Leo XIII’s Encyclical Immortale Dei. Pope Leo XIII condemns the new law. What he means by the new law is a wholly new conception-a conception of life, a conception of the world, a conception of the Church utterly different from the true conception of the Church. It is based on the principles of Freemasonry as summarized in those three famous words: “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,” which may be very good but which can also stand for very bad things. If the liberty is a total liberty, i.e., if everything is left to conscience, there are no more laws, there is an end to all authority. That is what is chiefly attacked in the words “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.” Authority is destroyed. That implies the freedom of my conscience. I do as I please regardless of law and of personal authority. Equality-we are all equal. We want nothing to do with authority.
Fraternity-but Fatherless. There is no Father. There is a crowd fraternity. All the individuals embrace one another but there is no Father. How is it possible to conceive a fraternity lacking paternity-with no Father? It is unimaginable, but so it is. That is what we were to be taught: the ruin of authority, and through that very event an attack on the authority of God. It is a direct attack on God, since all authority comes from God and through sharing in the authority of God. That was stated by St. Paul. God is thus attacked directly. The best proof is that the Freemasons have offered sacrifices to the goddess Reason, to Man, Man become God. Moreover, the Freemasons are saying just the same things today. Never let it be forgotten. We must not believe that it is all a thing of the past.
“If to raise Man to the altar rather than set God there is the sin of Lucifer,” writes the former Grand Master of the Grand Orient, Mr. Mitterand, “every humanist since the time of the Renaissance has been guilty of this sin.” It was one of the complaints brought against the Freemasons when, for the first time, they were excommunicated by Pope Clement XII in 1738. Unhappily, this Freemason tells us: Obviously, all that is seen through the eyes of a Freemason. I am not saying that I concur with what that man says. But it is those people who are behind all these changes. You may be sure that they have not been idle in the Council and, you may be very sure, round about it. “Something has changed in the Church,” says Mitterand, the Grand Master of the Grand Orient.Obviously, all that is seen through the eyes of a Freemason. I am not saying that I concur with what that man says. But it is those people who are behind all these changes. You may be sure that they have not been idle in the Council and, you may be very sure, round about it. “Something has changed in the Church,” says Mitterand, the Grand Master of the Grand Orient.
Between the policy of Pius XII and that of his successors there is a major difference. For Pius XII the common good has a reactionary character, almost fascist and distinctly anti-Communist. For John XXIII and afterwards for Paul VI, the common good has a markedly progressive character. The relationship of the powers has changed in the world, and the Church realizes the fact.
Obviously, all that is seen through the eyes of a Freemason. I am not saying that I concur with what that man says. But it is those people who are behind all these changes. You may be sure that they have not been idle in the Council and, you may be very sure, round about it. “Something has changed in the Church,” says Mitterand, the Grand Master of the Grand Orient.The replies set down by the Pope to such burning questions as the celibacy of the clergy and birth control are fiercely contested within the very bosom of the Church. Some bishops, some priests and members of the laity have questioned the words of the Sovereign Pontiff himself. In the eyes of a Freemason a man who disputes dogma is already a Freemason without his apron. That is what those people are saying, and they know what they are talking about.
Here is another book written by a Freemason, Ecumenism Seen by a Freemason, by Mr. Marsaudon of the Scottish Rite. This Marsaudon deals with ecumenism and the ecumenism which was obtained during the Council. “Catholics, especially conservatives, should not forget that all roads lead to God. They should abide by this brave idea of freedom of conscience which, and here one may truly speak of revolution, starting from our Masonic lodges, has spread magnificently above the doctrine of St. Peter.”
Well! what is there to be said? It is all too true, alas, that the Council showed an unwillingness to define its terms. Hence the ambiguous and equivocal terminology used. And from these ambiguous and equivocal terms the postconciliar results have been derived. Fr. Schillebeeckx himself expressly admitted it and even printed it in a review: “We have used equivocal terms during the Council, and we know what we will afterwards draw from them.” Those people knew what they were doing since on the sub-committees there were all those modern theologians-Schillebeeckx, Hans Kung, Rahner, Congar, Leclerc, and Murphy. They were all on the sub-commissions. This was because commissions could name subcommittees and so nominate those theologians who knew perfectly well where they were going. It is they who are guilty of the situation in which we find ourselves. Steeped as they are in modernist ideas, they are determined by all the means in their power to force the Church to become modernist. We must not let ourselves be hoodwinked by these tactics, must we? We must keep our eyes open.
What is the present method of forcing us to become modernists or to espouse liberal ideas? It is done by recycling, as I myself can witness within my own Congregation. In these formation sessions the first statement made is a statement repeated in the pamphlet The Faith, Word for Word, to which I referred a short time ago, published by the office of the Archbishopric of Paris. The first words are: “Admit the change.”
Admit the change: yet once more, as I have just said, we must make our seminarians, our priests, all those who come to these formation sessions realize that changes have been carried out and that we must change.
The second, more delicate, operation, consists in finding out the differing ways in which Christians have appreciated, in these diverse changes, the very fact of change. This observation is very important because opposition at present is a matter rather of spontaneous and unconscious attitudes to change than of a precise assessment of what is at stake in particular changes.
Two attitudes seem to emerge as typical though all possible transitional stages must be borne in mind. According to the first, some novelties are conceded after working out the way in which each follows the other. This is the attitude of many Christians, many Catholics who are yielding step by step. The second are prepared to accept a general updating of the rites of the Christian Faith on the threshold of a new culture.
I repeat:
The second are prepared to accept a general updating of the rites of the Christian Faith on the threshold of a new culture. It is enough for them to reassure themselves regularly of its fidelity to the Faith of the Apostles.
It is very late, and there will be time enough to deal with the Faith of the Apostles once the faith has been utterly destroyed. It goes Without saying that this operation, this new pattern of problems, is what must be inculcated into Catholics today.
If the second diagnosis is accepted, a third operation becomes necessary. “The Christian cannot fail to see a formidable danger to the faith in this.” That is what they themselves are admitting explicitly. It is terrible, incredible.
Will it not purely and simply disappear together with the dubious theories which brought it to that pass? He rightly demands a fundamental assurance which will carry him beyond those first sterile attitudes. That preliminary assurance should include the following elements at least.
You will see what is left to us of our Faith: “The Holy Ghost is just He who comes to the aid of believers in the workings of history.” We therefore have recourse to the Holy Ghost only. There is no longer a hierarchy, there is no longer a magisterium. Nothing is left. Christians are directly inspired by the Holy Ghost.
Today, all this is being put into practice by Pentecostalism. They hold meetings as we do. We might invoke the Holy Ghost and suddenly one of you would begin speaking in an unknown tongue- one might speak Arabic, another Armenian, another Hebrew. All this is of the devil; it cannot be otherwise. Hence the Holy Ghost comes first. Then the one constant in our faith is the person of Jesus Himself. Jesus, but what do they mean by Jesus?
Finally, this is the assurance they give to the faithful who are afraid of losing the faith by reason of this new presentation of questions: “Vatican II assuredly offers many indications of a change in the approach to problems.” We are indeed dealing with a campaign of subversion. There is no other word for it-a campaign of subversion.
We must come to a close. What are we to do?
We have looked quickly at an example of this subversion in the priest. Now, whatever touches the priest naturally affects the Church and the faithful. Well! We have no right to let ourselves engage in this adventure. It will pass as all heresies have passed, as all errors have passed, as all that has befallen and shaken the Church has passed. The Church has experienced storms. This one is terrible, for it attacks the very roots of the people’s faith, alas, through those whose duty it is to protect the faith of believers.
I have been asked to put together in book form the few lectures and articles I have published since the Council. As its epigraph [he is speaking of the present volume] I wrote: “We are being made to disobey all tradition through obedience.” You will reply: “But it is our priests who ask it of us. It is a bishop who asks it of us. Look, it is a document issued by the Catechetical Commission or some other official commission. What would you have me do?” Lose the faith, then! No, no. No-one, not even the pope, not even an angel, has the right to make you lose the faith. No-one has the right to make one lose the faith. Faith in Jesus Christ is our means of salvation, it is the way of salvation. We have no right to lose the Catholic Faith; rather we must do all we can to keep it alive within us.
You, Christian parents, protect the faith of your children in your families and in your homes. Read and re-read the Tridentine Catechism, the finest, the most perfect, and the most complete expression of our faith. Keep the faith in our schools also. Go into schools; if the children are being led to lose the faith, complain. Do not let your children’s teachers bring them to lose the faith. Go and find your priests. There are still good priests, and God knows what a joy it is for me to see so many of them here. Give them your support, encourage them; they are suffering from the situation. They feel that you are there and that you are making this appeal to them: “Fathers, protect our children’s faith. We beg you give us the truth that saves our souls.” They will do so and be happy to give you the truths of the faith. Ask that of all who should protect your faith.
Next, form prayer groups. We must pray, pray, pray. Form prayer groups, say the rosary both at home and in groups in the parish. Ask your priests to expound the rosary. Ask them to give you Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament. Arrange services for the adoration of the Blessed Sacrament and night vigils.
In recent years I have traveled a great deal and can assure you that there is a Catholic revival. Many Catholics feel that all is not well with the Church, that such a state of affairs must not be allowed to continue, that there is a danger of their losing the faith. Now these Catholics are getting together to say the rosary. They are asking the priest’s permission to keep night vigils of adoration in the churches. All that is splendid. God, in His goodness, will not be deaf to such a prayer and supplication. That is what we should do today.
I do not know whether all the apparitions of which we hear are authentic. I dare not assert it. But it is not surprising that the Blessed Virgin should come and help us to preserve the faith.
The more one may be encouraged to visit places where the Blessed Virgin has certainly appeared, the more circumspect we should be where there is no real confirmation of her coming. In any case, an almost certain sign of the truth of an apparition is the conversion of souls-not a dubious conversion, not a flash in the pan, but a true conversion.
There may often be about these pilgrimages occurrences not altogether normal, hysterics, unbalanced people, or people who seek nothing else; people who, once convinced of the reality of an apparition, have nothing else in their heads and feel that it is this which will save them. For them everything else in the Church ceases to count-the sacraments, the hierarchy, nothing matters any longer. The danger is great. We must not allow ourselves to be drawn along that road.
As for me, Providence gave me the opportunity of establishing a seminary, through a society of priests. Bishop Charriere signed the permit for its foundation. This society resembles the Missions Etmngéres. Yet, in my mind, no field of activity for these future priests is excluded. They will go wheresoever the bishops call them. If one day China opens its gates and Russia its doors, if they are called to South America, Africa, or Europe, wherever there is a demand and these priests are welcomed, they will go as a group. They will obviously go under contract to the bishop since they form a society. They are not priests coming from dioceses and returning to their dioceses to be incardinated there. No, they are priests, members of a brotherhood, members of a society, who will go where the Superior General sends them and where they are called by the bishops who wish to receive them but, of course, under certain conditions. I assure you that I am very happy in what God has given me to do at present when I see the generosity of these seminarians. I assure you, it is not wasted. Do not be discouraged or pessimistic. A really sound youth still exists. Our eighty seminarians are very good, very generous.
They are not children. Most of them have university degrees. There are two qualified doctors, three or four engineers, one of them a graduate of the Centrale, another who, after seven years’ study, is a Master of Biology, besides several graduates in Mathematics, Law, and Arts. They are not juveniles who have come to take shelter with me seeking I know not what, but young men who have thought the matter over seriously and come with intent to be true priests. Two-thirds are French; the next group numerically is that from the United States. Then one Canadian, three Englishmen, two Germans, four Swiss, an Italian, a Spaniard, and two Australians. You see, the seminary is well and truly international. They get on with one another perfectly.
From now on I shall have a little group of American priests in the United States who will gather together young seminarians and prepare them for the seminary at Ecône. Later, when God so wills, we shall have another seminary in the United States. I have also an establishment in London, one in Paris and two houses in Switzerland-the house in Fribourg and the house at Ecône, which is the senior seminary staffed by twelve professors coming from all over the world. Two of them are Dominican professors from the University of Fribourg. As a professional body I believe it to be as good as I could ever wish. I now have a house for my young priests at Albano, near Rome.
As soon as I have young priests they will be sent to Rome to become attached to it. I want them to be Romans, Roman Catholics, attached to the Sovereign Pontiff, attached to the magisterium of the Church and attached to the Catholic Church so that they may understand and may live on all the memories of Rome. That is briefly what I am doing and, I must say, doing with great satisfaction.
- Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. A BISHOP SPEAKS. 2ND ed. KANSAS CITY: ANGELUS PRESS, 2007. pp. 163-186
|
|
|
Archbishop Lefebvre: 1976 Address to Remnant Audience |
Posted by: Stone - 12-06-2020, 07:14 AM - Forum: Sermons and Conferences
- No Replies
|
|
Introduction
More than forty years ago—during the disastrous reign of Pope Paul VI, the latest candidate for a Vatican-issued Halo Award, by the way—my father, Walter L. Matt, organized the first large scale public reception in the U.S. for the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
It was held at the Radisson South Hotel, Minneapolis, on Tuesday, May 12, 1976, and its stated purpose was to assist the Archbishop in gaining a stronger foothold for the Society of St. Pius X in the States during the unprecedented crisis Blessed Pope Paul had helped unleash on the Church.
On that occasion Archbishop Lefebvre delivered an address on the desperate state of the Church at that time—42 years ago—that was never transcribed or published until we did so for the December 15, 2017 print edition of The Remnant.
I’m posting the address here because I'm convinced the Archbishop’s words provide recent recruits to Tradition with vital historical context for the diabolical debacle that is the pontificate of Pope Francis. And for those of us who’ve been in the trenches for a long, long time it also provides welcome reminder of why we must continue to fight.
Even though I personally was in attendance back in 1976 when Archbishop Lefebvre delivered this address in Minneapolis, I was only ten years old and of course didn't realize how prophetic he was on that occasion, or how devastated by the Second Vatican Council, the New Mass, and the Freemasonic infiltration of the Vatican. In fact, this transcript reads like a message of encouragement at a crucial moment in the history of this movement—Stay in the fight! Keep the Faith. Never surrender!
This address also makes it absolutely clear that everything Archbishop Lefebvre did was part of an eleventh-hour defence of the Kingship of Christ (ignored completely by the Second Vatican Council) and a desperate last stand for Tradition, the infallible teachings of Mother Church and of course her ancient liturgy. And now that Pope Francis has inadvertently unmasked the true spirit of Vatican II, it becomes obvious how and why those who resisted that spirit were right to have done so and will certainly be hailed by history as the heroic band of Catholic brothers that mounted the twentieth century’s last stand for Christ the King and, while scorned and mocked at the time, were nevertheless totally vindicated fifty years later. May we continue to earn the right to stand with them today. MJM
The Archbishop Speaks
Ladies and Gentlemen:
As I said to Mr. [Walter] Matt, I can say in bad English what he says in good English, because he said all of the things I want to say [Referring here to Walter Matt’s introductory talk referenced above.] And I thank you, Mr. Matt, very much, for his invitation, and I thank you for your coming, and I thank Fr. Ward for what he said about the Society of St. Pius X. And I hope that you can understand my poor English, but I think it is better to speak some bad English because to translate would take too much time.
As Mr. Matt said, the crisis in the Church is very extraordinary. It is very difficult to understand the situation today. My seminary in Écône (in Switzerland) and the seminaries in Germany and here in America, in Armada, are in very difficult situations with Rome. Why? These seminaries are the same as seminaries were before the Second Vatican Council. They have the same discipline and the same studies, they make good priests; I think they are good seminarians. All is done as all the seminaries before the Second Vatican Council. Why are we now in this very sad situation with Rome?
I think that because in the Second Vatican Council, and after the Council, there is a mutation, a change, in the Church. But we do not change. We continue the Tradition. So why do they now say, as Mgr. (Archbishop) Benelli[1] said to me months ago on the 19th of March, “you are out of communion with the Church.” I am out of communion with the Church because I continue the Tradition of the Church? This is possible? I do not understand. Why? I have done nothing. I believe nothing other than what the Church has believed for twenty centuries.
Mgr. Benelli then said to me, you must put down in a writing to the Holy Father that you accept the Second Vatican Council, you accept the reform that followed the Council, and that you accept the orientations that have been given by Rome. Mgr. Benelli took the book of the New Ordo, gave it to me, and said, “You must say this New Mass in all of your houses.”
I wonder why Mgr. Benelli did not communicate this condition to me before our meeting.[2] He could have done so. For example, one year ago three cardinals sent me a letter (Cardinals Wright, Tabera [Arturo Carinal Tabera Araoz, one of the Council Fathers MJM], and Gabriel-Marie Garrone) telling me (in effect) that I must close the seminaries. Well, I refused, because I refuse to contribute to the destruction of the Church. Because now they are destroying the Church. When I die and go before the judge, God will not be able to say to me, “You destroyed the Church.” I refused to contribute to the destruction of the Church. I am sure that my seminaries are contributing to the restoration of the Church. I do not destroy the Church. And so I said to Mgr. Benelli, “No, I will not sign that writing.”
I think that the mutation in the Church came in through the Second Vatican Council. And do you think this change in the Church came suddenly? When, then? At the beginning of the Council? No, this change in the Church began one century before [the Council]. Pope Pius VI said during the French Revolution that if the Church continues to remain under the influence of the prince of the revolution, then, in the future a crisis will come upon the Church.
In [1844], Pope Pius IX ordered Cardinal Rigoli to publish the Instructions of the Carbonari.[3] The Pope himself asked Cardinal Rigoli to publish the Instructions of the Carbonari. And what did these Instructions say? The Instructions said that they [the Carbonari/Freemasons] must begin to fight against the Church by bringing reform into the Church. The Instructions said the infiltration will take perhaps not one year, perhaps not ten years, but perhaps a century. The Carbonari must enter into the seminary, into the convent, into the sacristy, and slowly, very slowly, the priests will have the ideals of the revolution; of the Freemasons. One day these priests, imbued with Masonic principles, will become bishops, and these bishops can then choose a pope. And even if the pope is not a Freemason, he will have the same ideals as the Freemasons. Pope Pius IX called for the publishing of these Instructions in order to warn the bishops and priests of those times of the fight against the church.
In 1895, the Catholic Antonia Fogazzaro, a known modernist, founded a masonic lodge in Milan. He wrote in his book, Il Santo, that “We [modernists]…want a reform in the Church…without rebellion, carried out by legitimate authority…even if this takes 20, 30, or 50 years.”[4] “The reform will have to be brought about in the name of obedience.” The modernist ideas in the Church introduced and enacted through obedience! And I think…well, here we are! In this time! The reform is here, and it is brought about through obedience, to the Council, to the bishop, to the priest. And all they say is “Obedience, obedience, obedience.”
The Instructions of the Carbonari say the bishop and the priest will think that they are following the tiara of the Pope, but they will be following the flag of Freemasonry [“the banner of revolution”]. They said that. They wrote that! One century before [the Council]! Thus, it is very important to know that they prepared for the beginning of the Second Vatican Council for a century, perhaps two centuries!
As the Archbishop of Dakar and President of the Episcopal Commission for French-speaking West Africa, I was appointed member of the Central Preparatory Commission of the Second Vatican Council. There were some seventy cardinals, twenty bishops, and four super-authorities of the religious orders, among others. Before the last meeting of this Commission the members received two schemas on the same subject: one from Cardinal Ottaviani and another from Cardinal Bea.
The schema from Cardinal Ottaviani was titled “On Religious Tolerance” and the other, from Cardinal Bea, was titled “On Religious Freedom [Liberty].” When we read these two schemas, we thought, “This is impossible. How is it we can receive two opposing theses? One says we must not tolerate error. The other says that error has the right to exist in the name of the dignity of the human person.” And so, we go into the meeting. Cardinal Ottaviani, standing, says to Cardinal Bea, “You have no authority to compose this schema, because it is a theological thesis and therefore within the competence of the Theological Commission.” As Cardinal Bea stands up, he says, “I do have the right to compose this schema because if anything concerns Christian Unity it is religious liberty, and I am the President of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity.” Cardinal Bea, addressing Cardinal Ottaviani, further said, “I am opposed to your schema.”
Impossible! We were in a very sad, serious situation. Cardinal Ruffini had to intervene as we were in front of two cardinals, our brothers. He said we must wait for the authority to say who is right and who is wrong. But before the Pope came (because the Pope came many times to present at these meetings) we voted on the schema. Who is with Cardinal Ottaviani? Who is with Cardinal Bea? The conservatives and the liberals. As the last meeting of the Preparatory Commission, it was for me the first image of the future Council.
And as we go into the Council, you know that on the first day of the Council, Cardinal Lienart was the chief of the liberal cardinals in the Council, [together] with all of the Cardinals of the Rhine (such as Cardinal Alfrink, Cardinal Frings, Cardinal Dopfner, Cardinal Suenens, Cardinal Leinart, and Cardinal Koenig of Austria). And now one month ago in Rome, the traditional periodical Chiesa Viva published a photo of Cardinal Lienart with all of the appurtenances of Freemasonry, the date of his inscription in Masonry, the date [of his rising to] the 20th Degree of Freemasonry, the date [of his rising to] the 30th Degree of Freemasonry, and the places where he [attended] the meetings of Freemasonry. This Cardinal was the chief of the liberals in the Council. That is my cardinal; he ordained me to the priesthood, and he consecrated me a bishop. And now this is public. Nobody has been able to refute the publication. And so, we have (I am confident) a mutation in the church by the Council and by the reform after the Council.
Now, some say the Council is (was) good, but only the reforms were bad. That is not true. Why? Because when the reforms come, Rome always says the reforms are being done in the name of the Council. In the name of the Council! It is evident that all of the reforms came from the Council. And if the reforms are bad, then it is impossible that the Council is good and all the reforms are bad, because that is the authentic interpretation of the Council by Rome. Rome said in the name of the Declaration of Liturgy, we [implement] the liturgical reform. We can say that [these bad changes are] not in the text of the Declaration, but this man has the authority to say that this is from the Council. They know that. And I am sure that it [the mutation] is in the Council. Even if it is not explicitly [stated] in the Council but [rather] in the spirit of the Council, it is the same!
For example, with religious freedom: now the Holy See and all the Nuncios are against the Catholic State in the name of the Council - in the name of the Declaration of Religious Freedom. I have heard this (personally) twice. The first time I was in Columbia.
When I was in Columbia, I read in the paper about the change in the first article of the Constitution of the Republic of Columbia. [The first article] stated that only the Republic of Columbia recognizes only the Catholic religion. They changed it. They removed this article. I read the discourse of the President of Columbia with the Nuncios of Columbia and the Secretary of the Episcopal Conference in Columbia. The President said he is very, very anxious. He said to the people, “even though we remove this article we remain Catholic. I am a Catholic, I shall remain Catholic, and I do everything possible for the Council and the Catholics in our country.”
Then, the discourse of the Nuncio was the discourse of a Freemason: all of it was “progress,” “humanity,” “evolution,” and all the hubris of a Freemason. And during the discourse of the Secretary of the Episcopal Conference, [the Secretary] said, “in the name of the Declaration of Religious Freedom [of Vatican II], we ask the President to remove this article in the Constitution.”
I met this Secretary of the Episcopal Conference during my visit in Columbia, and he said for two years they [had been asking] the President, in the name of the Holy See, to change this article in their Constitution. But I will never…I do not accept the concept, because you destroy the Catholic State in the name of the Council. Are you sure? Yes, sure. It is evident.
Now I said to the [Secretary], “As I speak with you now about Columbia, I know that you are the one responsible for the change in the constitution of Valais in Switzerland one year ago. The change in the Constitution of Valais was the same.” (Because you know Switzerland is a Federation where some states are Protestant and some states are Catholic. The Valais is Catholic. And in its constitution, the words of the first article [of the constitution] of the State of Valais – Écône, where we are located, is in the State of Valais - only one religion is recognized: The Catholic Church.) And [the Secretary] said, “Yes, I am responsible for this change.” Brother, what did you do with the Social Kingship of Christ? What is this for you? What do you say when you say “thy kingdom come” in your prayer, the Our Father? “Ah,” the Nuncio said to me, “Now it is impossible.” What did you do with the encyclical of Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas? “Ah, but now the Pope cannot write an encyclical like Quas Primas.”
It is incredible. And all in the name of the Council.
We must take care, because this change in the church is a liberal change. The liberal principles have entered the Church now, and they destroy the Church. If we cannot set out the true principles of the Church, if we in the name of religious freedom said that all religions have the same right in every state in the world…
[missing audio...]
The truth is the only one King of the World is Jesus Christ. We say in the Gloria in Excelsis Deo, “Tu solus Altissimus,” “Tu solus Dominus,” “You alone are the Highest,” “You alone are the Lord.” But practically, we would refuse this Kingdom of Jesus Christ if we said that Luther, Mohammed, Buddha and Jesus Christ are all the same. We cannot say that. Impossible. We know that in many states (it is a pity) it is impossible [to recognize Catholicism as the state religion]. We must tolerate - have tolerance for the error - but never give the same right to error and truth. That is impossible.
And the change in the liturgy is very important. It is very bad. One of the principles of modern man, as they say now, “modern man,” is democracy. And democracy can have a good sense but not if [by that term is meant] that those who govern receive their authority from the people. The authority comes from God. Not from the people. Not from the masses. From God. But today the principle, the democratic principle, is that the authority is in the people. It is in the masses. That is not true. It is impossible. And our liturgy is the school of our Faith. It is the first school of our Faith for all people.
I was in Africa as a missionary and as bishop for 30 years. I know the liturgy was the best school of the Faith for people who cannot read. They can see what the priest does. They can see what the priest does at the adoration of the Body and the Blood of Jesus Christ. And they know that Jesus Christ is present - His real presence is on the altar - by the attitude of the priest. They know that. That is very important.
But the change in the Mass destroys the Church. Because we know the liturgy teaches us hierarchy. The true liturgy is hierarchical. It is not democratic but hierarchical. Why? Because we have God, the priest, and then the people. That is hierarchy. When we are in Church we know God is on the altar; the priest is between God and the people; and the people receive God at the hand of the priest. That is hierarchy.
But now the new liturgy is more democratic - all around the table. The priest is only the president, and sometimes another man can take the role of the president of the meal. That is a new liturgy. That is very bad, because we have no sense of the hierarchical; whereas the sense of hierarchy is very important in our life. We need the authority of God. We need the Real Presence of God on our altar. We need the Sacrifice of the Mass – not a meal only – but the Sacrifice. So, the Victim of the Sacrifice is really present on our altar. That is the school of our Faith.
And slowly, slowly, this new Mass equivocates. It moves the minds of the faithful in a Protestant [direction]. I do not say that all [Novus Ordo] Masses are invalid. I do not say that. But perhaps, more and more, they become invalid because [the ministers lose faith in the Real Presence].
Recently, in France, a progressive paper conducted a statistical survey to see how many priests no longer have faith in the Real Presence. They found that twenty-two percent no longer have the faith, the belief in the Real Presence. But I think that if they directed this question to all of the priests who are under 50 years of age, they would find that fifty percent [have lost the faith in the Real Presence], because the young priests have no faith. No faith.
Last year, Bishop Adam (in our Diocese of Sion, Switzerland) ordained one priest for my Congregation of the Holy Ghost Fathers. This one priest came from France. His uncle had died in a road accident when his cab fell in the river. The uncle had nine children. The Bishop said to the new priest, “Now you can say Mass for your uncle. Now you are a priest, and you can say Mass for your uncle.” The new priest said, “No, never.” Why? It is not useful to say Mass for the dead? “No, no, it is impossible. They are already in heaven.” This young priest who was ordained by the Bishop last year for my Congregation is now a professor in the minor seminary in Switzerland. They are not learning theology, not philosophy, not anything. They learn nothing now.
Another example. Recently, I had two young [potential] seminarians come to my house near Paris. One of them works in a factory, and the other is a university student. They told me they were [considering] the seminary of Paris. I asked them, “Why do you come to see me?” They told me that they had a meeting in the house of the Oblate of Maria with the priest who oversees young men who may have vocations to the priesthood in the Diocese of Paris. There was a total of fifteen young men for all of the Diocese of Paris. During the meeting, the priest, before he celebrated the Eucharist, said, “Today we celebrate the Eucharist, but we do not believe in the Real Presence.” These two young men said “That is impossible. We cannot remain in this seminary.” So, they came to meet me. They said that Écône is the only seminary where they seem to be able to find the True Faith. They asked for admittance to Écône. And I think that they shall be coming to Écône next October. But that is a new religion. It is a Protestant religion. That is a fact.
Perhaps you can say, “How is it possible that the pope gives the authorization to this change? How is it possible the pope signed this decree? Signed this constitution?” I don’t know. I don’t know. It is a big mystery. A big mystery. There are many proposed theological answers. I cannot subscribe to all of them. Some say the pope is not responsible. Perhaps someone gave the pope an injection, a drug, and he is not responsible. Perhaps, I don’t know. Some say there are two popes [(a body double)]. I don’t know. Some say the pope was liberal before he was elected pope, and perhaps (we do not know) he gave his name to Freemasonry (thereby incurring excommunication before the conclave). We do not know. We do know now that Bugnini was primarily responsible for the change in liturgy, and that he is an infamous Freemason. And because he had an indiscretion with his Masonic appurtenances, the Pope sent him as a Nuncio in Iran.
I don’t know. We don’t know. Now, you cannot say that Archbishop Lefebvre said the pope gave his name to Freemasonry. No, you cannot say that. It is possible, but we do not know. But if he was excommunicated, then he is not pope. Not pope. Illegitimate. I don’t know. It is a mystery I cannot understand. But the fact is that the Catholic Church is being destroyed, and now even the pope himself says that. This pope has referred to the auto-demolition of the Church. He said, “The smoke of Satan has entered the Church.” But where are the men responsible for the destruction of the Church? Well, there they are. They are the men who destroy the Church. We must show where they are. Where is this smoke of Satan that has entered the Church? I do not know, but it is the pope himself who said that.
And I have these experiences every day. I visit many countries. I was in Spain during the Christmas Holy Days. Then I was in Bonn, near Cologne, Germany, three weeks ago, to speak at a conference. Many people came. Many people are confused. What is happening in the Church? They are anxious. But many people say that we disobey. Disobey? Obedience is relative. It is not absolute. It is relative to the good, but not to the evil. We cannot obey our parents if they command a bad thing. We cannot obey. It is clear.
And I know that in Spain, for example, the situation in the Church is very bad. The new nominees of bishops and many auxiliary bishops are, approximately, communist, Marxist, and socialist. And so, a majority of the bishops in the Episcopal Conference of Spain are progressives. They are modernists. Whereas, the majority of the bishops [from Spain] during the Council were conservative. So, Rome is responsible [for the situation of the Church in Spain] because it is Rome who approves the nominations for bishops.
And we know in France, in Germany, and in Europe generally, that all of the young bishops are worse [than the bishops in Spain] in that they are more or less Marxist. That is a fact. That is impossible. How can they do that? I do not know. I do not know. I have not spent my whole life in Rome. I do know Rome very well, because I was an apostolic delegate, and I was in the Secretariate of the Secretary of State. And I know that very well. But I think that the devil is in Rome, as was said by our Lady of Fatima and Our Lady of La Salette.
We must pray. We must ask God to put an end to this crisis of the Church. Because if this crisis continues, many people will go to hell. They lose the faith. They cannot go into the church. They abandon the faith. You know that many priests have abandoned the faith. Many priests have gotten married. And many sisters have abandoned their congregations. It is a pity. And it is everywhere.
I was in Melbourne, Australia, during the 40th International Eucharistic Congress. Cardinal Knox, who was the man responsible for the Eucharistic Congress, is now the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship. I read in the newspaper about a Mass Cardinal Knox celebrated during the Eucharistic Congress where sensual dancing was performed at the same time the words of the Consecration were pronounced. That is a sacrilege. You cannot go to that Mass. That is sacrilege. This is a fact. They also called me by phone in Melbourne to say I was on the list of the bishops [attending] the Eucharistic Congress. They asked me to concelebrate Mass with a Protestant pastor and a rabbi. Ay. Impossible. Impossible. No, no, no, no. [applause]
This change is not accidental. It is not superficial. It is very deep. Very bad. It is against our faith. Against our faith. And so, we cannot accept this Council and this reform and this orientation even though it comes from Rome. From Rome we expect only the good. We do not expect the bad, the ill. We do not expect the abandonment of adoration in the Mass. We need this adoration. We need to have the faith in the divinity of Jesus Christ. Because all [of this change] is [oriented] against the divinity of Jesus Christ, against the Kingdom of Jesus Christ, against the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Mass. It is a sin when we abandon the truth of the Kingdom of Jesus Christ, everywhere, and we abandon the Faith of the divinity of Jesus Christ.
He is King because he is God. He is the Son of God. So, He is King by His nature. This is essential. Essential! And if He is God, we must give Him the adoration of God. And so, we cannot accept the diminution of this Truth. Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Jesus Christ is God. That is a fundamental truth of our Faith. And it all depends on this Truth. And we know now that the theologians and the bishops have . They do not express this truth clearly and perfectly. They are afraid of the truth. That is very bad.
And it is the same in Rome. I think they refuse [to grant me an audience with] the pope, [because they are afraid of the Truth]. When I was in Rome one month ago, Mgr. Benelli told me he visits the pope every day. He said that when he left me, he would go immediately to the pope to express the importance of the work we had conducted during our meeting. Immediately, he said, he would be going. So, why do they not grant me the possibility of visiting the pope? Because they are afraid.
Cardinal Villot said, “We are afraid if Msgr. Lefebvre meets and speaks with the pope that perhaps the pope will change his mind.” Because [the pope] is not too sure; the pope is not man of true conviction. He is a mysterious man. We cannot give a definition of the man. He expresses the truth, and then he does the contrary/opposite. Some part of him will speak the truth. Another part of him is open to error. Very curious. And they are afraid that if I reveal the truth [and tell the Pope] “you must affirm the Kingdom of Jesus Christ everywhere and always each day. You must affirm the Real Presence in the Mass - in the Sacrifice of the Mass,” then perhaps it is possible that the Pope will change his mind.
And so, Cardinal Villot says, there is a confusion, and they do not want me to visit the pope. It is impossible to admit me. And I know the pope very well! When I was the apostolic delegate to Pius XII, I was going to Rome every year. And during those eleven years, I met Msgr. Montini. I know him very well. He received me twice during the Council, for a private audience with the pope. But, now, with my position against the Council and the reforms, he says: “No, impossible! You must sign in writing that you [accept] the Council and all the reforms before I will receive you in audience.” But I cannot do that. For me, if I do that, then I betray my mother, the Church. The Church!
So, I thank you very much for your encouragement, and I must say that we have a very good generation of young men and good vocations. For the coming year we have 59 applications to our seminary in Écône, Switzerland – applications from the United States, from England, from Germany, from France, and Spain. Good young men with good dispositions are coming from everywhere. And why? Why do they come to this seminary when they know we are in difficulties with Rome? They know that. But still they come. I ask them, why do you come to Écône? You know our situation. They say, “Yes, we know your situation, but we want to become true priests and not protestant pastors or modernist priests. We are coming to your seminary because we know that the end of the priest is to offer the true Sacrifice of the Mass. And so, we are Coming to Écône.”
And as I have visited my seminary here in Armada for the past five days, I can see it is the same here. We have very good young men. I also have some Americans in my seminary in Écône. In six weeks I will ordain one American priest from Detroit, who is a very good seminarian and will be a good priest. But these young men refuse to become protestants. They refuse to become modernist. They ask to become true priests. And it is a pity there are not 100 bishops opening good seminaries.
So, I ask you to pray for these seminarians because when they become priests they will have many worries and many difficulties. I think, however, they are very well prepared to deal with these difficulties and worries. And we have confidence in God. Since I began this work six years ago, now, I have evidence that God is assisting us. Because it is impossible, I realize, to do this by myself. We now have houses in Switzerland (3), Munich, France (6), Brussels (1), England, Armada, San Francisco, and New York. In Albano, near Rome, we have a congregation of sisters where I have five vocations from the states (good sisters). And I am building a seminary in Switzerland. It is impossible to do all this without God’s assistance.
So, I have confidence. It is impossible for the Church to change its tradition. The tradition of twenty centuries. That we cannot change. The Church is tradition. The Church is tradition. It is not revolution. I thank you for your attention.
NOTES:
[1] Archbishop Benelli, who had the title of “Substitute” (meaning the Assistant to the Secretary of State) of the Vatican Secretariat of State, later created Cardinal and appointed Archbishop of Florence in 1977.
[2] Until the date of this meeting, March 19, 1976, nothing had been said to Archbishop Lefebvre about this condition of submission, which submission was demanded of him as a condition to his request for a Papal Audience. Many noted that, at the time, it was only of Archbishop Lefebvre that these conditions were demanded. Paul VI received all kinds of people (abortionists, freemasons, etc.).
[3] Otherwise known as the “Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita,” a secret document written in the early 19th Century that mapped out a blueprint for the subversion of the Catholic Church. The Alta Vendita was the highest lodge of the Carbonari, an Italian secret society with links to Freemasonry and which, along with Freemasonry, was condemned by the Popes.
[4] During the pontificate of St. Pius X, a lay politician and author Antonio Fogazzaro, advocated a path to reform the Church and Papacy in his novel Il Santo, published in 1907. Fogazzaro was a known Modernist whose works were banned by the Church and placed on the Index of Forbidden Books.
Source: remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/3719-for-the-first-time-online-archbishop-lefebvre-s-prophetic-address-to-the-remnant-1976
|
|
|
Archbishop Lefebvre: 1978 Ordination Sermon |
Posted by: Stone - 12-06-2020, 07:00 AM - Forum: Sermons and Conferences
- No Replies
|
|
1978 Ordination Sermon of Archbishop Lefebvre
Given at Econe, Switzerland on June 29, 1978.
My dear friends, my dear brothers:
Let us thank God who has blessed us with such a beautiful day. Let us thank Him for all the graces that He gives us and, in particular today, for having granted us the grace to be able to ordain eighteen priests and twenty-two subdeacons. Let us thank God, each one of us, that He has preserved us in the Catholic Faith. Let us thank God…let us thank Him that we have remained faithful to the Church, faithful to Our Lord Jesus Christ, faithful to all those in the Church who protect the Faith.
What joy to see all of you gathered here today, my dear brothers, coming – we can say – from the four corners of the world, from Australia to the borders of California, from Canada to Buenos Aires, and, yesterday, I received a letter from the Catholics in South Africa who said they would be united with us on this day-and from all points in Europe. Let us thank God to be gathered together here solely because we are Catholics, because we are members of the Church and because we want to continue what Our Lord has instituted, and what Our Lord wanted us to believe. I would like, for a few moments, to speak on what precisely the priesthood is.
Why a priest? one asks oneself today. We think it suffices for us to open the Gospels to know what a priest is. It suffices for us to know what Our Lord Jesus Christ is, Who is the High Priest, Who is the Priest par excellence, in order to know what priests are today. Our Lord tells us in words so short and so simple, "Sicut misit me Pater, et ego mitto vos – As the Father has sent Me, so I also send you." And, if we only reflect a few moments on the first part of Our Lord's words, "Sicut misit me Pater…” but, is this mission of Our Lord not His eternal mission? In the Blessed Trinity the Son is always sent by the Father because He comes from the Father, because He is born of the Father. In eternity Our Lord is always sent by the Father and this is why He is the Word of God. Just as the Holy Ghost is sent by the Father and the Son; and this is why He is the Holy Ghost. Well, this eternal mission of Our Lord Jesus Christ is continued in His temporal mission. And we need to remind ourselves that the mission that Our Lord has accomplished here below is the mission for which the world was created!
We were all created and put down here on this earth, and all of the world which surrounds us, the splendors which Almighty God has made in nature, all these things – the stars and all creation, spiritual creatures, the angels of heaven, the elect of heaven – all were created for the mission of Our Lord Jesus Christ: in order that one day Our Lord might sum up in Himself all of creation and be made man. And that making Himself man, He would sing God's glory, that all creation might sing God's glory, by Our Lord Jesus Christ, in Our Lord Jesus Christ. There is the reason for the world's existence. There is the reason for our existence. There is the mission of Our Lord – to sing His Father's glory – in His body and in His human soul and thus summing up by His divinity all that there could ever be of the most beautiful, of the greatest and of the most sublime things here below – the song of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
And at what moment? At the most sublime moment of His life, of His existence here below, Our Lord expressed this glory, this charity that He had for His Father. This infinite charity. He was His Son, His own Son.
When did He express it? He said it Himself. He expressed it during His sublime hour: on the Cross. It was at the moment when Our Lord exhaled His last breath that He manifested the greatest glory to His Father. "It is consummated," He said…all is consummated. Indeed, all is consummated – the entire reason for the existence of creation, all of our reason for being, all of the reason for heaven's existence and that of the elect, is consummated in Our Lord Jesus Christ's death. When He said, "Father, into Thy hands I commend my spirit," and He exhaled His last sigh. This was the greatest act of charity that could exist. None of our acts of charity are anything compared to Our Lord’s.
God the Father found His glory in this Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ and in His last sigh, in His death. By His death, life came again into the world, the way of heaven was opened, the way of salvation was opened for all of us. And there is the way, my dear friends, in which we are invited to walk. "Sicut misit me Pater, et ego mitto vos." I am sending you. I am sending you to continue My mission. I am sending you to continue My mission which is none other than the one which I am doing Myself, which I have begun. And because He concluded in an act of infinite love on Calvary, on the Cross: there is the way you must follow. You must go up to the altar, offer the sacrifice of Our Lord. Continue to offer this act of infinite love that God offered to His Father. This is what you are going to do. You are going to unite yourselves to this. What grace! What grace! Are you worthy? Are we worthy to be priests? Are we worthy to go up to the altar? Indeed, if we consider ourselves – NO! We can’t lay claim to such sublimity, to such glory, to such a participation in Christ Who is the Priest – the Priest for Eternity – Who is the High Priest. But by God’s Grace, by the grace that you are going to receive in a few moments, my dear friends, yes, you will be worthy, worthy before God, before the angels, to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
And so this is the power that the bishop is going to give you in a few moments. This is the mission of Our Lord which is carried on and which must continue until the end of time.
Thus, the Church is Missionary. It could not be other than missionary. A church that would no longer be missionary, that would no longer be sent, would no longer correspond to the Most Holy Trinity – would no longer correspond to what the Most Holy Trinity is – would no longer correspond to what Our Lord Jesus Christ is Himself, Who is the One sent by God. You are apostles; you are essentially sent to accomplish the mission that Our Lord Jesus Christ accomplished here below, to carry it on. "Hoc facite in meam commemorationem …remittite peccatis eis…accipite Spiritum Sanctum…quorum remiseritis peccata, remittuntur eis: et quorum retinueritis, retenta sunt…euntes…baptizate eos in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti."
This is what Our Lord Jesus Christ told us: This is what we must do in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ. What a noble mission, my dear friends!
How the faithful people must await this of you! They are waiting for the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ to be brought down into their souls in order that they also might unite themselves to Our Lord Jesus Christ in His Cross and to His love in this infinite charity. This, my dear friends, is what the Church is. It is great because it unites us to Our Lord Jesus Christ. Without Our Lord Jesus Christ we are nothing. With Our Lord Jesus Christ we can do all things. My dear friends, let us unite our lives to Our Lord.
But, He also told us, "Ego mitto vos sicut oves inter lupos – I am sending you forth as lambs amongst the wolves.” Yes, we are all – faithful Christians, priests, future priests, seminarians – we are all sent by Our Lord Jesus Christ, as it were, into the midst of wolves. These wolves… Our Lord has pointed them out. He indicated them to be mercenaries for whom the sheep do not count. They are not interested in the sheep and they abandon the sheep for the least reason.
And so, unhappily, we are obliged to state that today there are wolves-not only outside the Church, but there are mercenaries inside the Church. We are obliged to state this. And precisely what I would like – that on which I would like to insist – is that if the Catholic church is Missionary, it is not Ecumenical! The Catholic Church is not ecumenical! Now, today, the Church is besieged by these mercenaries, these wolves who wish to lead us astray. The enemy is in the Church. Already, St. Pius X told us this.
Well, this enemy wants to leads us on to the way of perdition. By what path? By the way of ecumenism! And these enemies are not hidden. And what is ecumenism, if not the betrayal of truth? A betrayal of Our Lord Jesus Christ. A truth that is adulterated…that is mixed with error. The law of Our Lord Jesus Christ is no longer upheld: the Ten Commandments. The moral teaching that Our Lord Jesus Christ taught us is no longer upheld on the pretext of being on good terms with modem man…with the men of this world. This is why we have been given an ecumenical Mass; we have been given an ecumenical catechism; we have been given an ecumenical Bible. And it is desired that henceforth nations should be ecumenical societies. That is, societies that compromise with error, that compromise with evil – with vice. And thus, states that are not Catholic!
We must not accept these things which contain poison and we are not afraid to say this ecumenism comes straight from the secret dens of iniquity of masonry. And also, St. Pius X says: read the letter of St. Pius X of 1910 to the Bishops of France condemning the Sillon. We have lived through the Sillon, which was nothing other than a kind of ecumenism, which prepared today's ecumenism. The Great Sillon, as he called it, was precisely a veritable ecumenism. Well, our Holy Father, Pope St. Pius X, after having examined “Sillon,” and having condemned it, said, "We know well where these ideas come from: they come from secret dens of iniquity. The winds of the revolution have passed by there."
Well, we can also say that with ecumenism, the winds of revolution have passed by! This is why we absolutely refuse ecumenism! And I could show you texts that come, for example, from a high leader of Masonry, Mr. Friedsell, ex-Grandmaster of the Grand Orient of France, who recent months wrote an article, "Three points in all," in which he said formally, "The Council will take a long time to reveal its true signification. But the faithful understand that something has come to pass which is entirely contained in the word 'ecumenism'." "And this signifies," he said, "that the Church must reconcile herself with all religions and, likewise, as a consequence, with Masonry.”
There you have what this Grandmaster of Masonry said two or three months ago. And then, again more recently, in Civilta Cattolica, the major review of the Jesuits of Rome, the largest Roman review, the most important review, and which has been considered as the most serious – two Jesuit Fathers have an article on the Intégristes,1 which we are, obviously, and in which my name appeared. Well, they only reproach us with this: that we still consider socialism, communism, and Freemasonry to be enemies of the Church. This is what they reproach us for. This written by two Jesuit Fathers last February in the large Catholic, Roman review!
Well, then, we understand. We now know with whom we have to deal. We know perfectly well that we are dealing with a “diabolical hand” which is located at Rome, and which is demanding, by obedience, the destruction of the Church! And this is why we have the right and the duty to refuse this obedience. For, when they convoke me back to Rome in perhaps a few months – indeed, I have just received a letter from the Vatican talking about a mutual discourse in the future, and which, at the same time, asks me not to perform these ordinations today – in order to be able to continue these mutual discourses – well, then, with whom will I be having these mutual discourses? I believe that I have the right to ask these gentlemen who present themselves in offices which were occupied by Cardinals (who were indeed saintly persons and who were defenders of the Church and of the Catholic Faith) it seems to me that I would have the right to ask them, “Are you with the Catholic Church?” “Are you the Catholic Church?" "With whom am I dealing?" If I am dealing with someone who has a pact with Masonry, have I the right to speak with such a person? Have I the duty to listen to them and to obey them?
My dear friends, we have been betrayed. Betrayed by all of those who ought to be giving us the truth, who ought to be teaching the Ten Commandments, who ought to be teaching us the true catechism, who ought to be giving us the true Mass – the one that the Church has always loved; the one that was said by the Saints; the one that has sanctified generations and generations!
Likewise, they must give us all the sacraments, without any doubt concerning their validity, sacraments which are certainly valid. It is a duty for us to ask them for these things and they have a duty to give them to us.
Now, I have just told you things that are found in the Gospel. Our Lord Jesus Christ's mission was to go up to the Cross. This was His mission, given to Him by the Father. It was His hour. And this is the mission that He wants to give to priests. "Hoc tacite in meam commemorationem – Do this in memory of Me." This is what we must do. Not in any of the reviews that have recently spoken about vocations is there a mention of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
What, then, is the priest's mission? They no longer know! This is what we have come to!
So, my dear brothers, whoever we may be, if we want to remain Catholic, if we want the Catholic Church to continue, we have a duty not to obey those who wish to lead us into the Church's destruction. We have the duty not to collaborate in the Church's destruction. But, on the contrary, to work – to work ardently, calmly, serenely, for the Church's construction, for the re-construction of the Church, for the preservation of the Church.
Each one of you can do your duty in this regard-in your villages, in your parishes, in your institutions, in your professions – wherever you are. Set up true parishes, Catholic parishes. And let these Catholic parishes be confided to true priests. And see how true priests are numerous. Look at them all around us today. There are many who think as they do. Try to lead them back to the truth in order that they may give you the sacraments that you desire and the Holy Mass that you desire.
Organize yourselves in order that the priests who come may become parish priests, quite simply. Let the parishes be re-established as they once were. This is a duty, a strict duty. And we congratulate wholeheartedly those in religious life who are present and the priests who are here, who are persecuted, having unbelievable, inconceivable difficulties - who are asked to abandon their religious habit. So, let sisters be firm in their faith. May they remain firm in the constitutions that were given to them by their holy founders.
And we have the joy of thinking that these religious congregations will be multiplied. We are assured that soon there will be other religious who want to preserve the traditions, the holy traditions of their congregations and of their founders.
This is what we must do. And you, my dear friends, who are soon going to take up your responsibilities in your respective assignments; well, ask the Blessed Virgin Mary, ask the Apostles Saint Peter and Saint Paul, who, today, ask nothing other than to give you blessings – beg them for abundant graces in order that you may realize the apostolate in preparation for which you have been here at this seminary…or at the Monastery of Bédoin, to prepare yourself for this great day of the priesthood.
My dear brothers, I conclude. We appear to be weak and we appear to be strong. We appear to be weak because, what are a few thousand people gathered here when one thinks of the entire word – of all humanity who ought to adore Our Lord Jesus Christ – who ought to throng around the altars of Our Lord Jesus Christ, to receive His Precious Body, His Blood, His Soul, His Divinity, in order to be transformed into Our Lord Jesus Christ. What sorrow to think that millions of souls are estranged from Our Lord Jesus Christ!
But at the same time that we are weak, because we are few in number in relation to the mission that Almighty God asks us to accomplish, at the same time, we are strong. We are strong with the word of Our Lord Jesus Christ Who said, “I will be with you unto the consummation of the ages.” We are strong, precisely because we ourselves want to carry on the mission of Our Lord Jesus Christ – to continue the Church. And this is what makes us strong – strong in this essential bond with tradition, with all that Our Lord has taught us, with the institution of the Church and with all Our Lord has bequeathed to His Church, strong in these things, strong in being with all the elect of heaven.
Strong in being with all the Catholics of the earth who want to preserve their Catholic Faith. Strong – in this we are assured – in victory! Not that we are seeking to cry our victory against those who are ill-willed towards us – against those who persecute us. I speak of Our Lord’s victory over Satan which He won by His Cross. We are convinced that this victory will carry on, it could not do otherwise than continue because the Church must carry on and must persevere. As a consequence, if sometimes, you are overcome by feelings of discouragement, by feelings of being rent inside – nearly of despair at the sight of the Church torn and suffering, struck from all sides; if these feelings invade your soul, know that Our Lord is with you, provided that you keep the words that Our Lord gave us, that Our Lord Jesus Christ taught us.
And it is by these sacrifices that one day the enemy will be driven away from the Church and that the Church will again discover her splendor. It will no longer be undermined by persons who desire its disappearance, or who desire its destruction.
And so today we must all pray together. We must pray, in particular, that God will drive away the enemies from the Church in order that the church may again give the graces which the faithful need and which the world needs for its salvation.
In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
Source
|
|
|
Archbishop Lefebvre: 1966 Reply to Cardinal Ottaviani on Dangers to the Faith |
Posted by: Stone - 12-06-2020, 06:56 AM - Forum: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
- No Replies
|
|
Angelus Online
February 1981
In I Accuse the Council [...] His Grace describes this letter as follows:
"A year after the Council, the faith of many Catholics was so unsettled that Cardinal Ottaviani asked every bishop in the world and all Superiors General of orders and congregations to reply to an enquiry on the dangers which threatened certain fundamental truths of our Faith. It seems to me to be opportune to make public the reply which I made as Superior General of the Congregation of the Holy Ghost and of the Sacred Heart of Mary."
The most notable feature of the letter is its date (20 December 1966), which shows that Archbishop Lefebvre saw clearly, only a year after Vatican II ended, the many problems resulting from the Council—problems which have since been felt by millions:
Quote:Rome, 20 December 1966
Your Eminence:
Your letter of 24 July concerning the questioning of certain truths was communicated through the good offices of our secretariat to all our major superiors.
Few replies have reached us. Those which have come to us from Africa do not deny that there is great confusion of mind at the present time. Even if these truths do not appear to be called in question, we are witnessing in practice a diminution of fervour and of regularity in receiving the sacraments, above all of the Sacrament of Penance. A greatly diminished respect for the Holy Eucharist is found, above all on the part of priests, and a scarcity of priestly vocations in French-speaking missions: vocations in the English- and Portuguese-speaking missions are less affected by the new spirit, but already the magazines and newspapers are spreading the most advanced theories.
It would seem that the reason for the small number of replies received is due to the difficulty of grasping these errors which are diffused everywhere; the seat of the evil lies chiefly in a literature which sows confusion in the mind by descriptions which are ambiguous and equivocal, but under the cloak of which one discovers a new religion.
I believe it is my duty to put before you fully and clearly what is evident from my conversations with numerous bishops, priests and laymen in Europe and in Africa and which emerges also from what I have read in English and French territories.
I would willingly follow the order of the truths listed in your letter, but I venture to say that the present evil appears to me to be much more serious than the denial or calling in question of some truth of our faith. In these times it shows itself in an extreme confusion of ideas, in the breaking up of the Church's institutions, religious institutions, seminaries, Catholic schools—in short, of what has been the permanent support of the Church, but it is nothing less than the logical continuation of the heresies and errors which have been undermining the Church in recent centuries especially since the Liberalism of the last century which has striven at all costs to reconcile the Church with the ideas that led to the French Revolution.
In the measure in which the Church has opposed these ideas, which run counter to sound philosophy and theology, she has made progress; on the other hand, any compromise with these subversive ideas has brought about an alignment of the Church with civil law with the attendant danger of enslaving her to civil society.
Moreover, every time that groups of Catholics have allowed themselves to be attracted by these myths, the Popes have courageously called them to order, enlightening, and if necessary condemning them. Catholic Liberalism was condemned by Pius IX, Modernism by Leo XIII, the Sillon movement by Saint Pius X, Communism by Pius XI, and Neo-Modernism by Pius XII.
Thanks to this admirable vigilance, the Church grew firm and spread: conversions of pagans and Protestants were very numerous; heresy was completely routed, States accepted a more Catholic legislation.
Groups of religious imbued with these false ideas, however, succeeded in infiltrating them into Catholic Action and into the seminaries, thanks to a certain indulgence on the part of the bishops and the tolerance of certain Roman authorities. Soon it would be among such priests that the bishops would be chosen.
This was the point at which the Council found itself while preparing, by preliminary commissions, to proclaim the truth in the face of such errors in order to banish them from the midst of the Church for a long time to come. This would have been the end of Protestantism and the beginning of a new and fruitful era for the Church.
Now this preparation was odiously rejected in order to make way for the gravest tragedy the Church has ever suffered. We have lived to see the marriage of the Catholic Church with Liberal ideas. It would be to deny the evidence, to be willfully blind, not to state courageously that the Council has allowed those who profess the errors and tendencies condemned by the Popes named above, legitimately to believe that their doctrines were approved and sanctioned.
Whereas the Council was preparing itself to be a shining light in today's world, if those pre-conciliar documents in which we find a solemn profession of safe doctrine in regard to modern problems had been used, we can and we must unfortunately state that:
In a more or less general way, when the Council has introduced innovations, it has unsettled the certainty of truths taught by the authentic Magisterium of the Church as unquestionably belonging to the treasure of Tradition.
The transmission of the jurisdiction of the bishops, the two sources of Revelation, the inspiration of Scripture, the necessity of grace for justification, the necessity of Catholic baptism, the life of grace among heretics, schismatics and pagans, the ends of marriage, religious liberty, the last ends, etc.—on all these fundamental points the traditional doctrine was clear and unanimously taught in Catholic universities. Now, numerous texts of the Council on these truths will henceforward permit doubt to be cast upon them. The consequences of this have rapidly been drawn and applied in the life of the Church:
• Doubts about the necessity of the Church and the sacraments lead to the disappearance of priestly vocations.
• Doubts on the necessity for and nature of the "conversion" of every soul involve the disappearance of religious vocations, the destruction of traditional spirituality in the novitiates, and the uselessness of the missions.
• Doubts on the lawfulness of authority and the need for obedience, caused by the exaltation of human dignity, the autonomy of conscience and liberty, are unsettling all societies beginning with the Church—religious societies, dioceses, secular society, the family.
Pride has as its normal consequence all the concupiscences of the eye and the flesh. It is perhaps one of the most appalling signs of our age to see to what moral decadence the majority of Catholic publications have fallen. They speak without any restraint of sexuality, of birth control by every method, of the lawfulness of divorce, of mixed education, of flirtation, of dances as a necessary means of Christiant upbringing, of the celibacy of the clergy, etc.
• Doubts on the necessity of grace in order to be saved cause baptism to be held in low esteem so that for the future it is to be put off until later, and occasion the neglect of the Sacrament of Penance. Moreover, this is particularly an attitude of the clergy and not of the faithful. It is the same with regard to the Real Presence: it is the clergy who act as though they no longer believe by hiding away the Blessed Sacrament, by suppressing all marks of respect towards the Sacred Species and all ceremonies in Its honor.
• Doubts on the necessity of the Church, the sole source of salvation, on the Catholic Church as the only true religion, emanating from the declarations on ecumenism and religious liberty, are destroying the authority of the Church's Magisterium. In fact Rome is no longer the unique and necessary Magistra Veritatis.
Thus, driven to this by the facts, we are forced to conclude that the Council has encouraged in an inconceivable manner the spreading of Liberal errors. Faith, morals and ecclesiastical discipline are shaken to their foundations, fulfilling the predictions of all the Popes.
The destruction of the Church is advancing at a rapid pace. By giving an exaggerated authority to the episcopal conferences, the Sovereign Pontiff has rendered himself powerless. What painful lessons in one single year! Yet the Successor of Peter, and he alone, can save the Church.
Let the Holy Father surround himself with strong defenders of the Faith: let him nominate them in the important dioceses. Let him by documents of outstanding importance proclaim the truth, search out error without fear of contradictions, without fear of schisms, without fear of calling in question the pastoral dispositions of the Council.
Let the Holy Father deign: to encourage the bishops to correct faith and morals, each individually in his respective diocese as it behooves every good pastor; to uphold the courageous bishops, to urge them to reform their seminaries and return to them the study of St. Thomas; to encourage Superiors General to maintain in novitiates and communities the fundamental principles of all Christian asceticism, and above all, obedience; to encourage the development of Catholic schools, a press informed by sound doctrine, associations of Catholic families; and finally, to rebuke the instigators of errors and reduce them to silence. The Wednesday allocutions cannot replace encyclicals, decrees, and letters to the bishops.
Doubtless I am reckless in expressing myself in this manner! But it is with ardent love that I compose these lines, love of God's glory, love of Jesus, love of Mary, of the Church, of the Successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ.
May the Holy Ghost, to Whom our Congregation is dedicated, deign to come to the assistance of the Pastor of the Universal Church.
May Your Eminence deign to accept the assurance of my most respectful devotion in Our Lord.
+ Marcel Lefebvre,
Titular Archbishop of Synnada in Phrygia,
Superior General of the Congregation of the Holy Ghost.
|
|
|
|